Donald Trump rails against SCOTUS nominee
Ketanji Brown Jackson saying that if she
can't define the word 'woman' she shouldn't
'be trusted to say what the Constitution is'
Daily Mail (UK),
by
Keith Griffith
Original Article
Posted By: Imright,
3/27/2022 2:57:44 AM
Donald Trump has lashed out at Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, criticizing her refusal to define the word 'woman' during Senate confirmation hearings.Speaking at a rally in Commerce, Georgia on Saturday night, Trump seized on the hot-button issue, which has generated controversy in the wake of transgender swimmer Lia Thomas' NCAA title. 'The left has become so extreme that we now have a justice being nominated to the Supreme Court who testified under oath that she could not say what a woman is,' said Trump.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
watashiyo 3/27/2022 3:02:46 AM (No. 1111174)
She serves Lucifer. America is a Christian country and if Ketanji is confirmed. America is definitely LOST.
10 people like this.
Every phone line to Senate offices in D.C. and to Senate Field Offices in respective states should be ringing off the hook. "Judge Brown cannot be a Supreme Court Justice if she cannot understand the definition of a woman. Either she is a liar or she is completely stupid or she think "You, Senator" and all Americans are stupid. It's likely she IS liar and she IS stupid!
12 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
philsner 3/27/2022 7:30:53 AM (No. 1111247)
This is so simple.
2 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
bigfatslob 3/27/2022 8:57:01 AM (No. 1111341)
First off, she's no RBG in the smart department. A token that Biden stays true to form for his racist sins of the past. The democrats and a few RINOs will seat her. That said we have a 'wise Latina' so why not a 'wise Negress'.
3 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Strike3 3/27/2022 9:33:39 AM (No. 1111376)
Ketanji is more devious than stupid. She thought she could get through her interviews by simply ignoring the questions but she chose the wrong one to ignore. She might have satisfied the loony leftists with her feigned ignorance of the obvious but she gave us a good glimpse at what we would be in for with her sitting on the bench, endless diatribes on transgenderism and black, black, black. Get her outta here!
5 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
jinx 3/27/2022 9:34:37 AM (No. 1111380)
She knows what a woman Is, but she is afraid to say it outloud in case she offends the "woke" crowd. If she is that scared of the Communists in America, she does not belong on the Supreme Court.
5 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
lakerman1 3/27/2022 9:47:41 AM (No. 1111405)
I offer this actual case on definitions, to illustrate the mess we have gotten ourselves into.
A county sheriff in another state was responsible for the county jail, road patrol, and escorting prisoners to and from court . Deputy sheriffs, who were law enforcement under the law, had a collective bargaining agreement that required bidding by deputy sheriffs on the various jobs and shifts. (Shift assignments are especially important to law enforcement folks, since many of them work second jobs, providing security in a variety of settings. Day shifts are preferred.)
Female prisoners, like male prisoners, are subjected to invasive body cavity searches when booked, and sometimes during their stay at the county prison. And there were times when no female deputy was on duty at the county prison to do the required searches, so a male deputy did the searches.
The female prisoners filed suit in federal district court, claiming they had the right to demand female deputy searches./ The federal court judge, a woman, agreed with the prisoners, and ordered the sheriff to have at least one female deputy on duty on each floor of the jail, 24/7.
The sheriff complied, and essentially blew up the seniority assignments to comply with the judge's order. (The county was suffering from a lack of revenues to hire additional female deputies.)
The female deputies then filed suit in the same federal district court, with the same female judge, who pondered the case, and punted. She ruled that the case should go before an arbitrator for resolution. But, the judge promised to review the arbitrator's decision, as necessary.
The arbitrator held a hearing, and sat for several days contemplating the situation, but resolved it as follows.
1. The judge messed things up by not resolving the rights of the female prisoners versus the rights of female deputies.
2. The female deputies had to lose, since the only remedy would have been increasing the budget of the sheriff's operations, and the arbitrator lacked authority to do that.
The arbitration case was decided about 25 years ago, back when men were men, and women were women.
But if we apply the current thinking that a man who taught child psychiatry at Penn State's medical school, who had a wife and fathered three children, could transform himself into a woman because he said he was a woman, could he have been a sheriffs deputy in the above case, and meet the judge's order on body searches? How about the swimmer from Penn?
There is a term of art in law (and arbitration) called 'judicial notice.' That is, the judge or arbitrator can recognize a fact not necessarily in evidence, in deciding a case. Can we take judicial notice of womanhood??
How would Judge Ketanji decide the case outlined above? The definition of 'woman' would be what? Self identification? And what about the female prisoner who doesn't want to be searched by a burly deputy male, who proclaims himself to be a woman??
It remains one of my most interesting arbitrations.
8 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Imright"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)