Jackson confirmed as first black woman on USSC

[playtime]

All of those unions are full of members more than happy to participate in the upcoming confiscations.

Your point?

confiscate what?

 

[Hellbilly]

Yeah, but is she unbiased when interpreting a law?

Something that matters ONLY when a Liberal gets appointed.

 

[BackAgain]

So you're promoting activist judges then, correct?

Nope. Adhering to the Constitution isn’t “judicial activism.” Your definition of what constitutes an “activist judge” is mistaken.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Obviously she said that answer for political reasons. Obviously she knows what a woman is. You’re an idiot if you think otherwise. It was such a retarded question to raise in the first place.

So you're telling us she doesnt have the guts to answer truthfully? And not only that it was for political reasons?
I'd hardly call that SCOTUS material.

 

[Meister]

Something that matters ONLY when a Liberal gets appointed.

It matters when ANY judge legislates from the Bench.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sorry bout that,

1. And the Libtards, rejoice!
2 "Do you know what a women is?" "No am I a biologist?"
3, After that answer, there is no reason to proceed.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

A follow up question should have been asked of her. Do you consider yourself a man or woman.
If she replies with a woman
What makes you so sure?

 

[BlueGin]

Obviously she said that answer for political reasons. Obviously she knows what a woman is. You’re an idiot if you think otherwise. It was such a retarded question to raise in the first place.

Not really. She was outed as what she is an activist.

 

[playtime]

You really need to work on your reading comprehension. Here is my comment that you are referring to:
'How can you possibly know that (that she is the best qualified)? Only black women (7% of the population) were considered.

That is a QUESTION, not a statement. Please point to the part of that QUESTION where I say she is "unqualified".
Take your time.

it sure was inferred. anyhoo ... why not a black woman?

there's a hispanic female, a jewish female, a white christian female... AND biden made it a campaign promise that there would be a black female nominated even if they are 'only' 7% of the population.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Pedo/NAMBLA Rights Advocate

A completely unqualified pedo NAMBLA rights advocate. The kiddie rapists have a friend now.

 

[Hellbilly]

It matters when ANY judge legislates from the Bench.

Not according to certain USMB members.

 

[Hellbilly]

I don’t need to prove it. Pedo Joe said only black women were to be considered…and viola. A black woman. Big shock.

Your argument is invalid.

 

[Billy000]

So you're telling us she doesnt have the guts to answer truthfully? And not only that it was for political reasons?
I'd hardly call that SCOTUS material.

Lol right you’ll go with any answer that makes her look bad huh? That’s your childish knee jerk reaction to the left. You then expect me to defend what she said. If a politician lying is something that disqualifies them for some government position, obviously Trump would have never been president.

And yeah, she basically did lie. It’s not like i give a shit. The question had nothing to do with her qualifications for the role. It’s just a topic republicans love to talk about because it makes for an easy argument. They can’t handle more complex issues like economics.

 

[playtime]

A completely unqualified pedo NAMBLA rights advocate. The kiddie rapists have a friend now.

you're certifiable & anybody else that actually believes that rot.

 

[MarcATL]

Fair enough. But my question to you was: how do you know Brown is the "the best qualified".
This too is not an answer.

Her education and experience.

But that's irrelevant, as the President can nominate and appoint a McDonald's worker according to the Constitution.

The "qualification" issue only comes into play whenever Republicans aren't in power and have no say into the partisan hacks they elect to the SCOTUS.

If you're honest, you'll admit this.

 

[MarcATL]

I’m afraid I just don’t follow what you’re trying to ask. Do you mean what would my selection criteria be for a nomination?

If that’s your question, I believe I’ve already answered. I’d look for a nominee who is deeply knowledgeable in the law including (in particular) the Foundational principles of our republic (i.e., the Constitution) and one who (perhaps by the track record of decisions in lower court cases which involved Constitutional analyses) has a shown himself or herself to be reliable in applying those Foundational principles.

If that’s not what you were asking, I don’t mind replying again if you can phrase the question in a clearer way for me.

You said that it would be clearly partisan if msnbc and/or George Soros had a hand in picking the SCOTUS.

I'm asking what principle would you be using for that assessment?

 

[BlueGin]

Your argument is invalid.

Nope

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Lol right you’ll go with any answer that makes her look bad huh? That’s your childish knee jerk reaction to the left. You then expect me to defend what she said. If a politician lying is something that disqualifies them for some government position, obviously Trump would have never been president.

And yeah, she basically did lie. It’s not like i give a shit. The question had nothing to do with her qualifications for the role. It’s just a topic republicans love to talk about because it makes for an easy argument. They can’t handle more complex issues like economics.

Nah...anyone who is to chicken to answer a simple question because she or he doesnt want to upset weird ass people has no place being a member of the SCOTUS.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

you're certifiable & anybody else that actually believes that rot.

Her record speaks for itself. She has a soft spot for child rapists.

 

[MarcATL]

Nope. Adhering to the Constitution isn’t “judicial activism.” Your definition of what constitutes an “activist judge” is mistaken.

Where has Judge Jackson run afoul of the Constitution?

 

[BlueGin]

Nah...anyone who is to chicken to answer a simple question because she or he doesnt want to upset weird ass people has no place being a member of the SCOTUS.

Exactly. So when one of her Marxist ideology issues comes to the court is she going to rule based on the constitution or her activism? Now that we know she is a liar afraid to offend other activists. Odds are she will rule from the bench to further her agenda.