Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
You left out a very significant part of his statement...
I looked up the transcript. He's saying she's not that bright and not that honest (she says only a biologist can define what a woman is, and in my opinion you have to be both stupid and cowardly to be able to say that out loud), and that someone like that could be about to spend decades on our supreme court, combined with the fact that Biden announced years ago that his nominee would be a black woman...and I get where he's coming from.
How can she, for example, ever hear a case about Title IX or gender discrimination, if she has no idea what a woman is?
I'd agree she's precisely what you get (so is Kamala Harris) when the current federal government insists on seeing everything through the prism of race, and insisting that everyone be a radical liberal. You're eliminating a of of truly qualified people, including truly qualified democrats. That's why I think it's a good idea to ignore gender and skin pigmentation, and rather focus on accomplishments and talent.
She's fairly unimpressive, and if you compare her responses to Amy Barrett, it's embarrassing.
She'll get confirmed, and spend decades on the bench. But she doesn't seem intellectually serious at all, she's no Ginsburg for sure.
Hard to come acroiss as serious when you say you can't define what a woman is. Cavemen knew how to define it.
|
Amy Coney Barret has never successfully tried a case in court, and you were perfectly fine with that. Credible women rightfully accused Kavenaugh of sexually assault and he had a complete melt down and there were over 4,500 other uninvestigated complaints about him, and you were fine with that.
Clarence Thomas’s wife Ginni Thomas urged Mark Meadows to overturn the 2020 election by any means necessary—while her husband was ruling on cases attempting to overturn the election. A truly extraordinary level of corruption.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device