Bidens SCOTUS pick

[Jim in CT]

I was rooting for this woman after reading her credentials, then of course the truth comes out.

She claimed she can't define what a woman is, because she's not a biologist. Such a stupid, woke answer. At least she went on record as conceding that sex is a biological construct (which it obviously is), and not a social construct.

Then Ted Cruz asked her why she occasionally slashed sentences for those involved with child pornography, #^&#^&#^&#^& Durbin wouldn't let her answer. When the democrats are afraid of america hearing her answer, we should ask why that is.

Then, most importantly, we learn that she had ruled the pro life groups could not rally in front of abortion clinics. She ruled that the First Amendment does not apply to pro life Americans. She's on record as having ignored the constitution in favor of political outcomes she personally wants. That's the worst possible kind of judge. This is exactly why the statue of Lady Justice at every courthouse, has a blindfold. Judges have to be able to set aside their personal political agenda, and abide only by what the constitution says. This isn't a judge, she's a liberal activist.

If the Klan can hold peaceful but offensive rallies, if the Westboro Baptist Church can chant "thank god for dead soldiers" at military funerals, if BLM can moronically claim that cops are a bunch of racist assassins, then pro life groups can also exercise their rights to assembly and free speech.

But not according to this totalitarian jerk. There is no constitutional right to never be offended.

[wdmso]

the Truth that's Funny Here a Truth she's done More Judging from the Bench then the last 3 appointments put together.


Ted cruz I think you’re the — the only Supreme Court nominee in history who’s been unable to answer the question, what is a woman.? Guess what no Justice has ever been asked that question

Jackson told Cruz: “So, senator, I know that I’m a woman. I know that Senator Blackburn is a woman and the woman who I admire most in the world is in the room today, my mother.”




Jim all you do is parrot what you have been fed ... here is a fact check link, I am sure you insist it's not factual because it is part of the Fake Media https://apnews.com/article/abortion-...9e3d1f8e644d25


Then, most importantly, we learn that she had ruled the pro life groups could not rally in front of abortion clinics. She ruled that the First Amendment does not apply to pro life Americans. She's on record as having ignored the constitution in favor of political outcomes she personally wants. That's the worst possible kind of judge. This is exactly why the statue of Lady Justice at every courthouse, has a blindfold. Judges have to be able to set aside their personal political agenda, and abide only by what the constitution says. This isn't a judge, she's a liberal activist.

everything thing you wrote is a Lie! She was Not a Judge she made no rulings she did not rule against the 1st amendment she did not ignore the constitution favor of political outcomes she personally wants.

Not sure why you never doing any research ?

Here is what actually happened


The brief, which Jackson co-signed as a young attorney in a law firm, did not refer to all anti-abortion women as “hostile” and “noisy” but was making a legal argument on behalf of a client in regards to protesters outside abortion clinics.

you claim Truth then you post a lie... she did not rule on this as a judge Did she !


Jim dont forget Jackson used her “time and talent not to serve our nation’s veterans or other vulnerable groups, but to provide free legal services to help terrorists get out of Gitmo and go back to the fight.” this statement was from Blackburn

Funny she was ask something similar in 2021 when she was CONFIRMED U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit


Jackson, 2021 responses to Senate questions: Under the ethics rules that apply to lawyers, an attorney has a duty to represent her clients zealously, which includes refraining from contradicting her client’s legal arguments and/or undermining her client’s interests by publicly declaring the lawyer’s own personal disagreement with the legal position or alleged behavior of her client. Because these standards apply even after termination of the representation, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on whether I disagreed with Khi Ali Gul, found his alleged crimes offensive, or considered resigning my position as an Assistant Federal Public Defender based on any such disagreement or offense.

she did what all Lawyers do formulated a case in their clients best interest and the law and order party is Outrage ... funny how that works.



Yet child pornography, And Transgender over and over that's the Truth that drives these hearing , it's a perversion that motivates the Republican Base and reinforces their Fantasy of Baby eating cabal " democrats" or Being raped by a Transgender person in the bathroom, dont forget the Mexican rapist or all the afghan rapist that the Biden flew into the country...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

the Truth that's Funny Here a Truth she's done More Judging from the Bench then the last 3 appointments put together.


Ted cruz I think you’re the — the only Supreme Court nominee in history who’s been unable to answer the question, what is a woman.? Guess what no Justice has ever been asked that question

Jackson told Cruz: “So, senator, I know that I’m a woman. I know that Senator Blackburn is a woman and the woman who I admire most in the world is in the room today, my mother.”




Jim all you do is parrot what you have been fed ... here is a fact check link, I am sure you insist it's not factual because it is part of the Fake Media https://apnews.com/article/abortion-...9e3d1f8e644d25


Then, most importantly, we learn that she had ruled the pro life groups could not rally in front of abortion clinics. She ruled that the First Amendment does not apply to pro life Americans. She's on record as having ignored the constitution in favor of political outcomes she personally wants. That's the worst possible kind of judge. This is exactly why the statue of Lady Justice at every courthouse, has a blindfold. Judges have to be able to set aside their personal political agenda, and abide only by what the constitution says. This isn't a judge, she's a liberal activist.

everything thing you wrote is a Lie! She was Not a Judge she made no rulings she did not rule against the 1st amendment she did not ignore the constitution favor of political outcomes she personally wants.

Not sure why you never doing any research ?

Here is what actually happened


The brief, which Jackson co-signed as a young attorney in a law firm, did not refer to all anti-abortion women as “hostile” and “noisy” but was making a legal argument on behalf of a client in regards to protesters outside abortion clinics.

you claim Truth then you post a lie... she did not rule on this as a judge Did she !


Jim dont forget Jackson used her “time and talent not to serve our nation’s veterans or other vulnerable groups, but to provide free legal services to help terrorists get out of Gitmo and go back to the fight.” this statement was from Blackburn

Funny she was ask something similar in 2021 when she was CONFIRMED U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit


Jackson, 2021 responses to Senate questions: Under the ethics rules that apply to lawyers, an attorney has a duty to represent her clients zealously, which includes refraining from contradicting her client’s legal arguments and/or undermining her client’s interests by publicly declaring the lawyer’s own personal disagreement with the legal position or alleged behavior of her client. Because these standards apply even after termination of the representation, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on whether I disagreed with Khi Ali Gul, found his alleged crimes offensive, or considered resigning my position as an Assistant Federal Public Defender based on any such disagreement or offense.

she did what all Lawyers do formulated a case in their clients best interest and the law and order party is Outrage ... funny how that works.



Yet child pornography, And Transgender over and over that's the Truth that drives these hearing , it's a perversion that motivates the Republican Base and reinforces their Fantasy of Baby eating cabal " democrats" or Being raped by a Transgender person in the bathroom, dont forget the Mexican rapist or all the afghan rapist that the Biden flew into the country...

"she's done More Judging from the Bench then the last 3 appointments put together."

I know. That's one reason why I was excited.

But quantity doesn't necessarily mean quality.

It doesn't concern you that she'd ignore the constitution to rule in a way that aligns with her politics? Do you disagree that judges aren't supposed to root for one side or the other, but are only supposed to be guided by the constitution?

Why would any conservative ever feel like she'd give them a fair hearing?

"what is a woman.? Guess what no Justice has ever been asked that question"

Because as a society, we've never been so stupid as to not collectively agree on the answer. If you think that question is harsh or unfair, maybe you were asleep during the Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. This is nothing.

"Jim all you do is parrot what you have been feed"

Let's end with that comment. I have constantly bashed republicans here. And I have said a million times I was pro gay marriage when Obama and Hilary were adamantly opposed to it, I am opposed to the death penalty, I think every American has a right to good health coverage that covers pre existing conditions, and I think we need more effective gun control.

I have 2 questions for you, and I dare you to answer...

(1) who "fed" me my opinions on those issues?

(2) please share with us, some big issues on which you think democrats are 100% wrong.

Let's see which one of us can think for himself, and which one of us can only repeat what we have been fed? Show us all I'm wrong, list some big issues on which you agree with Republicans?

You're the thoughtless ideologue here, not me.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

the Truth that's Funny Here a Truth she's done More Judging from the Bench then the last 3 appointments put together.


Ted cruz I think you’re the — the only Supreme Court nominee in history who’s been unable to answer the question, what is a woman.? Guess what no Justice has ever been asked that question

Jackson told Cruz: “So, senator, I know that I’m a woman. I know that Senator Blackburn is a woman and the woman who I admire most in the world is in the room today, my mother.”




Jim all you do is parrot what you have been fed ... here is a fact check link, I am sure you insist it's not factual because it is part of the Fake Media https://apnews.com/article/abortion-...9e3d1f8e644d25


Then, most importantly, we learn that she had ruled the pro life groups could not rally in front of abortion clinics. She ruled that the First Amendment does not apply to pro life Americans. She's on record as having ignored the constitution in favor of political outcomes she personally wants. That's the worst possible kind of judge. This is exactly why the statue of Lady Justice at every courthouse, has a blindfold. Judges have to be able to set aside their personal political agenda, and abide only by what the constitution says. This isn't a judge, she's a liberal activist.

everything thing you wrote is a Lie! She was Not a Judge she made no rulings she did not rule against the 1st amendment she did not ignore the constitution favor of political outcomes she personally wants.

Not sure why you never doing any research ?

Here is what actually happened


The brief, which Jackson co-signed as a young attorney in a law firm, did not refer to all anti-abortion women as “hostile” and “noisy” but was making a legal argument on behalf of a client in regards to protesters outside abortion clinics.

you claim Truth then you post a lie... she did not rule on this as a judge Did she !


Jim dont forget Jackson used her “time and talent not to serve our nation’s veterans or other vulnerable groups, but to provide free legal services to help terrorists get out of Gitmo and go back to the fight.” this statement was from Blackburn

Funny she was ask something similar in 2021 when she was CONFIRMED U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit


Jackson, 2021 responses to Senate questions: Under the ethics rules that apply to lawyers, an attorney has a duty to represent her clients zealously, which includes refraining from contradicting her client’s legal arguments and/or undermining her client’s interests by publicly declaring the lawyer’s own personal disagreement with the legal position or alleged behavior of her client. Because these standards apply even after termination of the representation, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on whether I disagreed with Khi Ali Gul, found his alleged crimes offensive, or considered resigning my position as an Assistant Federal Public Defender based on any such disagreement or offense.

she did what all Lawyers do formulated a case in their clients best interest and the law and order party is Outrage ... funny how that works.



Yet child pornography, And Transgender over and over that's the Truth that drives these hearing , it's a perversion that motivates the Republican Base and reinforces their Fantasy of Baby eating cabal " democrats" or Being raped by a Transgender person in the bathroom, dont forget the Mexican rapist or all the afghan rapist that the Biden flew into the country...

"The brief, which Jackson co-signed as a young attorney in a law firm, did not refer to all anti-abortion women as “hostile” and “noisy” but was making a legal argument on behalf of a client in regards to protesters outside abortion clinics.

She wasn't a judge, you are right. She was arguing on behalf of a client as a lawyer. Not sure her "young-ness" matters, nit sure why you put that in there. Has she changed her mind on the issue Wayne?

[spence]

Moth to flame

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Moth to flame

You're exactly right. Republicans should go easy on SCOTUS nominees like the democrats did with Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh.

Have they accused her of being a serial rapist yet?

[Pete F.]

Bork is remembered for his role in the Saturday night massacre for firing Special Watergate Prosecutor Archibald Cox after his two more senior officials in the Justice Dept refused.
He should also be remembered for thinking the Civil Rights act was unconstitutional, that Americans have no right to privacy, that prosecution for homosexual activity was fine, and that poll taxes and literacy tests should be allowed.
The irony was him getting butthurt when his list of rented movies came out, despite his believe in no right to privacy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"The brief, which Jackson co-signed as a young attorney in a law firm, did not refer to all anti-abortion women as “hostile” and “noisy” but was making a legal argument on behalf of a client in regards to protesters outside abortion clinics.

She wasn't a judge, you are right. She was arguing on behalf of a client as a lawyer. Not sure her "young-ness" matters, nit sure why you put that in there. Has she changed her mind on the issue Wayne?

Jim I am glad your not my lawyer

Clearly you fail to understand a lawyer responsibilities to their clients

Or how you twist these briefs presented on the behalf of the client

As somehow become Her personal believes?

Do you condemn alan Dershowitz for his defense of oj simpson or helped sex offender Jeffrey Epstein get a plea deal.

By defending them he suddenly believes in murder or is good with sex with under aged girls

Or do you skip over all that to champion him when he supports your position or joining Donald Trump’s impeachment legal ..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Jim I am glad your not my lawyer

Clearly you fail to understand a lawyer responsibilities to their clients

Or how you twist these briefs presented on the behalf of the client

As somehow become Her personal believes?

Do you condemn alan Dershowitz for his defense of oj simpson or helped sex offender Jeffrey Epstein get a plea deal.

By defending them he suddenly believes in murder or is good with sex with under aged girls

Or do you skip over all that to champion him when he supports your position or joining Donald Trump’s impeachment legal ..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

waiting for you to list the issues on which you think democrats are wrong?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

I can’t believe Jim just got schooled by wdmso

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I can’t believe Jim just got schooled by wdmso

if she writes something, is it fair to ask hernia she believes it? did she refute what she wrote spence? is there any reason to believe that brief doesnt’t reflect her beliefs?

so let’s pretend i got schooled, why is that unbelievable to you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

You could just repeat what Charlie Kirk said Ketanji Brown Jackson "is what your country looks like on critical race theory"

“Your children and your grandchildren are going to have to take orders from people like her. And what's amazing is that she kind of has an attitude too.”

Surprised he didn’t throw in an “Uppity”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You could just repeat what Charlie Kirk said Ketanji Brown Jackson "is what your country looks like on critical race theory"

“Your children and your grandchildren are going to have to take orders from people like her. And what's amazing is that she kind of has an attitude too.”

Surprised he didn’t throw in an “Uppity”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So is it ALWAYS racist to criticize black people?

Everything, everything is racist.

Can't wait until November...no Trump on the ballot, just a straight-up referendum on the last 2 years of liberal control. .

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So is it ALWAYS racist to criticize black people?

Everything, everything is racist.

Can't wait until November...no Trump on the ballot, just a straight-up referendum on the last 2 years of liberal control. .

Did I say racist?

Charlie Kirk is just another white supremacist, and like most of his ilk, he is poorly educated with few talents (other than demagoguery) or marketable skills or nothing in the way of intellect. He is indeed, superior to no one, hence why he is who he is.

Meanwhile unemployment is the lowest since 1969
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Did I say racist?

Charlie Kirk is just another white supremacist, and like most of his ilk, he is poorly educated with few talents (other than demagoguery) or marketable skills or nothing in the way of intellect. He is indeed, superior to no one, hence why he is who he is.

Meanwhile unemployment is the lowest since 1969
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You deny saying racist (when you said "uppity" and could have used a hundred different words). Then in the next sentence you call him a white supremacist, which I'm fairly certain has a racist implication.

John was right, you have precisely zero credibility, and you're going to be one unhappy camper in November.

"Meanwhile unemployment is the lowest since 1969"

Every data I've seen, says it was a tiny bit lower in 2019, pre-covid. When you-know-who was POTUS. But I give Biden good marks on employment, because unlike you, I can happily concede when democrats do a good job. Did you ever give Trump credit when he had unemployment this low? Nope. Because you aren't about truth. You're about spin.

And meanwhile, Bidens approval ratings are bad.

[Pete F.]

Hey speaking of Clarence Thomas, he has never -- not once -- recused from a case due to conflicts of interest with his wife's work as a Republican strategist. Not even when groups she works with submit amicus briefs in cases before the court.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So is it ALWAYS racist to criticize black people?

Everything, everything is racist.

Can't wait until November...no Trump on the ballot, just a straight-up referendum on the last 2 years of liberal control. .

What do you think he meant by

"is what your country looks like on critical race theory"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

What do you think he meant by

"is what your country looks like on critical race theory"

Do liberal whites not get questioned by conservatives, about critical race theory?

Everything must be based on hate, there's no such thing as principled disagreement with liberals. Kamala Harris is awesome, Chicago mayor Lightfoot also walks on water, any and all criticism of blacks has to be racist.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Do liberal whites not get questioned by conservatives, about critical race theory?

Everything must be based on hate, there's no such thing as principled disagreement with liberals. Kamala Harris is awesome, Chicago mayor Lightfoot also walks on water, any and all criticism of blacks has to be racist.

Let me ask again since you didn't answer the question -

What do you think he meant by

"is what your country looks like on critical race theory"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Let me ask again since you didn't answer the question -

What do you think he meant by

"is what your country looks like on critical race theory"

i dont underrated the question paul, you posted an incomplete sentence.

but bashing CRT isn’t racist. it’s actually the opposite of racist.

not sure why he said your country instead of our country, but again, you posted a fragment of a sentence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

It was a transcript (just looked it up) of I think his radio show.

I'm just wondering what he meant.

"Well, KBJ - Ketanji Brown Jackson - is what your country looks like on critical race theory."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

It was a transcript (just looked it up) of I think his radio show.

I'm just wondering what he meant.

"Well, KBJ - Ketanji Brown Jackson - is what your country looks like on critical race theory."

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.

[Pete F.]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

most major league umpires never played professional baseball.

A judge and a lawyer play different roles. She had been a highly regarded judge.

Weak argument, even for you.

you don’t like clarence thomas’ wife? how about joe biden’s son, hunter? any dirt there we can sling at Joe? Or do you only hold republicans responsible for actions of their families?

there’s a more credible tape claim against biden. more credible in that the victim talked about the rape back when it happened. but we can’t investigate that.

you call it a credible rape claim when the victim can’t remember what year it took place, where it took place, or how she got home after. I feel very sorry for that woman, she’s a broken person. but her story is a joke

if it was a credible rape claim, PLEASE tell us why Dianne Feinstein sat on it until the very last day of Kavanaughs hearing with the judicial committee? the only possible reason to hold it for days, is for political effect. there’s no other conceivable explanation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

If Judge Jackson was soft on crime, then why is she being supported by the Fraternal Order of Police and the International Association of Chiefs of Police?

The answer is simple—she’s not soft on crime. She’s also really, really qualified.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

If Judge Jackson was soft on crime, then why is she being supported by the Fraternal Order of Police and the International Association of Chiefs of Police?

The answer is simple—she’s not soft on crime. She’s also really, really qualified.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i didn’t say she was soft on crime. i said, correctly, that gets cruz asked her why she reduced some
specific sentences,,and senator durbin did everything he could
to prevent her from answering.

she’s going to get confirmed, i’m fine with that. i’m glad it’s a liberal
she’s replacing. and we’ll see if she is an activist judge or one who enforces the rules fairly.

i answered your question, so please answer mine. if the kavanaugh rape allegation was credible, why did senator feinstein hold
it until the last day if kavanaughs hearings with the senate judiciary committee? she had sai pre iously she had big news she was going to drop, she did everything she could
to build the suspense. it was a complete hoax.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

If Judge Jackson was soft on crime, then why is she being supported by the Fraternal Order of Police and the International Association of Chiefs of Police?

The answer is simple—she’s not soft on crime. She’s also really, really qualified.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i just read the statement of the FOP endorsing her, and it was complimentary in many areas. it also very specifically said part of the reason they endorsed her is to make the court look like america. it’s just such an absurd,, stupid thing to say.

People can’t control their skin color. Skin color says absolutely nothing about anyone.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i didn’t say she was soft on crime. i said, correctly, that gets cruz asked her why she reduced some
specific sentences,,and senator durbin did everything he could
to prevent her from answering.

she’s going to get confirmed, i’m fine with that. i’m glad it’s a liberal
she’s replacing. and we’ll see if she is an activist judge or one who enforces the rules fairly.

i answered your question, so please answer mine. if the kavanaugh rape allegation was credible, why did senator feinstein hold
it until the last day if kavanaughs hearings with the senate judiciary committee? she had sai pre iously she had big news she was going to drop, she did everything she could
to build the suspense. it was a complete hoax.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think she has already answered that question, you just don’t like the answer.

So you’re implying the WH is giving special treatment to Judge Jackson, is somehow like the fact there were 4500 tips to FBI about Brett Kavanaugh that the WH didn’t have DOJ investigate during his hearings?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I think she has already answered that question, you just don’t like the answer.

So you’re implying the WH is giving special treatment to Judge Jackson, is somehow like the fact there were 4500 tips to FBI about Brett Kavanaugh that the WH didn’t have DOJ investigate during his hearings?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

(1) i asked you why she waited. you refused to answer. we all know why.

(2) of course the white house is giving her special treatment. they’re giving her a job that they refused to consider the vast majority of the population for, based on things we can’t control.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

I think Jim’s butthurt in this thread could set a record.