Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Being the stupid party of loons who can actually vote her in shows us how nonsensical the loon party is and deserves the name LOON PARTY and the Republicans in name only, '' RINOS'' are right up with the loons.
Of course she will be and republicans will vote her in droves.
In typical and exhausting left wing manner, the left made up all these stories about Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulting a woman like 5 decades ago that even the woman couldn't remember the details.
They also tried their best smearing Amy Barrett due to her religious preference.
Yet we have Judge Jackson, who is KNOWN to be soft on pedophiles, yet Republicans hardly put up a fight.
Barley legal means 18 so legal. A trend that is hardly new considering Playboy has put 18 y/o in their magazines since they were printed in Black and White.
You would need to change the age of consent and adulthood in the US to end this. The military, specifically the Marines would likely not back this change either.
Yes I know that...but do you see the line they are pushing towards with the use of 'barely legal'?
Do you really think people that get their jollies from 'barely legal' porn, will continue to be satisfied with barely legal for years and years? NOPE, and the porn industry proves this...look at the history of pornography, (where it started compared to where it is today).
The hardcore pornography of today...would have been criminal 50 yrs ago, NO ONE would have dared publish pictures like that!! If history is any indicator, pornography in the years ahead will make todays porn, look tame by comparison, underage is really the only direction they can go in as well.
Of course she will be appointed and even a few (Woke) Republicans will approve her. She is a good Democrat and will no doubt have a distinguished career on the bench ruling in favor of every Democrat scheme that comes along.
This is what really bugs me about these political appointees. The judges that were appointed by a Republican President are flexible and will rule within the confines and interpretation of the Constitution and established law but when it comes to the Democrat appointed ones it seems they always rule within the whims of their party. For example, Ginsberg was an active voice against Trump. Shouldn't a justice be unbiased?
I have the same issues. The Democrat appointed justices vote in a bloc and no one is ever surprised by one of their ruling vs Republican appointed justices who sometimes vote in shocking ways, going against what they said they would do in their confirmation process. Roberts isn't just "calling balls and strikes" he's fallen into the WDC spell of how he should vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd
Jackson will be appointed, celebrated for being the first black non gender specific, we think a female, we think a woman because Joe told us he was going to nominate a woman but who knows since few of us are biologists.... and she will fall right into line with the agenda because she is a good Democrat.
I don't think Republicans run great ads or attack certain issues well, but I would be out in the Asian community whispering in people's ears about how Asians are invisible to Democrats. There are zero Asians on the SCOTUS, male, female of even non-binary. Biden in his pledge excluded all the qualified Asian jurists, black men jurists, Hispanic men and women jurists and obviously white as well. It was a shocking thing to pledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
The only nitwit was Marsha Blackburn that asked that dumb question
It was actually a great question and exposed that KBJ is not quick on her feet and has a bias that will effect how she rules on future cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMansLands
Bull. It starts with Mitch McConnell refusing to put forth Obama's nomination to the supreme court
No, it started with the Democrats treatment of Robert Bork, then Clarence Thomas and continued on through the Democrats using the filibuster for the first time ever to block judicial nominees under Bush, and went even further when they DROPPED the filibuster when they got the majority under a Democrat president. But that one bit them in the arse. Thanks Harry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62
This is the direction we have been heading towards for a long time now, Ive seen plenty of evidence over and over again, Naturally, Im against it, but I also realize its the next 'logical' step in the larger sexual revolution...(the porn industry has been pushing the envelope, getting closer and closer/younger and younger for years) 'barely legal porn' didnt even exist until around the early 2000s, can you see the direction they are going towards now?)
Well not quite. There were very few laws against porn and even child porn until recently. The first specific child porn law was the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977.
What is different is the changing language from the left. People formerly called pedophiles are now being called Minor Attracted Persons (MAP). Language is where it always starts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taratova
Some one as a judge can't define what a woman is has no judging skills . NONE ! Jackson is a fraud judge.
Not quite. Someone who couldn't answer the question more adroitly is someone not quite smart enough.
But she will be confirmed and she will get a few GOP votes; probably Romney and Collins.
In typical and exhausting left wing manner, the left made up all these stories about Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulting a woman like 5 decades ago that even the woman couldn't remember the details.
They also tried their best smearing Amy Barrett due to her religious preference.
Yet we have Judge Jackson, who is KNOWN to be soft on pedophiles, yet Republicans hardly put up a fight.
Normalization of pedophiles is coming.
ACB signed an anti-abortion letter and ad at Notre Dame, she also wrote a paper on how judges can recuse themselves from the sentencing on capital punishment cases based on religion. So yes her religious background is fair game based on her history.
Already explained the reasoning why many judges sentence below the guidelines but facts don't seem to matter.
Will she? Probably. Should she? No, she's a liar. There's no way I believe she doesn't know what a woman is. She didn't want to say it, as to appease progressives and everyone else. So, she lied. What else would she be willing to lie about?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
