Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LOL.
Those are Democrats in Republican clothing, the worst form of a dishonest politician.
There’s not a single reason not to support her.
Good.
Well she hasn't been accused of rape, so I doubt it
Dude, when did she join the Republican Party????????????????? And here I thought she was a “real American”……….Her very weak amount and range of judicial experience.
Her provable dishonesty in her answers to Congress are more than enough.
Her admission that she's nearly oblivious to the SCOTUS's Dred Scot ruling. Has no idea what it was about, according to her.
Her stated opinion that American Citizens have no inalienable rights. Kinda precludes her from meeting the job description of a SCOTUS Justice.
Her mentally-diseased insistence that she doesn't know if she's a woman or not. I guess she won't be able to claim she's the first black woman on the SCOTUS.
Her activism from the bench in praising and downplaying the guilt of pedophiles.
I've watched most of the circus, and there's been nothing said or presented by anyone, especially from "it"?, that would indicate she deserves the position over what must be tens of thousands of far more experienced, far more qualified, far more deserving, and far more honest candidates. She's an anti-Constitutionalist, anti-American, 100% bought and paid for political puppet, just like Sotomayor.
Her very weak amount and range of judicial experience.
Her provable dishonesty in her answers to Congress are more than enough.
Her admission that she's nearly oblivious to the SCOTUS's Dred Scot ruling. Has no idea what it was about, according to her.
Her stated opinion that American Citizens have no inalienable rights. Kinda precludes her from meeting the job description of a SCOTUS Justice.
Her mentally-diseased insistence that she doesn't know if she's a woman or not. I guess she won't be able to claim she's the first black woman on the SCOTUS.
Her activism from the bench in praising and downplaying the guilt of pedophiles.
I've watched most of the circus, and there's been nothing said or presented by anyone, especially from "it"?, that would indicate she deserves the position over what must be tens of thousands of far more experienced, far more qualified, far more deserving, and far more honest candidates. She's an anti-Constitutionalist, anti-American, 100% bought and paid for political puppet, just like Sotomayor.
OK, well....I guess she doesn't know the definition of a woman, so there's that.
She knows the definition of a woman. It was a stupid question.
She stuttered. She had every opportunity to take control.
Because it was a stupid, loaded question
Don't think for a second that these aren't situations/decisions the SCOTUS is gonna have to eventually rule on.
Her very weak amount and range of judicial experience.
Her provable dishonesty in her answers to Congress are more than enough.
Her admission that she's nearly oblivious to the SCOTUS's Dred Scot ruling. Has no idea what it was about, according to her.
Her stated opinion that American Citizens have no inalienable rights. Kinda precludes her from meeting the job description of a SCOTUS Justice.
Her mentally-diseased insistence that she doesn't know if she's a woman or not. I guess she won't be able to claim she's the first black woman on the SCOTUS.
Her activism from the bench in praising and downplaying the guilt of pedophiles.
I've watched most of the circus, and there's been nothing said or presented by anyone, especially from "it"?, that would indicate she deserves the position over what must be tens of thousands of far more experienced, far more qualified, far more deserving, and far more honest candidates. She's an anti-Constitutionalist, anti-American, 100% bought and paid for political puppet, just like Sotomayor.
First, Susan Collins, and now Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney.
Nice to see. I doubt this appointment will be anything like the Brett Kavanaugh debacle we slogged through.
Do you think someone like her - smarter than 99% of the world and ahem you know an actual woman doesn’t know what a woman isShe stuttered. She had every opportunity to take control.
But she stuttered...Do you think someone like her - smarter than 99% of the world and ahem you know an actual woman doesn’t know what a woman is
Stuttered in astonishment at such a dumb, ridiculous question for a Supreme Court judicial nominee.But she stuttered...
Do you think someone like her - smarter than 99% of the world and ahem you know an actual woman doesn’t know what a woman is
And then you would be attacked mercilessly for doing so...Well, I'd probably say something other than I'm not a biologist(?)
And then you would be attacked mercilessly for doing so...
Yes. That's why the most prudent course of action when asked a question unrelated to your profession is to handle it how you would if met with the question professionally. Which would be to acknowledge that you are not an expert, as you would want a judge to do, rather than relying on personal bias.Hear ya. We currently live in a can't win world.
It didn't matter what Judge Jackson said. Republicans had decided in advance they would oppose her regardless. They were looking for sound bites for Fox "News" or campaign ads. They had no interest in her responses.
Kind of the exact opposite, really.Yeah, that sounds strangely like the Kavanaugh hearings. Wouldn't you agree?