Op-Ed: The sickening Republican smear campaign against Ketanji Brown Jackson

[homersapien 11,337]

14 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

What was brought out in the confirmation hearings,

1) going soft on child porn convictions,

2) support of CRT being taught to Kindergarteners and

3) believing that a woman can not be defined in terms that can be understood by anybody other than the woke left.

Are we still talking about Mitt Romney?

But to address your response point by point:

As any "reasonable person" - i.e.: anyone who is fact focused instead of being swayed by the theatrical political grand standing exhibited in the hearings - should know:

1) Judge Jackson was no more "soft" on child porn convictions than any other Republican or Democratically appointed judges.  If there is a problem here, it's with sentencing guidelines that don't reflect internet realities.

2) CRT is not being taught to kindergardens (or any other scholastic venue short of graduate schools.  This was pure race-baiting.

3) The "what is a woman?" was a disingenuous question that doesn't address the actual issue which is:  the legal treatment of cisgender individuals.  The rest of your statement suggests you don't believe that cisgender people actually exist.

But again, what does Mitt Romney have to do with any of this? 

Is he on record with his positions on such matters?

 

[I_M4_AU 7,751]

On 3/24/2022 at 4:24 PM, I_M4_AU said:

I never said Mitt Romney was unprincipled, I do believe Romney believes deeply about his convictions, they just happened to be wrong. 

Now Manchin is a guy that, at times, shows true conviction.

This is what you quoted

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

What "left leaning" convictions are you referring to?

And this is your reply to that quote.  Note:  there was no mention of *left leaning * convictions in the post you quoted.  I did a little look back and determined you believed left leaning convictions were retaining morals, decency and dignity.

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Are we still talking about Mitt Romney?

But to address your response point by point:

As any "reasonable person" - i.e.: anyone who is fact focused instead of being swayed by the theatrical political grand standing exhibited in the hearings - should know:

1) Judge Jackson was no more "soft" on child porn convictions than any other Republican or Democratically appointed judges.  If there is a problem here, it's with sentencing guidelines that don't reflect internet realities.

2) CRT is not being taught to kindergardens (or any other scholastic venue short of graduate schools.  This was pure race-baiting.

3) The "what is a woman?" was a disingenuous question that doesn't address the actual issue which is:  the legal treatment of cisgender individuals.  The rest of your statement suggests you don't believe that cisgender people actually exist.

But again, what does Mitt Romney have to do with any of this? 

Is he on record with his positions on such matters?

 

So you have conflated two separate conversations into one.

No, I was not talking about Mitt Romney, I was talking about left leaning convictions and they are not retaining morals, decency and dignity.

1)  3 months for a conviction that carries as 10 year sentence and that was recommended a 2 year sentence is soft on child pornography. Her excuse of the law was enacted before the internet was used in this type of despicable behavior just goes to show how she cares more for the criminals than the victims of this crime.

2) The stance of CRT is not being taught short of graduate school is played out.  If you saw the clip where Senator Ted Cruz showed a children’s book by Ibram X Kendi “Antiracist Baby” it showed some disturbing thoughts as to what is being taught to kindergarteners.  CRT’s principles are being taught by using the code word of equity.

3) What was disingenuous about the question.  If Judge Jackson is going to rule on questions concerning women (title IX for example) shouldn’t she have a knowledge of the meaning of the word?  Again, the term *cisgender* is a made up word from the left and that’s the point.  A new vocabulary dictated by *left leaning* politicians.  I would guess most individuals are opposed to what the left would define as a woman.

 

Edited March 27, 2022 by I_M4_AU

[homersapien 11,337]

19 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

1)  3 months for a conviction that carries as 10 year sentence and that was recommended a 2 year sentence is soft on child pornography. Her excuse of the law was enacted before the internet was used in this type of despicable behavior just goes to show how she cares more for the criminals than the victims of this crime.

 

 

I think that conviction (carrying a 10 year sentence) was referring to people who produce child pornography not those who simply have it on their computer (one way or the other).

No reasonable person would conclude she cares more for the criminals than the victims of this crime. 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fact-check-judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-child-porn/story?id=83565833

 

Edited March 27, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,337]

31 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

2) The stance of CRT is not being taught short of graduate school is played out.  If you saw the clip where Senator Ted Cruz showed a children’s book by Ibram X Kendi “Antiracist Baby” it showed some disturbing thoughts as to what is being taught to kindergarteners.  CRT’s principles are being taught by using the code word of equity.

 

BS.

Only someone like you would equate equity with something bad which is exactly what you are doing.  You don't care about real inequity which is why you feel the need to re-define it as something it's not.

And really, Ted Cruz??? 

Edited March 27, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,337]

19 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

3) What was disingenuous about the question.  If Judge Jackson is going to rule on questions concerning women (title IX for example) shouldn’t she have a knowledge of the meaning of the word?  Again, the term *cisgender* is a made up word from the left and that’s the point.  A new vocabulary dictated by *left leaning* politicians.  I would guess most individuals are opposed to what the left would define as a woman.

 

If the question related to title IX they could have phrased it as such.

Do you deny these people actually exist?  What would you call them?

All of these examples were attempts to miss characterize real issues (well in most cases, CRT being taught is imaginary.) 

They are all designed to agitate the base, which consists of religious wackos, racists and people who are basically too ignorant to perceive reality - what are real threats instead of imaginary ones.  So it's not surprising you don't get this.

(And ALL words are "made-up". ) 

Edited March 28, 2022 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 7,751]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Do you deny these people actually exist?  What would you call them?

I will assume you are referring to men who think they are women and/or women who think they are men.  If so I would call them a person that commits sexual appropriation of the opposite sex by means of plastic surgery.  In technical terms:  Gender dysphoria.

14 minutes ago, homersapien said:

All of these examples were attempts to miss characterize real issues (well in most cases, CRT being taught is imaginary.) 

CRT is one reason Virginia went with a Republican Governor this last election:

WASHINGTON (SBG) - Parents in Loudoun County, a wealthy Virginia community just west of Washington, D.C., are sounding the alarm this week after receiving threats from an online group for criticizing critical race theory (CRT) education.

Critical race theory became a flashpoint in education following the rise in civil unrest last year. Proponents describe CRT as teaching “equity” in all aspects of life and examining the way systemic racism and white privilege leads to inequitable situations. Scholar Kyiarah Bridges notes that race is “not biologically real but socially constructed and socially significant.”

One key tenet of CRT, Bridges notes is “[a]cknowledgement that racism is a normal feature of society and is embedded within systems and institutions, like the legal system, that replicate racial inequality. This dismisses the idea that racist incidents are aberrations but instead are manifestations of structural and systemic racism.”

https://wset.com/news/nation-world/virginia-parents-threatened-after-criticizing-critical-race-theory

There are states that are banning CRT principles being taught in our public school systems.  Yes, the principles are being taught in some school systems in our country.  Loudoun County parents have had enough and so are a lot of parents in America.

26 minutes ago, homersapien said:

They are all designed to agitate the base, which consists of religious wackos, racists and people who are basically too ignorant to perceive reality - what are real threats instead of imaginary ones.  So it's not surprising you don't get this.

This is a backhanded what of calling some one all those names.  Bravo.  You wouldn’t know a threat to civilization if it roosted in your hen house.  You would think it was progressive.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

3) The "what is a woman?" was a disingenuous question that doesn't address the actual issue which is:  the legal treatment of cisgender individuals.  The rest of your statement suggests you don't believe that cisgender people actually exist.

So a person that identifies as the same sex that they were born as.................

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

On 3/22/2022 at 9:33 AM, bigbird said:

Starting with Thomas in '91, every single nomination presented by an R president (minus Roberts) has pretty much been a party line vote.  Every nomination by a D president have been overwhelmingly passed with relative ease.

I'd argue it's not just the party line voting record for SC nominees, but it's the stark difference in treatment of the nominees. Every R nominee for the last 30 years except John Roberts has been smeared by personal attacks from Dems. Republicans have been partisan by not voting for D nominees after Breyer, but they haven't been smearing each D nominee with vile attacks on their faith and accusations about their personal lives.

Currently, Republicans have attacked the judicial records and statements by Jackson, yet Democrats and the corporate media act as though Republicans are smearing Jackson just by questioning her rulings and and asking her about topics that are potential cases to come before the court.

[jj3jordan 2,038]

5 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

So a person that identifies as the same sex that they were born as.................

Cisgender. Homey off track again. Sorry but we do believe cisgender people exist. Homey how are cisgender people treated? Fair or unfair? How did asking the potential justice to define a woman seem disingenuous?

[DKW 86 7,407]

5 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Cisgender. Homey off track again. Sorry but we do believe cisgender people exist. Homey how are cisgender people treated? Fair or unfair? How did asking the potential justice to define a woman seem disingenuous?

homey is doing what so many party narrative types do. He has no idea what he is really saying at this point, he is just regurgitating the party-line narrative. He cant make sense of it himself because there is no sense in it to be found. I have no doubt in my mind that homey will die on this point that makes no sense as he has for years on this forum. 

But he will continue to puke the same nonsensical points for the rest of his life. Slave to the narrative...

This is one area, maybe one in only a few areas, where the real damage to American Society was actually done by the Modern Democrat Party, notably Biden et al. They cannot deny that they have savaged good people just for the fun of doing it. Cory Booker made a complete ass out of himself over Kavanaugh and his nomination versus the love fest he had with KBJ. But such is the politics of today. If you dont like someone because of their party affiliation etc, feel free to fling all the crap you can. Scream like a howler monkey over how much beer someone drank in high school. Allow people with no evidence in hand to drag them thru the mud for the rest of their lives just so you can retweet the exchange. Oh, and dont forget to blame all this on the other party when you do it. 

AT THE END OF THE DAY: KBJ will get her vote and will be added to SCOTUS. All the faux pearl clutching aside...

Edited March 28, 2022 by DKW 86

[homersapien 11,337]

15 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

So a person that identifies as the same sex that they were born as.................

..... is a person that doesn't suffer from gender dysphoria.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria/symptoms-causes/syc-20475255

[wdefromtx 3,159]

15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

..... is a person that doesn't suffer from gender dysphoria.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria/symptoms-causes/syc-20475255

So again someone that identifies as the same as the sex they were born as. 

[homersapien 11,337]

8 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

So again someone that identifies as the same as the sex they were born as. 

 Well, yes.  Most people don't exhibit gender dysphoria and do identify with the same sex they were born with.  It's similar to homosexuality in that regard.  The point is, how should they be treated?

But your point eludes me .

 

Edited March 28, 2022 by homersapien

[wdefromtx 3,159]

23 minutes ago, homersapien said:

 Well, yes.  Most people don't exhibit gender dysphoria and do identify with the same sex they were born with.  It's similar to homosexuality in that regard.  The point is, how should they be treated?

But your point eludes me .

 

Everyone should be treated like a person. 
 

You must have heard this cisgender argument while trying to tote the party agenda. No wonder you don’t think it’s weird that she would not answer those questions. You are in a delusional world that is as bad some on the right. 

[homersapien 11,337]

12 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Everyone should be treated like a person. 
 

You must have heard this cisgender argument while trying to tote the party agenda. No wonder you don’t think it’s weird that she would not answer those questions. You are in a delusional world that is as bad some on the right. 

1) Well I agree with your first sentence but what does that have to do with the question to Judge Jackson?

2) What "cisgender argument"?

3) What "party agenda"?

4) It was a weird question.  How should she have responded? 

5) And speaking of "party agenda" what was the purpose of asking 'what is a woman'?  

6) Finally, what have I said or implied that is "delusional"?

 

These are sincere questions.  I am trying to understand you.

Edited March 28, 2022 by homersapien

[wdefromtx 3,159]

18 minutes ago, homersapien said:

1) Well I agree with your first sentence but what does that have to do with the question to Judge Jackson?

You asked the question so you might want to ask yourself what it has to do with Judge Jackson.

2) What "cisgender argument"?

You are the one that introduced cisgender into the discussion as part of your argument against saying there is no reason for the question that was asked. Refer back to response to question number 1. You probably need to ask yourself what it has to do with this discussion.

3) What "party agenda"?

For starters that everyone is discriminated against in some way. Refer back to your cisgender argument.

4) It was a weird question.  How should she have responded? 

She should have answered what she thought it means. 

5) And speaking of "party agenda" what was the purpose of asking 'what is a woman'?  

It is to understand her views regarding gender, sex, etc.  There is no doubt that there are some that have gender dysphoria, people that struggle with the sexual identity and preferences. And there needs to be resources in place to help those that struggle mentally with it. Maybe she should have asked "what is a female and what is a male?" Considering that cases that may come up are essentially going to be in uncharted territory it is good to know how she will handle such topics. 

6) Finally, what have I said or implied that is "delusional"?

Maybe that is the wrong word, but go back and look at your responses. Even in your list of questions you are asking me why I am bringing something up when in fact you are the one that introduced it. 

These are sincere questions.  I am trying to understand you.

 

 

[homersapien 11,337]

On 3/28/2022 at 11:45 AM, wdefromtx said:

 

1) Well I agree with your first sentence but what does that have to do with the question to Judge Jackson?

You asked the question so you might want to ask yourself what it has to do with Judge Jackson.

2) What "cisgender argument"?

You are the one that introduced cisgender into the discussion as part of your argument against saying there is no reason for the question that was asked. Refer back to response to question number 1. You probably need to ask yourself what it has to do with this discussion.

It has NOTHING to do with Jackson other than trying to establish Jackson actually believes that cisgenders as a class - ACTUALLY EXIST.  This was clearly trying to appeal to Republicans who would prefer to believe they don't.

That's the reason I brought it up.  Call that an "argument" as you please.

 

Edited March 29, 2022 by homersapien

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

1) Well I agree with your first sentence but what does that have to do with the question to Judge Jackson?

You asked the question so you might want to ask yourself what it has to do with Judge Jackson.

It has NOTHING to do with Jackson other than trying to establish Jackson actually believes that cisgenders as a class - ACTUALLY EXIST.  This was clearly trying to appeal to Republicans who would prefer to believe they don't.

 

So republicans are worried about a classification of a group of people that identify as the same as the sex the were born as? 🤔

[homersapien 11,337]

I said: 3) What "party agenda"?

You said: For starters that everyone is discriminated against in some way. Refer back to your cisgender argument.

Well, that's probably true technically speaking, but if so, it's not because it's a "party agenda" which is absurd.

It may however be a reflection of a difference between Republicans and other regarding the recognition of facts and/or the capacity of being compassionate and inclusive.

Edited March 29, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,337]

14 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

So republicans are worried about a classification of a group of people that identify as the same as the sex the were born as? 🤔

I don't know if they are "worried" about strictly heterosexual people or not. But they certainly shouldn't be.  What's threatening heterosexual people?

But knowing that conservatives typically feel more threatened or fearful than liberal people do of socal progress -  or in this case, recognizing that sexuality is much more complicated than it is, it wouldn't surprise me.

(This is probably why a Republican asked Jackson "what is a woman?"  Gender dysphoria scares her.)

 

Edited March 29, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,337]

6) Finally, what have I said or implied that is "delusional"?

Maybe that is the wrong word, but go back and look at your responses. Even in your list of questions you are asking me why I am bringing something up when in fact you are the one that introduced it. 

Sorry but that makes no sense to me. 

I bring things (words, concepts, facts)  up in order to make a point.  And I am willing to explain those points (as I am doing above).

You said I was "delusional".  What about?