"The first really smart decision I made in this administration," Biden said Friday. "This is not only a sunny day. I mean this from the bottom of my heart. This is going to let so much shine, sun shine on so many young women. So many young black women, so many minorities."


"They will watch your confirmation hearings and read your decisions in the years to come," Harris said. "The court will answer fundamental questions about who we are and what kind of country we live in. Will we expand opportunity or restricted?
And all this time we thought justices were there to rule on the law. Go figure. But I must confess that Biden was right about the absence of really smart decisions in his administration.

You must be a white man.

You have to be white to believe that judges should rule on the law?

Anyone ever tell you that you have some strange beliefs?

You have to be white to believe that judges should rule on the law?
Too many white men believe only white men understand the law and know how to rule on it.

Really? I've never in my entire life met a white man (or woman) who believed that. You must know a different crew.

Your two statements combined form a perfect textbook example of prejudice. No one said anything about white men understanding the law and knowing how to rule on it, but since you have that prejudice, then you somehow extended that to me. Why? Because I said that court judges should be primarily concerned with the law.

That would make you seem to be, quite honestly, the most prejudiced person I know. Perhaps you can explain how you came to that conclusion about me in some other way.

Really? I've never in my entire life met a white man (or woman) who believed that. You must know a different crew.

Your two statements combined form a perfect textbook example of prejudice. No one said anything about white men understanding the law and knowing how to rule on it, but since you have that prejudice, then you somehow extended that to me. Why? Because I said that court judges should be primarily concerned with the law.

That would make you seem to be, quite honestly, the most prejudiced person I know. Perhaps you can explain how you came to that conclusion about me in some other way.
Who has held the majority on the Supreme Court since the beginning?

You have very flawed reasoning powers. And yes, white men who believe that are everywhere. Just ask the tourists who were taking photos at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Who has held the majority on the Supreme Court since the beginning?White men. So? What does that have to do with what I believe? I would happily take a court full of men like Clarence Thomas, or Thomas Sowell, or Dr. Ben Carson, or Walter Williams.


You have very flawed reasoning powers.It's what you always say when you know you are guilty as charged.


And yes, white men who believe that are everywhere. Just ask the tourists who were taking photos at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.And my reasoning powers are flawed? Have you talked to those people? How many of them? Do you have any quotes you can give us? Tell us what you really know versus what your prejudices tell you.

First you assumed that too many white men believe that only white men can properly interpret the law. Prejudice #1.

Then you assumed that I had somehow said anything to that effect. Prejudice #2.

Then you assumed that based on the first two prejudices, I must surely be a white man. Prejudice #3.

Wow. Pretty prejudiced.

Someday, when you've lived as long as I have and traveled as much throughout the US as I have and interacted with as many people as I have, you'll understand.

In other words you have no answers.

In other words you have no answers.
You spit on the answers I give.

You basic answer was that you have traveled a lot and therefore know everything. Sorry, but that won't do. You are just prejudiced in your beliefs.


You spit on the answers I give.Also what you say when you have no answers. Is it always someone else's fault?

Actually, everyone has prejudices. Some are justified and some are not, but we all have them, or at least so it seems to me. When our prejudices are exposed publicly, perhaps we should just acknowledge it and move on.

You basic answer was that you have traveled a lot and therefore know everything. Sorry, but that won't do. You are just prejudiced in your beliefs.

Also what you say when you have no answers. Is it always someone else's fault?
Yep! How you twist.

How you twist.Another bail out you use.

Another bail out you use.
But don't we have a lot of fun trading barbs? This is the highlight of each day!

"The court will answer fundamental questions about who we are and what kind of country we live in. Will we expand opportunity or restricted?

And yet Justice Jackson opened her confirmation hearing by pledging to 'stay in my lane '. Trying to figure out how to square that circle .

I guess we need to find out who we are…whatever that means.

Bottom line ;she lied outright when she said she could not define a woman, She is not stupid and that would be the only explanation why she could not do so, Either way it should be disqualifying .
The question is why she lied . One possibility is that she is intimidated by the left . The other is she buys into the delusional fantasy that a woman is what anyone thinks is a woman Either way it will impact how she rules .

How can she as a judge sit in and rule on ANY discrimination case if she can't even define the basic subject of the dispute ? A male boss discriminates against a female .She must recuse herself because she doesn't know what a woman is . Of course with the expansive and elastic reasoning the left has used in it's use of the words of the constitution being "living breathing " , I suppose she can argue that a woman is anything she say it means for any given case .
Work place discrimination ,abortion, pregnancy lawsuits, Title 9 ;any number of related issues are impacted .What happens when a woman living as a man discriminates against a woman living as a woman ? A biological male discriminates against a woman and then argues that he has never identified as a male . The possibilities are endless .

At least we will find out who we are. I'm sure she will tell us. It's the "what we are" that she struggles with.


What happens when a woman living as a man discriminates against a woman living as a woman ? A biological male discriminates against a woman and then argues that he has never identified as a male . The possibilities are endless .We have become such a delusional country. Romans 1 is playing out before our eyes.

The Dems are framing the debate for the mid-terms . I would go on the offensive but I see the Repubs are already struggling with definitions too,
The Dems have labeled Fla's school law as a 'don't say gay" law and corporate enablers like Disney fell in lock step
Alabama passed a bill banning hormone treatment, puberty blockers, and surgery for minors who say they want to change their gender. ""For these reasons, the decision to pursue a course of hormonal and surgical interventions to address a discordance between the individual's sex and sense of identity should not be presented to or determined for minors who are incapable of comprehending the negative implications and life-course difficulties attending to these interventions."

The Slimes immediately went into definition changing headlines ;"Alabama Lawmakers Approve Ban on Medical Care for Transgender Youth."

Medical care ? No minor is to be denied medical care . At best they are being denied elective procedures that mutilate . But you won't here the pols argue it that way.
NPR wrote"Alabama Legislature votes to ban gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth."
Gender-affirming ? The Repubs will fall into the rhetorical trap. The procedures do not "affirm " gender .They are designed to medically alter the gender .

Peppermint Patty Psaki speaking for Clueless said ;"To be clear, every major medical association agrees that gender-affirming healthcare for transgender kids is a best practice and potentially lifesaving." The Alabama law would target trans youth with tactics that threaten to put pediatricians in prison if they provide medically necessary, lifesaving healthcare."

Medically necessary ? Life saving ?
Clueless celebrated "Transgender Day of Visibility."
FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Advances Equality and Visibility for Transgender Americans | The White House (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/03/31/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-advances-equality-and-visibility-for-transgender-americans/)

"Affirm" or "affirming" was used throughout the WH statement . So this is how the debate will be framed . Life saving ;affirming ,necessary procedure for elective mutilation . These procedures are as necessary as a piercing or a tattoo The compiant press will add emphasis to this turn of phrase .

These laws I believe will make it to SCOTUS somehow where now one of the justices claims to not be able to define a woman.

I wonder if she can define "debt"? U.S. federal debt was 34% of GDP in 1980. It is now 125% and climbing steadily. It works out to about a quarter of a million dollars per fed taxpayer, and over $90K for every man, woman, and child in the country. And despite the fact that we are in a good economic period, our dumb to the bone fed leaders will run a deficit of over 1.2 tril in 2022.

I don't have time now ;but the Fed Reserve put a lot of the blame for inflation on the debt from just one of Clueless' bills . Something like 40% of the blame . I don't have links and I have to go and enjoy a beautiful day

Here ya go

Inflation rates in the United States and other developed economies have closely tracked each other historically. Problems with global supply chains and changes in spending patterns due to the COVID-19 pandemic have pushed up inflation worldwide. However, since the first half of 2021, U.S. inflation has increasingly outpaced inflation in other developed countries. Estimates suggest that fiscal support measures designed to counteract the severity of the pandemic’s economic effect may have contributed to this divergence by raising inflation about 3 percentage points by the end of 2021.

Inflation is hovering near 8% currently .That means nearly 40% of the inflation rate is directly caused by government spending since Clueless' reign began .

Why Is U.S. Inflation Higher than in Other Countries? | Fed in Print (https://fedinprint.org/item/fedfel/93890)

That is the conclusion of San Fran Fed Bank's Òscar Jordà, Celeste Liu, Fernanda Nechio and Fabián Rivera-Reyes

Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco | Why Is U.S. Inflation Higher than in Other Countries? (frbsf.org) (https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2022/march/why-is-us-inflation-higher-than-in-other-countries/)