Quote:

---

"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."

---

Quote:

---

"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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

You have very flawed reasoning powers.

---

It's what you always say when you know you are guilty as charged.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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.

Quote:

---

How you twist.

---

Another bail out you use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

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.

Quote:

---

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.