Messages
2,427
Reactions
3,329
Such an informed response.


Do you at least know what a woman is?
More an admission that the conversation isn't going go anywhere. My point was that refusing a hearing is in the same league as what the R nominees faced and neither side has the high ground by any stretch.

As for the defining a woman BS it wasn't about "knowing what a woman is", it was about getting a nominee to express an opinion outside of a ruling in a court case on an issue that might come before the court causing the nominee to face mediatory recusal on the case

From 2010

 
Messages
7,414
Reactions
12,281
Boot licking is a virtue
I've known 8 people who have been convicted of NFA offense in the last 30 years. One skipped the country to Thailand never to return. Not one of them said they were happy with their decision. You are free to do as you wish. I'll just pay the $200 and keep everything Ive built up. All those other guys lost everything.
 
Messages
6,310
Reactions
16,693
More an admission that the conversation isn't going go anywhere. My point was that refusing a hearing is in the same league as what the R nominees faced and neither side has the high ground by any stretch.

As for the defining a woman BS it wasn't about "knowing what a woman is", it was about getting a nominee to express an opinion outside of a ruling in a court case on an issue that might come before the court causing the nominee to face mediatory recusal on the case

From 2010

Garland later weaponized federal forces against parents complaining about inappropriate content being shown to their children in school. It appears it was well warranted to not want Garland to have more power.

Also, regarding what a woman is, go to the bathroom because you seem full of crap. The supreme court is at times required to make decisions that affect men and women differently. If a court justice can’t adequately determine what a man or woman is, or the difference between them, they are entirely unfit for judicial rulings.

Furthermore, Jackson was proven to consistently give lenient sentences in her judicial history to pedofiles, so congrats democrats, that’s great.
 
Messages
16,256
Reactions
39,325
I appreciate you trying to help me make my point, but I think I'm doing alright all on my own :cool:
That hardly strengthens your point, but while I'm here,

Thomas and Kavanaugh were falsely accused of some really horrible things. None of the Dem nominees were treated remotely like that, despite Sotomayor's blatantly racist "wise Latina" nonsense. Oh, and didn't they say some pretty outlandish things about Barrett too?
 
Messages
2,427
Reactions
3,329
Also, regarding what a woman is, go to the bathroom because you seem full of crap. The supreme court is at times required to make decisions that affect men and women differently. If a court justice can’t adequately determine what a man or woman is, or the difference between them, they are entirely unfit for judicial rulings.
YES!!! THIS!!! And if the nominee expressed ANY opinion outside of a ruling in a case it could be used as grounds to call for them to be disqualified on the case before the court.

But again, thanks (I guess) for helping me make my point ;)


Canon 5 of the Model Code, among others, forbids judges or judicial candidates from indicating how they will rule on issues likely to come before the courts or making any statement that would create the appearance they are not impartial. This rule is critical to an independent judiciary. Justices must remain open-minded when an actual case comes before them. They must not even hint how they would rule.
 
Messages
6,310
Reactions
16,693
YES!!! THIS!!! And if the nominee expressed ANY opinion outside of a ruling in a case it could be used as grounds to call for them to be disqualified on the case before the court.

But again, thanks (I guess) for helping me make my point ;)


Canon 5 of the Model Code, among others, forbids judges or judicial candidates from indicating how they will rule on issues likely to come before the courts or making any statement that would create the appearance they are not impartial. This rule is critical to an independent judiciary. Justices must remain open-minded when an actual case comes before them. They must not even hint how they would rule.
No… you proved that the new justice believes they must be a biologist to define what a woman is. I wonder if the people who wrote the constitution and the bill of rights would have found that difficult to answer.

Just ignore Jackson’s track record on being lenient on pedophiles, that’s a strong indication of a well picked supreme court justice.

Edit: Biden already told the whole world that the most important qualification of the next justice was the color of their skin and their sex, so extremely ironic that the justice was picked for a reason, literally, that she would not explain that was the defining characteristic of why she was even picked to be a justice.
 
Messages
2,427
Reactions
3,329
No… you proved that the new justice believes they must be a biologist to define what a woman is. I wonder if the people who wrote the constitution and the bill of rights would have found that difficult to answer.

Just ignore Jackson’s track record on being lenient on pedophiles, that’s a strong indication of a well picked supreme court justice.

Edit: Biden already told the whole world that the most important qualification of the next justice was the color of their skin and their sex, so extremely ironic that the justice was picked for a reason, literally, that she would not explain that was the defining characteristic of why she was even picked to be a justice.
Her record on sentencing is inline with other judges including some very conservative ones, and I would be happy to dig more info on that up if there was any chance it would make a difference, but my money is on no, it wouldn't

As for Biden, I'm guessing you are referring to this quote?

"It is time for a woman to sit among our highest jurists, I will also seek out women to appoint to other federal courts in an effort to bring about a better balance on the federal bench."
 
Messages
6,310
Reactions
16,693
Her record on sentencing is inline with other judges including some very conservative ones, and I would be happy to dig more info on that up if there was any chance it would make a difference, but my money is on no, it wouldn't

As for Biden, I'm guessing you are referring to this quote?

"It is time for a woman to sit among our highest jurists, I will also seek out women to appoint to other federal courts in an effort to bring about a better balance on the federal bench."
No, this one:


And he’s such a hack because Biden was the one who led the charge ending the confirmation hearing of “a black woman” years earlier.
 
Messages
2,427
Reactions
3,329
Messages
2,427
Reactions
3,329
But back on topic, I have no idea why everyone is freaking out about AR pistols "going away", using the worksheet it's pretty easy to configure an AR pistol that fits the new BS requirements.
 
Messages
6,310
Reactions
16,693
But back on topic, I have no idea why everyone is freaking out about AR pistols "going away", using the worksheet it's pretty easy to configure an AR pistol that fits the new BS requirements.
Some people are more comfortable with their rights being infringed on than others.

That’s pretty much the story of the world and why in North America there is Canada and the US. Look at Canada now, no gun rights, hand guns outright banned on a whim.
 
Messages
819
Reactions
2,794
Some people are more comfortable with their rights being infringed on than others.

That’s pretty much the story of the world and why in North America there is Canada and the US. Look at Canada now, no gun rights, hand guns outright banned on a whim.
It sure does seem that way. From "I told you so" and "you're stupid if you didn't see this coming or foolish for exercising your freedoms" to "well, this is the system we have" so we should accept the corruption. I am both glad our founding fathers didn't throw up their hands and say "well, the British system is what we have, so we have to live with it"...and sad that we have taken our founders' legacy and flushed it down the toilet along with what's left our our testicular fortitude.
 
Last Edited:
Messages
6,310
Reactions
16,693
It sure does seem that way. From "I told you so" and "you're stupid if you didn't see this coming or foolish for exercising your freedoms" to "well, this is the system we have" so we should accept the corruption. I am both glad our founding fathers didn't throw up their hands and say "well, the British system is what we have, so we have to live with it"...and sad that we have taken our founders legacy and flushed it down the toilet along with what's left our our testicular fortitude.
Even during the time of the American revolution there were 3 groups of people. The American patriots who fought and aided in the pursuit of liberty. The Torys loyal to the British crown who fought and aided the destruction of the patriot movement, and those who didn’t want to be involved at all and just to live under whatever system they happened to exist under.
 
Messages
16,256
Reactions
39,325
But back on topic, I have no idea why everyone is freaking out about AR pistols "going away", using the worksheet it's pretty easy to configure an AR pistol that fits the new BS requirements.
Anyone who's been keeping score knows that the anti-gunners have been chipping away at our rights for hundreds of years now. "It's just one more chip" is not a defense.
 

arakboss

Messages
17,083
Reactions
26,377
1656041456707.png

"Promotes paying government to infringe on your firearm freedoms."

"What is, an ATF/DOJ apologist?"
 

Upcoming Events

Vancouver Gunshow
Ridgefield, WA
Wes Knodel Gun Shows
Chehalis, WA
Rimfire Challenge
Canby, OR

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top