Blackburn asked Ketanji Brown Jackson to define 'woman.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-05-2022, 02:25 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah they are, and I can not stop being totally flabbergasted about this kind of rhetorics.

Now people rightfully point out that Democrats are anything but angels too. But every attempt to put them on equal footing with these people has to fall flat in the face of comments like those.

Pro pedophilia, this is pizzagate level of awful.

Sorry, not a big fan of tarring a huge group of people because of the actions of the most extreme among them.  Using that logic the Democrats enjoy throwing rocks and urine at law enforcement or spitting in their face.  I've had all three happen to me and I can pretty much guarantee you the assailants weren't Republican.

Are the Democrats anti-Catholic because of their attacks on Barrett and her faith?

[GMDino]

(04-05-2022, 02:25 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah they are, and I can not stop being totally flabbergasted about this kind of rhetorics.

Now people rightfully point out that Democrats are anything but angels too. But every attempt to put them on equal footing with these people has to fall flat in the face of comments like those.

Pro pedophilia, this is pizzagate level of awful.

I have zero problem saying Democrats also will make fools of themselves, but yeah, this "Q" stuff with the push on calling opponents pedophiles and "groomers" is kinda sick in my opinion.

[hollodero]

(04-05-2022, 02:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sorry, not a big fan of tarring a huge group of people because of the actions of the most extreme among them.

I was referring to the most extreme gop members in Congress though, not to "normal" folks. Unfortunately, I have to consider almost all of the gop congress people as being part of this extreme.

(04-05-2022, 02:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Using that logic the Democrats enjoy throwing rocks and urine at law enforcement or spitting in their face.  I've had all three happen to me and I can pretty much guarantee you the assailants weren't Republican.

These are not elected officials though, and I was distinctly referring (maybe not clearly so) to people in Congress representing the Republican Party. I'd be willing to largely agree with your expressed stance when it comes to ordinary people; in fact I used the same argument quite often, eg. when people chose looters and rioters as being representative of the democratic party.

(04-05-2022, 02:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Are the Democrats anti-Catholic because of their attacks on Barrett and her faith?

I have to admit I did not follow this particular nomination process. But in general, democrats in congress sure take things too far quite often. But they do not reach a level of claiming a nominee is coddling terrorists and voting for said nominee is being pro pedophilia.
If they did something truly akin to that in the Barrett hearing, I'm willing to contemplate.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-05-2022, 03:03 PM)hollodero Wrote: I was referring to the most extreme gop members in Congress though, not to "normal" folks. Unfortunately, I have to consider almost all of the gop congress people as being part of this extreme.

Understood.  I think you're still vastly overstating things.  MJT is definitely the worst offender in Congress right now, I wouldn't argue that.  If you asked me who had the highest number of extreme members, I'd agree it would be GOP, but it wouldn't be by a lot.

Quote:These are not elected officials though, and I was distinctly referring to people in Congress representing the Republican Party. I'd be willing to largely agree with your expressed stance when it comes to ordinary people; in fact I used the same argument quite often, eg. when people chose looters and rioters as being representative of the democratic party.

Yeah, that wasn't clear to me in your initial post, but I can understand your point.

Quote:I have to admit I did not follow this particular nomination process. But in general, democrats in congress sure take things too far quite often. But they do not reach a level of claiming a nominee is coddling terrorists and voting for said nominee is being pro pedophilia.
If they did something truly akin to that in the Barrett hearing, I'm willing to contemplate.

I'd add that Barrett did not receive a single Dem vote, so far Jackson has at least three GOP votes, and will probably end up with more.  How does that jive with the GOP being the more extreme?  I agree that Cruz, and others, took a reasonable line of questioning, her apparent leniency on child porn consumers and went way too far with it.  I also don't have an issue with her providing a defense to people I personally find reprehensible, that is the defense attorney's role after all.  But it is also fair to ask why she would choose to work with that particular population, but, again, they took it too far.  But I don't see the questioning of Jackson and Barrett to be at all disparate.  

[*Nately120*]

(04-05-2022, 02:54 PM)GMDino Wrote: I have zero problem saying Democrats also will make fools of themselves, but yeah, this "Q" stuff with the push on calling opponents pedophiles and "groomers" is kinda sick in my opinion.

I will say that accusing people of being pedos or sex traffickers or just being sexual with or around children is really taking the dangerous accusation rhetoric up to 11 because those are the types of people that our society feels like we have to compete with each other over how much we think they should be murdered with the blessings of all.

It's just the flat-out most dangerous thing you can convince people.  I can't think of a label or perception or accusation that would put a person in more danger than that. Neo-cons have, in my mind, found the absolute most hyperbolic and irresponsibly dangerous label to throw around at their already frenzied followers.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-05-2022, 03:16 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I will say that accusing people of being pedos or sex traffickers or just being sexual with or around children is really taking the dangerous accusation rhetoric up to 11 because those are the types of people that our society feels like we have to compete with each other over how much we think they should be murdered with the blessings of all.

It's just the flat-out most dangerous thing you can convince people.  I can't think of a label or perception or accusation that would put a person in more danger than that. Neo-cons have, in my mind, found the absolute most hyperbolic and irresponsibly dangerous label to throw around at their already frenzied followers.

Calling people a Nazi?  After all, it's ok to punch a Nazi, right?  I wouldn't say racist is as bad as pedophilia, but that accusation is certainly hurled around frequently and with near impunity.

[*Nately120*]

(04-05-2022, 03:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Calling people a Nazi?  After all, it's ok to punch a Nazi, right?  I wouldn't say racist is as bad as pedophilia, but that accusation is certainly hurled around frequently and with near impunity.

Yeah, it is and I think that's a pretty over the top insult too...but it doesn't hold a candle to the pedo stuff.  My cousin was married to the most evil woman I've ever met and she threatened that if he did something she didn't like she was going to download CP on his computer and call the police.  It's a terrifying accusation to have thrown at you.  You'll be dead or ruined before anyone cares to even look into it.  Keep in mind, this is coming from the political party that is worried about what the #meetoo movement was going to do to men everywhere...now, well let's just toss the most henious label on them.

Nazi ain't got nothin' on that one.  I'm not defending left wing rhetoric, I'm just saying people like MTG are tweeting out the most dangerous label we've devised as a human race.  Someone is a Nazi? Ehh, what a jerk.  Someone is a pedo?  Watch people start to one-up each other on how eager they'd be to kill and torture him.

Like I said, it's just the ultimate thing to label someone and it's dangerous when done with ill intent.  Plus, it takes focus off the real culprits.  We've just gone all-in on demonizing each other when this stuff gets tossed around like this.  Where can we go from here with demonizing each other?  I feel like we've reached the apex, but I'm afraid we haven't.

Anyways, I'm probably just nuts but politics is getting a bit too much like the whole Salem Witch trials, or at least that's what it wants to be.

[hollodero]

(04-05-2022, 03:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Understood.  I think you're still vastly overstating things.  MJT is definitely the worst offender in Congress right now, I wouldn't argue that.  If you asked me who had the highest number of extreme members, I'd agree it would be GOP, but it wouldn't be by a lot.

I'd say no one within the democratic party comes even close to Ms. Greene. But it's not just about her. Eg. I've seen quite a lot of hearings, during impeachments, or when the GOP was out to prove Trump was wronged by the FBI, and saw GOP members make hideous statements time and again, too many to mention. Including slandering FBI officials and calling them all kinds of names. I saw people calling insurrection attempts a vacation, describing rioters as patriots or the whole thing orchestrated by Antifa and whatnot. I saw quite some folks being willing to participate in a coup attempt. I saw people peddling birther lies, asking why white supremacy is bad and appearing on Infowars. And it does not matter if it's Gohmert or Gaetz or Nunes or Gosar or quite some others, they all make statements that, imho, no democrat made to a comparable extent.
And only concerns about posting length make me shorten this reply here.

(04-05-2022, 03:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd add that Barrett did not receive a single Dem vote, so far Jackson has at least three GOP votes, and will probably end up with more.  How does that jive with the GOP being the more extreme?

Well, I can't really compare qualifications. But there's a clear reason why democrats did not vote for Barrett, one that does not apply to the current nomination. And it's of course about the Garland rule - no nominations in a president's last year, the voters have the right to have their say first - Republicans came up with only to completely forget about it at the first instance. I can understand quite well why democrats were furious about that and hence not willing to give that candidate a yes vote under these circumstances.
Aside from that, I was not really referring to no votes and I don't call every Senate member that votes "no" on Jackson extreme solely based on that vote. I was referring to rhetorics like the aforementioned "coddling terrorists" and "pro pedophilia" sayings. I will say though that even letting that pass without any contradiction is a form of endorsing extremes.

(04-05-2022, 03:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I agree that Cruz, and others, took a reasonable line of questioning, her apparent leniency on child porn consumers and went way too far with it.  I also don't have an issue with her providing a defense to people I personally find reprehensible, that is the defense attorney's role after all.  But it is also fair to ask why she would choose to work with that particular population, but, again, they took it too far.  But I don't see the questioning of Jackson and Barrett to be at all disparate.  

Again, the questioning itself is one thing, the statements made after the questioning are another thing.

[GMDino]

Glad we already decided call people Nazis (who are not) is bad. 

Comparing former Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson to Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) says: "The last Judge Jackson left the Supreme Court to go to Nuremberg and prosecute the case against the Nazis. This Judge Jackson might have gone there to defend them." pic.twitter.com/nf465Ox53X

— Heartland Signal (@HeartlandSignal) April 5, 2022

 


Maybe he just means she is a Nazi sympathizer?  Yeah...that's probably all.

[GMDino]

I agree with this.  Primarily it seems the gop members have a problem with defendants having right and/or someone who defends them.

https://reason.com/2022/04/05/ted-cruz-hates-due-process/

Quote:Ted Cruz Hates Due Process
By smearing public defenders, the Texas senator shows what he thinks of constitutional rights.
C.J. CIARAMELLA | 4.5.2022 4:06 PM


(CNP/AdMedia/Sipa/Newscom)
During his Fox News appearance on Sunday, Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) said that Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson and other public defenders root for criminals because "their heart is with the murderers."



"She came out of law school, and she clerked for Justice Breyer on the Supreme Court. And she became a federal public defender," Cruz said. "And you and I have both known public defenders. People go and do that because their heart is with criminal defendants. Their heart is with the murderers, the criminals, and that that's who they're rooting for. A lot of the same reasons people go and become prosecutors—because they want to lock up bad guys—public defenders often have a natural inclination in the direction of the criminal. And I gotta say that inclination was not just while she was a public defender, but she carried it onto the bench."

Our adversarial system of justice depends on defense attorneys making the government prove its case and meet a high burden of evidence. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel to make sure everyone—the unpopular, the poor, and yes, even the guilty—has the benefit of a dogged defense against the government's power to relieve them of their liberty and property.



Supposed conservatives like Cruz should welcome this skepticism of government power, but he and others, like Sens. Tom Cotton (R–Ark.), Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.), and Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), used Jackson's confirmation hearing to demagogue and grandstand about the horror of her representing Guantanamo Bay detainees.

As Charles Cooke notes over at National Review, using Cruz's logic, we could also conclude that Cruz has a natural inclination toward banning dildos, since he argued in favor of Texas' ban on sales of sex toys when he was the state solicitor general.

Cruz would argue, and has argued, that he was merely doing his job, which was to defend the laws passed by the Texas Legislature. State attorney general offices often trot out this line when it's convenient. Vice President Kamala Harris, despite saying she personally opposes the death penalty, defended California's execution protocols as state attorney general, citing her duty to defend her client. 

Whether state attorney generals are ethically bound to defend what they consider unjust or unconstitutional laws in the same way a defense attorney must zealously represent their client, though, is a trickier and largely unresolved question. For example, Harris somehow found the political courage to shirk her supposed duty when she refused to defend California's Prop 8, which banned same-sex marriage. "It's well within the authority vested in me as the elected attorney general to use the discretion of my office to make decisions about how we will use our resources and what issue we will weigh in on or not," Harris said.

Public defenders don't have the luxury of choosing not to defend a client when it's a political liability. That's what makes them an indispensable part of our court system.

Ted Cruz went to an Ivy League law school and clerked for a Supreme Court justice. He knows all this, but he's an unserious person using his perch in the U.S. Senate to get on the TV and spout unserious arguments. It's an embarrassment.

[GMDino]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/republicans-ketanji-brown-jackson-woman_n_624c9967e4b0d8266ab22274?5uf

Quote:WASHINGTON ― Republicans mocked Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson last month for refusing to define the word “woman” during her Senate confirmation hearing.


But it turns out those same Republicans on the Judiciary Committee don’t agree on how to define a woman, and some wouldn’t ― or couldn’t ― give a definition when HuffPost asked Tuesday.

“I don’t have anything for you on that,” said Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.).

“I’m not going to indulge you,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).


Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) dodged the question three times in a row, citing her policy of not talking to reporters in Senate hallways ― even though it was Blackburn who made this an issue with Jackson in the first place.

Thirteen hours into the first day of Jackson’s hearing last month, the Tennessee Republican tossed out the question: “Can you define the word ‘woman’?”

“Can I provide a definition?” Jackson said, appearing confused. “No, I can’t. I’m not a biologist.”

After some back and forth, Blackburn concluded: “The fact that you can’t give me a straight answer about something as fundamental as what a woman is underscores the dangers of the kind of progressive education that we are hearing about.”

The next day, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) laid into Jackson too, telling her: “I think you are the only Supreme Court nominee in history who has been unable to answer the question ‘What is a woman?’”

The real aim of Blackburn’s question was almost certainly to try to corner Jackson on the issue of transgender women participating in women’s sports ― part of a broader, ugly GOP attack on LGBTQ people heading into the 2022 elections. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott ® is pushing for child abuse investigations of parents whose children seek gender-affirming medical care. Florida’s new “Don’t Say Gay” law prevents teachers from talking about sexual orientation or gender identity to students younger than fourth graders. The Human Rights Campaign, meanwhile, is tracking more than 300 anti-LGBTQ bills across the country.

In a follow-up email to HuffPost, a spokesperson for Blackburn said her definition of a woman is “Two X chromosomes.”

The spokesperson did not respond to questions about whether Blackburn considers women born with only one X chromosome to be women, or if she considers men born with two X chromosomes to be women.

In a written statement, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) offered the same definition as Blackburn: “A woman is born with two X-chromosomes.”

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary and the Britannica Dictionary define a woman as “an adult female person” and “an adult female human being,” respectively. Do senators agree with this?

“I have more of a traditional view of what a woman is,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.).

What is that?

“My wife.”




Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) questions Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson during her Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on March 22.
ALEX BRANDON VIA ASSOCIATED PRESS
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said a woman is simply someone who is “biologically a woman,” adding that he thinks most Americans can figure out who’s a woman and who’s a man.

“The birds and the bees stuff ― it’s been a while, but I think I remember the general gist of the differences,” Graham said. “To have a hard time answering that question is kind of odd to me.”

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) shouted his definition of a woman before slipping into a Senate elevator: “An adult female of the human species.”

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) was bolder than most.

“Someone who can give birth to a child, a mother, is a woman,” he said. “Someone who has a uterus is a woman. It doesn’t seem that complicated to me.”

So if a woman has her uterus removed by a hysterectomy, is she still a woman?

“Yeah. Well, I don’t know, would they?” he asked. (Yes.)

Asked again later if he would consider a woman to still be a woman if she lost her reproductive organs to cancer, Hawley said: “I mean, a woman has a vagina, right?”

Cruz, when asked, immediately answered that a woman is “an adult female human.”

He denied that he had recently looked it up in a dictionary.

“I just happen to speak English,” Cruz said, adding: “A ***** sapien with two X chromosomes.”

Sad.