The Republican Utopia

Archy1221 said:
I agree that Supreme Court hearings are a joke.  Just look at the two previous ones.   They were abominations.  I mean, one person actually called himself Spartacus, another 80 yr old falsely  accused a nominee of serial rape as a last ditch effort to derail the process.   Cruz looked silly during this process.  
Click to expand...
Thats been the most annoying part of this process. All the whining and shock of how she has been treated. These things have been a disaster for a while.

 
B.B. Hemingway said:
Thats been the most annoying part of this process. All the whining and shock of how she has been treated. These things have been a disaster for a while.
Click to expand...
There should always be pushback and people complaining about congress when they act like this.

So....by your comment, you're upset at the people complaining about congress instead of being upset at our elected officials acting like idiots?

 
BigRedBuster said:
There should always be pushback and people complaining about congress when they act like this.

So....by your comment, you're upset at the people complaining about congress instead of being upset at our elected officials acting like idiots?
Click to expand...
Im not upset at all, I just find it humorous that they weren’t all the worried about the charades during the last few of these processes. Like I said, they’re a s#!t show. But, hypocrisy can be found aplenty on both sides of this, so….

Though, I do think the ‘define a woman’ question was a fair question. The answer to that matters.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
B.B. Hemingway said:
Im not upset at all, I just find it humorous that they weren’t all the worried about the charades during the last few of these processes. Like I said, they’re a s#!t show. But, hypocrisy can be found aplenty on both sides of this, so….

Though, I do think the ‘define a woman’ question was a fair question. The answer to that matters.
Click to expand...
I agree about the hypocrisy on both sides. But I’ll disagree with ‘define a woman’ being a fair question. We both know that’s a loaded gotcha question and really is not pertinent to being an impartial judge no matter what side a person takes on the issue. She could share our definition of a woman or she could have a wilder definition than anything we’ve been seeing lately. Neither one should have any effect on her doing her job properly.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
B.B. Hemingway said:
Im not upset at all, I just find it humorous that they weren’t all the worried about the charades during the last few of these processes. Like I said, they’re a s#!t show. But, hypocrisy can be found aplenty on both sides of this, so….

Though, I do think the ‘define a woman’ question was a fair question. The answer to that matters.
Click to expand...
The 'defining a woman" question was a stupid question.  No matter how she answered that Republicans were going to jump all over her.  I think she handled it appropriately. 

 
JJ Husker said:
I agree about the hypocrisy on both sides. But I’ll disagree with ‘define a woman’ being a fair question. We both know that’s a loaded gotcha question and really is not pertinent to being an impartial judge no matter what side a person takes on the issue. She could share our definition of a woman or she could have a wilder definition than anything we’ve been seeing lately. Neither one should have any effect on her doing her job properly.
Click to expand...
It’s fair question, because it’s a very topical and dividing in this country at the moment. I don’t think the Republicans handled it appropriately (though as expected), but her answer was also poor. It’s very clear what a woman is and isn’t. Her answer was about keeping her nose clean, and pandering to a small segment of the population. She may not be a biologist but she knows what a woman is.

BigRedBuster said:
So, Republicans complaining about the other nominations and then acting like this means nothing.
Click to expand...
What part of both sides being hypocritical are you not understanding?

 
B.B. Hemingway said:
It’s fair question, because it’s a very topical and dividing in this country at the moment. I don’t think the Republicans handled it appropriately (though as expected), but her answer was also poor. It’s very clear what a woman is and isn’t. Her answer was about keeping her nose clean, and pandering to a small segment of the population. She may not be a biologist but she knows what a woman is.
Click to expand...
No matter what her answer is or was, this question is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.  She has proven to be more than qualified for the position and people just need to move on.

Republicans used the question for nothing more than a....a ha....gotcha.  Well, congrats, they got what they wanted....even though it's stupid and meaningless.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
No matter what her answer is or was, this question is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.  She has proven to be more than qualified for the position and people just need to move on.

Republicans used the question for nothing more than a....a ha....gotcha.  Well, congrats, they got what they wanted....even though it's stupid and meaningless.
Click to expand...
She’s an impressive woman, no doubt. I’m not going to be one to hold it against her that she was chosen because she’s a black woman, because she is definitely qualified from what I can tell. We’ll have to agree to disagree on the woman question. I think it had to be asked. She gave them the answer they wanted, but that doesn’t make her answer any less ridiculous.

 
B.B. Hemingway said:
We’ll have to agree to disagree on the woman question. I think it had to be asked. She gave them the answer they wanted, but that doesn’t make her answer any less ridiculous.
Click to expand...




Regardless of how you answer the question, her answer was refusing to participate in the gamesmanship of these partisan sound byte charades. There's nothing ridiculous about that, in fact it's exactly what judges should strive to do imo.

 
Lorewarn said:
Regardless of how you answer the question, her answer was refusing to participate in the gamesmanship of these partisan sound byte charades. There's nothing ridiculous about that, in fact it's exactly what judges should strive to do imo.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And, people trying to make a big deal out of this answer are just showing their colors.

 
Lorewarn said:
Regardless of how you answer the question, her answer was refusing to participate in the gamesmanship of these partisan sound byte charades. There's nothing ridiculous about that, in fact it's exactly what judges should strive to do imo.
Click to expand...
What would of been controversial about saying that she did know what a woman was? What could of Republicans possibly done with that answer? Pretending that it takes a biologist to define a woman is absolutely ridiculous. By pretending she doesn’t know what a woman is, she’s just playing the charade game with the other side of the aisle.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
B.B. Hemingway said:
What would of been controversial about saying that she did know what a woman was? What could of Republicans possibly done with that answer? Pretending that it takes a biologist to define a woman is absolutely ridiculous. By pretending she doesn’t know what a woman is, she’s just playing the charade game with the other side of the aisle.
Click to expand...
The problem with the question is, in the current day climate, she cannot give an answer that won’t trigger somebody. Therefore it is not fair. On top of that it is not important no matter how topical in society. I cannot think of a single legal issue that would involve the SC and that it would matter if it was a man or woman or any of the myriad possibilities of genders or sexual preferences. What a person is or isn’t should not matter one iota to a SC justice.

Maybe I could be persuaded to change my opinion if you gave me an example of a case they might hear in which it does matter.

I will agree her answer was not optimal, seeking a biologist. She could have shut them down on the line of questioning a little better but she shouldn’t have to. The thing is, that is much more of problem for the people asking the loaded question. Like I said, no answer she could give would satisfy everyone.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top