Another question for you libs

So if you haven’t heard, your new supreme court pick was asked to define what a woman is.

In response, she said she’s not a biologist. This leaves me with some questions maybe you guys can answer.

  1. Seeing as most children can define what a woman is, does this cause you guys any concern that this grown adult literally has no idea what the difference between a male and a female is?

  2. Taking into account that she’s probably lying (I pray to god that she is) does this concern you that she’ll spend the rest of her life making decisions that directly affect your lives? And if she’s not lying, does this concern you that she’ll spend the rest of her life making decisions that directly affect your lives?

  3. For thousands of years the difference(S) between men and women was universally known and accepted, and seeing that science is your god, can you please use science to explain how there is no physical/biological difference between men and women?

  4. If there is no difference between men and women (SCIENCE proves this) then can we suppose that she also sees no difference between kids and adults, and maybe her appointment will further the goal of legalizing certain reprehensible activities?

Thank you for answering these for me.


CRT and NAMBLA approved

1 Like

If she came out and said she supported trans rights she would be dead in the water so she has to have a no response issue. Leave it in the air, it’s the world we live in. She likely defines a woman as anyone who says they are like most lefties.

The Supreme Court has already given full rights under the 14th to transpeople.

There is no way the Supreme Court could expand trans rights when they have full advantage of the 14th in employment and housing. It’s the world we live in and she will likely be ruling from the minority from years to come on economic matters that are of greater concern. Listen if you think a court is gonna make this place like 1950 you can’t put pandora back in the box.

She doesn’t have a legal opinion on it because that’s not an issue settled by law. I guess I’m sorry she didn’t take the obvious bait of a question that has nothing to do with her ability to be a judge?

Like this is the most hilarious thing, there’s nothing real to be mad about with her so they had to go in and make up a fake point to be outraged about. Does it feel good to have Ted Cruz play you like a fiddle?

What? WTF? OMFG. omg.

Gene, can you please tell me what is up and what is down? Or are you not an engineer?


Oh good lord someone please take me out. Just take me out of this.

1 Like

“Yeah you all definitely need to by law get an experimental vaccine injected into you and your family for sure. Why do I think that? Because I’m a f—king judge and my opinions matter. What’s the difference between a boy and a girl? I have no idea what do I look like a biologist? I’m just here to tell you what to do based on things like biology; I can’t make a call like that.”

1 Like

Oh good god; we have now reached a point where science says we can’t question the science that says that science says what we can’t question.

You democrats, liberals, whatever; you are all completely batsh=t crazy and I wish to god conservatives could just secceed from your mental illness utopia. Why did I have to be born now? WhY WHY WHYYYY

1 Like

REPUBLICANS: This person doesn’t know the difference between a male and a female.

DEMOCRATS: “Let’s nominate them for the supreme court!” :smiley:


every few weeks I put a 44 LC to my head and think its this thing I do you can anytime you want too. My thing and no one will even talk about it is what seems like you guys are gonna do a boogaloo event a civil war 2.0. My wife said we should immigrate to Canada I said I’m broke I’ll take my chances hiding in the walls.

1 Like

This is the Biden and the Democrats approach many controversial issues where they are taking unpopular stances.

  • According to Biden and Harris, there is no problem on the border. Instead of having the courage to say, “We are doing this for humanitarian reasons.” (A lie), or the truth, “We want to change the composition of the voters, which will give us the advantage in future elections,” they play dumb.

  • Instead of saying that they want to shut down the U.S. fossil fuel industry, they throw up barriers to opening new wells, artificially increase prices and send the message to the industry that the U.S. Government is against them. They send out Jen Psaki to confuse the gullible and spread their lies.

These people are as dishonest and untrustworthy as any political group in American history. Here’s medal from the 1900 presidential campaign that is more appropriate now than it was then. Bryan was honest and made his position on the unlimited coinage of silver. These people try to ignore the issues while they implement the policy. They are “The United Snakes of America.”


There is a problem on the border with no solution Biden is doing everything trump did up to family separation. That family separation thing cost the US 440k per family in lawsuits. There is no solution when people starve people move towards food its human nature. I’ve been down in Los Cruces the border is one giant prison/plantation. People languishing in detention centers for years. They don’t mind, they get fed there herded like cattle sleeping on top of each other. When given the option to leave they don’t. Theres no solution to it, they make it so uncomfortable keep it like 90 degrees inside during the day at 60 at night but guards gotta work there to and it smells just awful.

how do you solve that?

Oh there is a solution, @Unitedwestand. We finish the wall and enforce the immigration laws that are on the books. If you come here illegally, you are kicked out the country. The honest immigrates, who obey the law, get screwed, while the criminals cross illegally and get rewarded.

But I know, you have to tow the Democrat line as loyal party member. So you say Biden is doing the same thing as Trump, which is a total falsehood.


Then why have we had these transsexual rights cases go to the Supreme Court?

That’s strange. I don’t remember Biden building the wall; he adamantly opposed it.


The ruling is not going to say whether they exist or not, that’s way out of their realm. The law just doesn’t decide those things, especially judges who’s only job is to interpret already written law.

And yet their rulings are going to depend on the definition of such things. They rule on many issues on the basis of accepted norms.

1 Like

GENE this question if for you: How are babies made?

Please answer this as truthfully as you can; I’m going to have some popcorn ready and this may be one of the most interesting things I’ve ever read


Even the woke know that dude she was dodging a question from Ted Cruz come on. How many times did Tom Delay refuse to answer the senate he said I don’t recall 341 times because he couldn’t invoke his 5th. Would you rather, she just state the words I don’t recall 341 times to be passive aggressive or just on that one bait issue?

CONSERVATIVE: “how are babies made?”
LIBERAL: “this is a loaded question do I look like a biologist?”


CONSERVATIVE: If a person doesn’t understand how babies are made perhaps they shouldn’t be making laws for millions of people to follow.

LIBERAL: we don’t know about reproduction but fornication is fun and all kids need to learn about it.



Gene is right. It’s very common for judges to avoid questions that might come before them regardless of the number of similar cases that may have come before the court in the past. Also, remember that institutionalized slavery was the law, settled law, in the nation for an embarrassingly long time. The fact that you might think these notions are simple (as someone may have thought the same about slavery in the past), they are most certainly not.
While I think the fuss over “defining a woman” to be frustrating to some people, the follow-up to that question would have almost certainly been to bring up something having to do with trans-issues.

Any judge that rules based on the merits of the law would wouldn’t be foolish enough to bias themselves in the nomination process.

Now I don’t have any problem with asking a judge if they have a preconceived bias about a topic, but the lack of an answer here shouldn’t surprise anyone.

If you asked any of the conservative justices if they believed that life begins at conception during the nomination process, they would all refuse to answer the question, just as Jackson refused to give an answer. Not because they don’t believe that is true, but because they know better than to bias themselves.

Most children don’t decide the law. Not the same.

Not at all, it’s what any good impartial judge would do.

For thousand of years slavery was a common practice.

Literally no one of any consequence says that.