Ketanji can’t define what a woman is

Prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Don't make me dig the case up dude, it was tested as against defectors to nazi germany who tried to make an attack on domestic soil and were captured.
They were sentenced to exile, that was found unconstitutional as a cruel and unusual punishment.
Full stop.

Again: I point to the cases and several resources for you to educate yourself on the legal concepts involved. Please do so or shut the **** up about things you refuse to learn.

IF you trade them something they're not entitled to for it, as already stated 3 times that is a different story. But that's not how things work at this point.

 

Where did I say YOU were mutilating your body?

Have you cut off, not for a medically necessary reason, your body parts or otherwise had them surgically modified to try to make yourself look like the other sex? ie. self-mutilation

Are you going to stop dodging post simply because you can't compete?

 

I have no doubt she will be confirmed even though she lacks any judicial philosophy and struggles to answer simple questions concerning issues which may arise.

 

The GOP has the votes to prevent her from coming out of the committee and going to a floor vote. Whether they will use that power is another question, but, the GOP can stop her if they want to.

 

Pretty sure they're getting you confused with me.

 

I don't know Krane has been dodging my post for months demanding a apology for something I have no obligation to apologize for.

 

No and it was a 11 to 11 vote so it goes to a floor vote.

"The Senate Judiciary Committee deadlocked on the question of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s nomination to the Supreme Court on Monday, resulting in a perfectly split eleven to eleven vote along partisan lines.

The tie means another vote will be held in the Senate chamber Monday evening. A simple majority of 51 votes is needed to advance her nomination, which Jackson is likely to garner."
https://www.nationalreview.com/news...plits-on-advancing-judge-jacksons-nomination/

How do you proposed the Reps can stop her now?

 

Are you going to apologize for saying I am mutilating my body?

 

No, I won't. That was what? 5 yrs ago?

I don't even know what you'd be searching to find. But I encourage you to do so.

No, I am saying very little to nothing is the same as it was 250 yrs ago.
The world is constantly changing.
Words are constantly changing.
Life is constantly changing.

 

Do what they tried and failed to do with the election of 2020. Maybe they will be successful the 2nd time?

 

Why bother trying to stop her? You can't, and even if you could, any Biden nominee will be voting the same way on important issues no matter how much or little they are qualified. Anyone they nominate is going to vote the same way.

 

It doesn't appear that they can now that the committee has voted. Rule 26 could have been used to prevent a vote by the committee.

https://amgreatness.com/2022/04/03/republicans-can-stop-the-ketanji-brown-jackson-nomination/

The GOP Congress routinely screws us while pretending that they fought it to the end, but just came up a little short when in reality they flopped.

This screwing started with Trump, after election, which was very unfair, but, he needed to keep his eye on the ball and work the GA runoffs to maximize GOP turnout and instead he focused on his own personal loss and cost us the Senate majority.

 

"WAS IT OVER WHEN THURGOOD MARSHALL BOMBED PEARL HARBOR?" Politico falsely claims that Ketanji Brown Jackson will be ‘first Black Supreme Court Justice.’

"To be fair, Politico could have said she was the first female black Supreme Court justice — but that would mean defining what is a woman, and the staff at Politico" aren’t biologists.

https://instapundit.com/513287/

 

There is literally NOTHING in the constitution which bans exile. Hence why States like Tennessee still have it on the books. With that being said it has been adjudicated to be unconstitutional.

However because this is not explicitly covered by the constitution it is the purview of the judge as to whether or not it’s constitutional.

Your problem is the same problem those judges would have. If I can enslave you perpetually as punishment for a crime and that’s not considered cruel and unusual punishment, on what grounds do you assert exile is?

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/356/86
You cannot divest a citizen of their citizenship forcibly. That constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

As explained, making someone stateless and taking from them their birthright citizenship is the difference. As a prisoner they may still appeal, even awaiting the death penalty. An exile loses all such rights.

 

You don't know your own opinion?

And a definition changing in 2020 has nothing to do with what the word meant when the sentence was written. That's not how interpretation works.

 

I would agree with his premise that the military does not have the authority to unilaterally do so.

I disagree with the position on cruel and unusual punishment and I think most rational people would. Given the choice between the two which would you prefer? Lifetime incarceration or exile? Execution or exile?

I’d prefer exile in both and I think most people would as well. If that’s the case how can that be cruel and unusual punishment when the others are not?

 

I saw it reported she was the first black woman nominated but if course that is a lie too, the Dems opposed the first black woman nominated led by Senator Biden.

 

Yes. The racist misogynistic Biden filibustered the first Black Woman nominated to the Supreme Court. He's always been a hateful vile lying creep.

 

You've received an answer to your question already. Here it is again since you missed it the first time. Apparently.

Additionally: Read the case again. Or rather, instead of just looking through it, actually read it this time.

 

Sure it does.
Words written 250 yrs ago had to be interpreted then in order to use them.

 

So you do know your own opinion. So you can share it with the class then. Go ahead and tell us what you thought of the Garland matter.

Yes, and they were interpreted based on what the words meant when they were put on paper, not what they may have changed to in the mean time.

 

G

Garland never made it to a hearing.

Yes based on interpretation back then.
We can't understand fully all those interpretations of every word.
Some change. Times change.

 

Hence why I referred to it as the Garland "matter" not the Garland "hearing". See how that works?
Now stop being coy and answer the question I originally asked you, regarding your opinion as to the Garland matter.

We indeed can understand those interpretations of every word, dictionaries from the time exist, as do context clues findable in both primary and secondary sources.
None of those would include substituting a modern definition if the word as written at the time didn't include that modern definition.

Times change. What a word meant when it was written does not.

 

Are you demanding an answer? LOL.