all 6 comments

[–]Femaleisnthateful 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What a joke. The Woke do not want 'fair and impartial Justice'.

[–]one1won[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Tuesday, March 22, at ~10 PM EST, Jackson stated she “could not give a definition of the word”, woman, (outside a legal case), in her hearing.

This nominee has woke ideology.

[–]xandit 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Its over in the u.s. This is where all the gender cases will end up, with her voting as an sjw.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfyFvSbkaTg

[–]ItsBondageTime 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I swear alot of yall dont have critical thinking. She tried giving a neutral answer, but when she mentioned that shes not a biologist it showed her beliefs that being a woman is a biological and not psychological like alot of TRAs believe Shes already not liked by the right. Shes not gonna try to be hated by the left either

[–]one1won[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I reiterate:

If the gender lobby isn’t even a little uncertain about a nominee, I fear it may bode ill for women and children’s rights when cases come before the Supreme Court.

We shall see, in time, I fear, whether some people “lack critical thinking”, as you suggest, or if your own adherence to your political belief system position or party is, shall I say, superimposing your hopes/beliefs onto this judge.

[–]jjdub7Gay Male Guest Commentator 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There’s no such thing as a neutral answer, there is only one answer: adult human female