No Clarence Thomas thread?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bagel and Creamcheese
  • Start date Start date
Floyd Eye said:
No dude. In 1991 I was busy trying to break into the music business ( i.e. doing lots of coke and banging bitches on the strip while trying to get gigs with my kinda shitty band).
Click to expand...
I wish I’d been doing the same, instead of watching the shameful Thomas proceedings

In Thomas’ case, the allegations were not based on rumor but rather direct in-hearing testimony by the woman (Anita Hill) who claimed to have been harassed by Thomas;

and the allegations were concerning alleged behavior less than a decade prior to the confirmation hearing, and this behavior was alleged to have taken place when Thomas was already an employee of the US government.
 
pazuzu-bootsy-baphomet-jr said:
I wish I’d been doing the same, instead of watching the shameful Thomas proceedings

In Thomas’ case, the allegations were not based on rumor but rather direct in-hearing testimony by the woman (Anita Hill) who claimed to have been harassed by Thomas;

and the allegations were concerning alleged behavior less than a decade prior to the confirmation hearing, and this behavior was alleged to have taken place when Thomas was already an employee of the US government.
Click to expand...
They were still allegations, nothing more. One woman's word against his. No proof.

I will give Anita Hill one thing, unlike the doctor/political activist that also testified in the equally shameful Kavanaugh hearings, at least she wasn't caught openly lying and using the I can't remember strategy.

The people who lined up against Kavanaugh actually claimed that him liking beer in college was evidence he was a rapist. Those same people have no problem seating a justice who cannot define what a woman is.
 
pazuzu-bootsy-baphomet-jr said:
I wish I’d been doing the same, instead of watching the shameful Thomas proceedings
Click to expand...

I watched that too. Being honest, there's no way Thomas is confirmed if he isn't black.
Bush simply had to replace Marshall with another black man and Thomas was the
most desirable candidate to the Christian far-right.

Travesty, plain and simple.
 
Floyd Eye said:
They were still allegations, nothing more. One woman's word against his. No proof.

I will give Anita Hill one thing, unlike the doctor/political activist that also testified in the equally shameful Kavanaugh hearings, at least she wasn't caught openly lying and using the I can't remember strategy.

The people who lined up against Kavanaugh actually claimed that him liking beer in college was evidence he was a rapist. Those same people have no problem seating a justice who cannot define what a woman is.
Click to expand...
If you haven’t watched the hearings, and you’re interested in the topic, i recommend watching them

A confirmation hearing is not a court of law and needs no proof. The allegations were plausible and credibly testified. Thomas’ probity was cast into doubt.

My point is, there are plenty of competent judges with acceptable ethics and behavioral histories to choose from

There is
no reason
for a person whose ethics, competence, or probity is *reasonably in question* to gain a lifetime appointment on the United States’ highest court

The highest court in the USA must uphold the highest standards of competence and conduct, that’s all there is to it.
 
Floyd Eye said:
who cannot define what a woman is.
Click to expand...

This is where the right love playing a word salad by using the words gender and sex interchangeably.

There are two sexes, very easily defined. (three, but that's still an open issue)
There are multiple times more genders that have been recognized by medical societies the world over
for decades. Whether you personally agree or not is doesn't matter.

So asking someone if a transgender person is either male or female is not only dumb, it's a ridiculously
loaded question. Enough people are ignorant to the sex/gender thing that it's an easy way to score
political points with the right.
 
pazuzu-bootsy-baphomet-jr said:
If you haven’t watched the hearings, and you’re interested in the topic, i recommend watching them

A confirmation hearing is not a court of law and needs no proof. The allegations were plausible and credibly testified. Thomas’ probity was cast into doubt.

My point is, there are plenty of competent judges with acceptable ethics and behavioral histories to choose from

There is
no reason
for a person whose ethics, competence, or probity is *reasonably in question* to gain a lifetime appointment on the United States’ highest court

The highest court in the USA must uphold the highest standards of competence and conduct, that’s all there is to it.
Click to expand...
That's true. The barometer for a Supreme Court justice should be their record of upholding the actual constitution as written not as they wish it was written though. Which Thomas has done pretty well. And which every single liberal justice has not done well at all.
 
Donnie B said:
This is where the right love playing a word salad by using the words gender and sex interchangeably.

There are two sexes, very easily defined. (three, but that's still an open issue)
There are multiple times more genders that have been recognized by medical societies the world over
for decades. Whether you personally agree or not is doesn't matter.

So asking someone if a transgender person is either male or female is not only dumb, it's a ridiculously
loaded question. Enough people are ignorant to the sex/gender thing that it's an easy way to score
political points with the right.
Click to expand...
No, it was a simple question designed to determine her willingness to bend the constitution to support the rights of mentally ill people who believe they can change their gender. The correct answer to that question is simple. A person born without a penis and with a vagina.
 
Floyd Eye said:
No, it was a simple question designed to determine her willingness to bend the constitution to support the rights of mentally ill people who believe they can change their gender. The correct answer to that question is simple. A person born without a penis and with a vagina.
Click to expand...
You were given the definition of gender up above. You should re-read it.
 
Floyd Eye said:
to support the rights of mentally ill people who believe they can change their gender
Click to expand...

Whether you agree or not.
Medically recognized the world over for decades trumps anyone's personal opinions on the matter.
We got opinions and assholes here.
Neither count for shit out in the real world.
 
So a biologically born boy will always have the sex of a man, but can later have the gender of a woman (or whatever else they want to be including demigender, gender fluid, asexual, cat, etc.). I'm cisgender BTW.
 
Clearance Thomas should be removed from the Supreme Court, his wife was clearly coordinating with the J6 Terrorist .
 
311splawndude said:
So a biologically born boy will always have the sex of a man, but can later have the gender of a woman (or whatever else they want to be including demigender, gender fluid, asexual, cat, etc.). I'm cisgender BTW.
Click to expand...

Sorry, it's really complicated stuff.
Probably best if you stick to simply hating fags.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top