Ketanji can’t define what a woman is

I've been making a point you refuse to engage on: It's not within her purview to ignore the statute that congress wrote. If they say she has to weigh those factors against the guidelines, then she has to.
Period.

 

I disagree with you.

It's okay that happens sometimes.

she doesn't have to be soft on pedophiles that's a choice.

 

Again: She's entirely bound by the statute and the factors congress ordered her to consider when it gave her authority to adjudicate the case.
She doesn't get to say "but **** congress though, 50 years for this dude". That is 100% not what a judge does.

If you want to blame someone for being soft, find the congresscritters who demanded that be in there when they passed the law. And then talk all that **** you want to about them.

 

so judges have no discretion at all? The term judges just a meaningless title and they are there to enact without any input from themselves what they are prescribed to enact by the government then why are there even judges?

completely disagree with judging is what a judge does that's why they're called judges.

People in Congress do not decide on what sentence is applied. They determine maximum and minimum which is their job. But the judge decides whether to apply the maximum more than minimum and whether sentences are served concurrently.

 

Judges have discretion where the statute allows. If the statute says weigh these factors against the guidelines if you find them in evidence, and they are in evidence: then she's stuck with it.

Congress writes the statute dude. The statute directs the possible sentence, the elements of the crimes, and aggravating or limiting factors as it regards sentencing.
Please stop talking about things you clearly know nothing of.
If you want the guidelines without limiting factors: Amend the statute.

 

That did strike me as an odd thing to say. It seems to imply that she thinks a "woman" is defined by biology, which doesn't jive with the woke mob she seeks to placate.

 

I am surprised more controversy doesn't exist around the President openly and explicitly now picking both a VP and a supreme court justice based on race and gender. It is openly sexist and racist, and yet people wonder why sexism and racism are rampant?

 

Again sentencing is typically a range of she chooses to give the low end of the range that is HER being soft on pedophiles.

Ironic.

That has nothing to do with this judge being soft on pedophiles.

 

Sure, go look up my comments on the Garland refusal. I am interested in my posts.

Yes, it says what it says. I've never said any different.
I don't pick or confirm any USSC choice.

 

Then you are just making up stuff and assuming.

 

How easy is it to tell the difference between male and female?

Male - Female - other?


Male - female - other


Male - female - other

 

No.....though we are Conservative, we found the real enemy to have globalist intentions. It's time for a change. America 1st

 

There will always be men dress in drag and women going butch. Doesn't prove a thing. It might even fool YOU!

 

I'm not woke, and I stand behind my statement.

 

I used to think bringing xenophobia up in this context made no sense until somebody informed me that "globalist" is the latest dog-whistle among the alt-right for "Jew " or Jewish interests.

 

Don't know what Jewish interests have to do with it....but our leaders have been "nation building and selling us out to China for decades. That includes the Republicans you mention and all the Democrats!

 

So, you couldn't tell.

 

No its not.

 

As always, the depth and scope of your counter argument is so comprehensive as to be amazing, breathtaking in it's exhaustive analysis. Astounding in the sheer magnitude of information you present up as evidence to prove your point..... sarcasm alert....

 

Been though this already.

 

No matter how dolled up a man might get, you can't hide the Adam's apple, the hands and the penis..... Especially the penis.

It used to be a time when men dressed up and drag and they still knew they were men.

 

No.
Yabber is not a biologist.
Your "test" is the lipstick/pig issue.

 

And we all know who's in charge of THAT, don't we (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

 

Oh sorry, my bad. It is only racist if you explicitly discriminate against race or gender other than white and male. Because racist equals power plus privilege and people like this VP and this Supreme Court Justice nominee are anything but privileged. Better?

 

Nope.
Definition of racism

1: a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race