Ketanji can’t define what a woman is

Your quibbling over definitions aside, I think you know what I meant in my initial post.

I find it odd that so few are alarmed that both a Vice President and a Supreme Court Justice nominee have been chosen based on racial/gender discrimination (not "racism" as you define it, but no less concerning).

 

Uhh Ketanji argued that pedophiles and sexual predators should not have to register as such after a conviction and neither should they have to notify communities when they move in.

She is the EPITOME of soft of sexual predators. She should be nowhere NEAR the scotus. Or ANY other bench for that matter. But she should NEVER be given the power to declare forcing sexual predators to register as such is unconstitutional.

 

Why am I not surprised that liberals support a woman who thinks making pedophiles and sexual predators register as such and notify communities when they move in is unconstitutional.

 

It's still not racism, discrimination yes, racism no

 

What's constitutional about it?

 

I am fine with your terminology, but that doesn't make the latter any more excusable. A white nationalist who discriminates in favour of his race but doesn't see it as inherently superior, but just distinct and wants it separate and wants his country to exclude all other races is not racist by your definition. But it's still a problem.

 

It's affirmative action which is just fine.

 

A white nationalist wanting only white people in his country is affirmative action and just fine?

 

I’d suggest you show what isn’t. Given that slavery is still constitutional as punishment for a crime. I’d like to see you argue that forcing them to register is unconstitutional.

 

But can I take that to mean you agree with Ketanji that pedophiles and sexual predators shouldn’t have to register as such nor notify communities when they move in?

 

So, why didn't you take a stab at the genders of those in the pic?

 

You tell us, should a young couple of 18 and 16 have the 18 yr old subject to pedophilia or sexual predator for the rest of their life?
Or should context be taken into consideration when doing sentencing?

 

Its so easy to tell the difference. Just ask any of them that have commented but not rendered a guess.

 

No she didn’t state context should be considered. She argued that NO sexual predator or pedophile should EVER have to register as such or notify communities when they move in because doing so is unconstitutional.

 

Like that hasn't happened before, for say the 1st 200+ yrs of our country's existence.

trump chose an old white male for his VP, but that wasn't sexist or racist?

 

Do you have that quote?

 

I do.

“Her Harvard Law Review note in 1996 chose to focus on statutes that impose registration and community-notification requirements for sex offenders. Jackson argued for “deeming the laws ‘punitive’ to the extent that they operate to deprive sex criminals of a legal right” — rather than treating those laws as protective of communities — and argued, “if . . . a community notification statute deprives the [sex] offender of his right to mobility or bodily integrity and if it makes him the ‘target of widespread community rejection, antipathy, and scorn’ in a manner that is more retributive than rehabilitative, then it should be considered ‘punishment’” and therefore apt to be found unconstitutional under the analytical frameworks of “the Eighth Amendment, Ex Post Facto Clause, Double Jeopardy Clause, and Bill of Attainder Clause.” Jackson complained that “state legislators these days have little tolerance for sex convicts.””

 

By the way the words Harvard law review up there in my last post is a link to it

Do you agree with ms Ketanji that we should be more sympathetic to sexual predators and pedophiles?

Do you think a person who believes that should be in a position to be one of the final arbitrators on whether or not those laws are unconstitutional?

 

That woman should IMMEDIATELY be disqualified for the SCOTUS. Under NO a circumstances is she qualified nor does she hold the respect for our constitution nor our values as a people. She is WHOLLY unrepresentative of what we are as a country.

 

Didn't even try. I wouldn't take a chance on any of 'em. I remember Danny Bonaduce picking up what he thought was a hot whore only to find "it" had male properties. He punched" it" and ended up in jail.

If you are thinking Jews are in charge, I think I would need proof of that. I don't see a concerted effort by them in anyway. Is Soros Jewish? If so, he is an atheist Jew. Jewish by blood only.

 

I can't find that statement in your link of the Harvard Law Review note.
But it sounds like the point in the above post you made is questioning the constitutionality of said laws of registering.

But I don't see where 'NO sexual predator or pedophile should EVER have to register as such or notify communities', as you claimed.

 

Of course you wouldn't. One can not simply tell a who/what is a woman.

Even though you claimed you could.

 

Again, the statute directs her to weigh the factors she weighed in the way that she weighed them. Your idea that she can simply do whatever she'd like and ignore the statute telling her to weigh limiting factors reflects a profound ignorance of how American jurisprudence functions.

Where did you get your JD from? I got mine from an ABA accredited law school, and I hold a license to practise law. I'm admitted to the federal bar in the Southern District of Texas.
How many federal courts do YOU practise (sic) law in Fancy?

 

You can't simply explain your position on Garland without obfuscation? That's certainly an interesting take.

I'm simply pointing out the facts: Their growing in the modern era does not change what the text means.

 

Registration being unconstitutional does not equate to being soft on sexual predators ffs.