- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Ketanji Brown Jackson has a lot to say
Posted on 4/29/25 at 8:36 am to STEVED00
Posted on 4/29/25 at 8:36 am to STEVED00
quote:
I know this is focused on the female judges talking more than the male judges but the real story is that one judge speaks over double the amount of the next highest speaking judge.
Actually, the other 3 women combined are slightly over 12k - so, she is within striking distance of speaking as much as the next 3 (i.e. the other women).
This post was edited on 4/29/25 at 8:37 am
Posted on 4/29/25 at 8:37 am to stout
I always knew John Roberts was a woman.
Posted on 4/29/25 at 8:41 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Actually, the other 3 women combined are slightly over 12k - so, she is within striking distance of speaking as much as the next 3 (i.e. the other women).
You just know the guys make that Picard "Oh jeez not again" meme when she starts talking.
Posted on 4/29/25 at 8:43 am to stout
I like to listen to SCOTUS oral arguments. Jackson and Sotomayor are the weakest Justices. Frequently another Justice has to come to the rescue and pose a question that clarifies a question posed by either Jackson or Sotomayor. Kagan is dangerous because she is pretty sharp. Kegan will ask questions to elicit a response to try and convince the other Justices of her position. I am not sure what Barrett is doing.
Two interesting exchanges took place this week. In the first Sotomayor was clearly angry and raised her voice at the attorney who was defending the children and families wanting to opt out against a school's storytime reading of books that were clearly against his client religious beliefs. The other was when one attorney accused the other attorney of lying. The justices took great exception to this. Gorsuch went so far as to read from the accusers brief to show there was no lying and he forced the accuser to back down. For SCOTUS argument it was pretty dramatic stuff.
Two interesting exchanges took place this week. In the first Sotomayor was clearly angry and raised her voice at the attorney who was defending the children and families wanting to opt out against a school's storytime reading of books that were clearly against his client religious beliefs. The other was when one attorney accused the other attorney of lying. The justices took great exception to this. Gorsuch went so far as to read from the accusers brief to show there was no lying and he forced the accuser to back down. For SCOTUS argument it was pretty dramatic stuff.
This post was edited on 4/29/25 at 8:46 am
Posted on 4/29/25 at 9:03 am to stout
Just think Kamala. 50,000 words to say nothing.
Posted on 4/29/25 at 9:10 am to stout
When Clarence passes or steps down, it will be a sad sad day. Trump better find a hard arse conservative.
Posted on 4/29/25 at 9:26 am to stout
By and large women don’t belong in government.
Posted on 4/29/25 at 9:31 am to RCDfan1950
quote:
It takes a lot of words to attempt to rationalize/justify what should be and is a simple truth…
The problem arises when they cease to respect the spirit and letter of the Constitution and begin to substitute their own subjective view of 'justice'.
This is a brilliant insight.
The strict constructionists don’t need words to rationalize something, they’re just agreeing with what the law and constitution already basically say.
The “living document” types who view the existing laws and constitution as impediments to their worldview are the ones who need to write treatises as to why we should rethink the law and prior to that point agreed upon principals which is why Thomas can write a page and head out for lunch while Jackson needs volumes to obfuscate the obvious ruling for her own purposes.
Posted on 4/29/25 at 9:32 am to stout
Now how many of her words mean anything aside from pointless blathering
Posted on 4/29/25 at 9:36 am to stout
I bet Clarence does a lot of "Jim from the Office" talking with his eyes while these bitches are rattling on.
Posted on 4/29/25 at 9:39 am to stout
It would appear the number of remarks made is inversely proportional to their IQ.
Posted on 4/29/25 at 9:39 am to stout
You have to sale the lie. AND that takes lots of persuasion. Lots of cotorsion. You can't convince someone the sky isn't blue without talking a LOT!
Posted on 4/29/25 at 10:21 am to tide06
quote:
Jackson needs volumes to obfuscate the obvious ruling for her own purposes.
I threw that stuff up there, T, and left out the main point of the which you bring to the table. "Obfuscate" being the key. A ton of words to justify the reason for abandoning their Constitutional Oath in service to the 'Democratic' ("mob rule") form of governance.
Thanks, friend.
Posted on 4/29/25 at 10:24 am to stout
quote:
Ketanji Brown Jackson has a lot to say
According to the idiot known as Michelle Obama, KBJ must've received permission from "White America" to speak up.
Posted on 4/29/25 at 10:25 am to stout
If you ain't got the goods, you gotta add fluff.
Posted on 4/29/25 at 10:28 am to stout
There is a section of the female brain that produces a dose of pleasure to a woman when she is talking. It does not happen in the male brain. Although this wasn't discovered until modern medical equipment came up, it should have been obvious when the rotary dial phone was invented in 1953. That's when stay at home wives stopped cleaning and cooking all day. They were on the phone talking till husband got home.
Popular
Back to top



1










