Steve Kelley for March 25, 2022

That was about as snarky as I’ve seen her during the hearings. Despite MASSIVE provocation. Gender is certainly about biology, but it’s also about self image and a bunch of other things.

I know that few if any of you are trans… but maybe if you imagine yourself forced into, oh, working a job that’s constantly reminding you of something you would RATHER be doing. Or forced to wear foot bindings… you can get a hint of the flavor of being stuck in a body that’s just NOT YOU!

In a rational world, “small government” politicians would want to let people alone to find their best life. I wonder what happened to THAT concept!

Copied and pasted from my comment on Bok’s strip:

Republicans (and conservative cartoonists) can only think in binary terms. Anything more nuanced will fry their tiny brains

She knew instantly that she was in a trap. Good job, Marsha Blackburn.

What she really said was that the question was incompetent, immaterial, and irrelevant.

A more important question to be asked is why Marsha Blackburn doesn’t know the difference between the constitution and the declaration of independence. Her ignorance astounds me. Passing a civics class should be a requirement for anyone running for a congressional office.

Does Steve Kelley need Judge Brown to describe what a woman is? Boy, does that explain a lot.

If she doesn’t know what a woman is, how do we know she’s a woman?

She could be Bugs Bunny in disguise again! That Wascally Wabbit!

kelloggs2066: I would gladly support putting Bugs Bunny or Elmer Fudd on the Supreme Court over Clarence (Uncle) Thomas or Amy Conan Barbarian.

Interesting that two of the Republican appointees have to check with their spouses before ruling.

Science regarding gender is far more complicated than Kelley or the Repubs can comprehend.

https://www.yahoo.com/now/marsha-blackburn-asked-ketanji-brown-170800519.html

Kelley, Blackburn and the other Repubs need to publicly share their definition of “woman” – should be revealing and interesting.

This “woman” nominee is just a rubber stamp for the liberal agenda. She is not a judge, just another radical left winger who has caooned the system.

For those claiming to be a follower of Jesus I give you 1 Corinthians 13: 11-13:11When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a [wo]man, I put away childish things. 12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 13And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.__________Even the vengeful god said: Leviticus 19:18Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against any of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. And repeated by Jesus Mark 12:31: The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is not another commandment greater than these."

Yep, that would be a good idea.

Unwoke Right wingers worry about sexuality all the time.

The world is on the brink of a catastrophe. A war in Europe threatens to blow up to a possible nuclear exchange. Both poles had a temperature increase of 70 degrees over the week end. Texas and Florida are burning. The world is heading to hell in a hand basket.

The most important thing to the right? A transgender person won a swim meet.

Oh! The humanity…

I agree with the cartoon lady!

Steve, hits another home run.

No matter how she answered she was going to get gigged by the Republicons. Given what she is being questioned for, her answer was the best one. Her job is to take the arguments and evidence provided to her, and make the best decision based on those arguments, not on what she believes.

Alan Dershowitz recently mused that “we used to think that gender” was one of the things that you can’t change. It turns out “we” were wrong.

The point that went over a lot of political commentators heads was, of course, that in a court of law the question has to be decided based on the facts presented during the trial. It cannot be decided a priori. In the vast majority of cases, it will be a very obvious ruling, but a Supreme Court justice will not be ruling on the vast majority of cases. These will be the edge cases, cases that have already been tried in lower courts and where it is not so clear. Therefore, it is not reasonable to ask for a ruling ahead of time.

Note: I recall both Kavanaugh and Barrett making similarly non-committal answers to some questions. It’s not a sign of being wishy-washy. It’s a sign of being a judge. It’s just how the job works.

Utterly amazing how simple minded the conservatives are, to think the question was posed in good faith.

Because women’s sports is the MOST important topic on the docket of the Supreme Court?