You have done in a lower court. Thats the best basis for knowing whether or not you ought to be on the Supreme Court. We have 307 cases that this nominee has written decisions on as a basis for that. Weve had 488,000 other pages. Maybe the senators havent read them, but their staff is fully informed. Last night, before 11 00, on the 42,000 pages that have come to our attention, the staff on the republican side has gone through them. Sir, why did you ask for the white House Counsel documents . They were not germane to this hearing. Why would you ask for them . Senator feinstein . For the record, thats a rate of 7,000 pages per hour. Thats super human. Yeah. Theyre amazing. Theyre amazing. Mr. Chairman, if i may . Yeah, proceed. Ive been through Nine Supreme Court hearings. Is this your Opening Statement . It is part of it. Why dont you make your opal statement. Shall i . Yeah, would you, please . Mr. Chairman, i ask for an opportunity to respond to my colleague from texas because he is
Winsome Sears: Justice KBJ Was Chosen Because She s Black and Because She s a Woman
breitbart.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from breitbart.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
and it time for it to stop. so i m very glad for this day. martha: this is the dissent from justice jackson. she said with let them eat cake obliviousness, they announced color blindness for all. deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life, she said. she and justin sotomayor were outraged by this decision. sotomayor said the court s own impetus in the face of america who cries for equality is down. what would you say to these justices? well, what you have is the justice that is chosen because she s black and because she s a woman. you know, that s what we re understanding now. what a woman is. while we re playing these stupid games, i m saying that education and the lack of it in america is
artist or creating something custom, then the state can t force her to express a message she doesn t agree with. and the liberals you can imagine pounce order that because they said what is the limiting principle here? justin sotomayor said what about someone who doesn t like interracial marriages or somebody with a bias against people with physical disabilities. and justice jackson asked what if a photographer at a mall taking pictures with children at santa only wants white children to sit on santa s lap, can they say no white children is allowed? they were really looking for that limited principle. and remember a few years ago the court did hear a similar case about a cake baker who didn t want to make a cake to celebrate a same-sex marcouple wedding. but that was very narrow grounds. this could be a much bigger decision with a nationwide impact and of course it comes as
empowered to enforce something as vigilantes on behalf of the state. the supreme court admitted as far as texas is concerned, this type approach need not be limited to laws banning abortion. any law written with this kind of vigilante enforcement mechanism would also not be allowed to be challenged in federal court. justin sotomayor tested that. justice elena kagan followed up on it. i pulled this piece of the elena kagan back and forth with the texas solicitor general. i think it is instruction active, almost explanatory to hear justice kagan become exasperated by this line of argument. she has to basically back up after he tries to move on and go, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, did you just say what i think you said?
vimarsana © 2020. All Rights Reserved.