BREAKING: Former President Donald Trump Tears Into Current President Joe Biden’s Supreme Court Nominee

Photo Source: Rolling Stone

President Donald Trump, like President Joe Biden’s Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, isn’t one to keep his thoughts to himself. On Saturday night, the former president addressed a throng at a rally in Commerce, Georgia, when he took a shot at the nominee. “The left has gone so far to the left that we now have a Supreme Court nominee who swore under oath that she couldn’t define what a woman is,” he stated. “If she can’t even define a woman.” “How can she be trusted to state what the Constitution is?” said the former president.

“A party that refuses to acknowledge that men and women are biologically different, despite all science and human history,” he continued, “should not be anywhere near the levers of power.” His remarks come after Brown stated she couldn’t describe what a woman is during days of Senate hearings for the candidate.

After being questioned on the subject by Republican Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn, Ketanji Brown Jackson faced a difficult question. “Supposed inherent disparities are no longer acknowledged as a premise for race or national origin classifications,” the senator stated, quoting the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The physical distinctions between males and women, on the other hand, are permanent. The two sexes are incompatible.

“Do you agree with Justice Ginsburg that there are anatomical distinctions between men and women that are enduring?” the senator questioned. “Senator, frankly, I am not acquainted with that specific quotation or case, so it’s difficult for me to speak as to whether or not,” the Supreme Court candidate replied before Brown interrupted her.

“I’d want to hear your thoughts on it, and you may submit it.” Do you see men and women as male and female in Justice Ginsburg’s definition? “Again, I’m not familiar with the case, so I’m not sure how I’d take that.” “I’d have to read it all,” the candidate stated.

“Ok. “Can you also give me a definition for the term ‘woman?'” According to Blackburn. “Could I give you a definition?” Brown retaliated. “No. “I’m sorry, but I’m not able to,” the candidate stated. “Are you sure you can’t?” Blackburn looked at me with a puzzled expression.

"*" indicates required fields

Will You Vote for Donald Trump in 2024?*
By Submitting Your Email, You Will Gain Access To Our Newsletter!

“Not in this situation.” Brown explained, “I’m not a scientist.” It was one of the reasons Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky senator, chose not to vote for her. In an address to the Senate, he said, “After analyzing the nominee’s record and seeing her performance this week, I cannot and will not support Judge Jackson for a lifetime appointment to our Supreme Court.” “First, Judge Jackson refuses to dismiss the extreme argument that Democrats should want to load the Supreme Court with liberals.

Justices Ginsburg and Breyer have no qualms in denouncing and defending their institution in the face of widespread opposition. I figured Judge Jackson would have an easy time with this. But it wasn’t the case.” The opposition leader stated, “The candidate claimed there are two valid sides to the problem.”

“She stated that she had an opinion on the subject but that she would not express it.” She incorrectly equated her non-answer to a different, narrower question that had been posed of a previous nominee. Judge Jackson, on the other hand, appeared to have tipped her hand.

I’d be pleased to be one of whatever many,’ she remarked. The sentiment of Ginsburg and Breyer is the polar opposite. The most radical pro-court-packing fringe groups fought hard for this nominee to be appointed to this position. The court-packers chose Judge Jackson.

And she acted it out in court.” He was also critical of her stance on illegal immigration and other areas where he believed she was soft on crime. “Judge Jackson’s trial court records give a plethora of information in this area. And it’s concerning,” he added.

“The Judge often awarded certain heinous criminals’ low terms that fell short of the sentencing guidelines and the prosecution’ demands. This week, the Judge used the word “policy dispute” to characterize the situation. It’s not only the phrases that are problematic. It’s also the Judge’s rhetoric in the trial record, as well as her inventive ways of bending the law.”

“In one case, Judge Jackson utilized COVID as a pretext to rewrite a criminal justice reform bill from the bench and make it retroactive, something Congress had refused to do.” “She did so to shorten the sentence of a fentanyl trafficker while thousands of Americans perished from overdoses,” he claimed. “Judge Jackson refused to explain the merits of her thinking in individual cases to Senators.

She kept emphasizing that it was her discretion, and that if Congress didn’t like it, it was our responsibility for granting it to her. That hardly qualifies as an explanation for how she employs her judgment.”

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: