- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson channels Cartman
Posted on 1/13/26 at 9:49 pm to dallastigers
Posted on 1/13/26 at 9:49 pm to dallastigers
quote:
quote:
Justice Jackson: And so, to the extent, that you have an individual, who says what is happening in this law is that it is treating someone who is transgender, but who does not have, because of the medical interventions and the things that have been done, who does not have, uh, the same, uh, threat to physical competition and safety and all the reasons the state puts forward — that's actually a different class, says this individual. So you're not treating the class the same. And how do you respond to that?
This is so god damned sinister and at the heart of the definition-changing of Marxists. She's saying 1) the surgery and chemical mutilations done to people are effective (not entirely unless done immediately at the onset of puberty, which is evil, so she's wrong in her premise), and 2) that such a person is thus in the class of people the state purports to protect--in other words, a man/boy who has done the surgeries (which is not what's required by many to compete with women) IS IN FACT a woman and thus your exclusion of them is you "not treating the class the same."
She's backdooring a definition that says Trans men (men who are Trans and identify as women) ARE WOMEN. Yet she could "not" define "woman."
I fricking hate Marxists so god damn fricking much, and this "It'S jUsT A lAW ScHooL tHeORy" Schick is a fricking lie, and when you just say oh that's some crazy liberal stuff that stays in college or California next thing you know you have a fricking SCOTUS member literally redefining woman while a communist Muslim gets elected in New York.
We're so close to fricked, and I'm sick of, "Why do you care bro just calm down." Makes me deus vult hard as frick.
1
Posted on 1/13/26 at 9:58 pm to PowerTool
quote:
Thank you, whoever the hell was running the Biden administration!
Exactly my thoughts. We watched his administration for 4 years give people positions who were not qualified but only chosen because of DEI - because there were women, black, homosexual, etc - and they used these positions to try to further there agenda. When he picked Kamala for VP everyone shoulda known what direction this was headed
Posted on 1/13/26 at 10:03 pm to dallastigers
This SCOTUS judge is a prime example why DEI is a crock of sh$&. Not just in this case but she has shown her incompetence on many occasions. Even Sotomayor has called her out in the past.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 11:21 pm to Macavity92
quote:
Should be recused from this case for not being a biologist.
I may not be a biologist, but I know a man has a pole and woman has a hole.
Even if a man had his pole and converted into a trench, he is still a man. Same with a woman who had skin flaps and fat rolled into a fake pole with a fake pair of balls is still a woman, biologically. He or she did not magically convert a chromosome to either X or Y.
This post was edited on 1/14/26 at 7:20 am
Posted on 1/13/26 at 11:26 pm to Macavity92
quote:
for not being a biologist.
That is, for not being a marine biologist.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 1:12 am to NIH
That there are straight white men who want people like Kentaji and Kamala running our country is pathetic. And they wonder why conservatives accuse them of wanting to turn the country into a third world shithole.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 2:26 am to theunknownknight
quote:Please quit living in the past. It’s DEB now.
DEI
quote:-Copilot
While Inclusion focuses on being invited to the table, Belonging emphasizes feeling at home at that table. It’s about psychological safety, authenticity, and shared ownership of culture. This subtle but powerful shift reframes the goal from representation to connection.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 5:06 am to tiggerfan02 2021
quote:
It is a national embarrassment that someone this fricking stupid was allowed to be sworn in as a justice on the Supreme Court.
Just pathetic.
Every single time she opens her mouth like this the list of Senators who voted to confirm her should be published.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 6:03 am to dallastigers
I don't know why you all are so up in arms. I agree with Justice Diversity Hire that if someone who believes they should have been born a ginger wants to be treated like they have no soul, then we should do that.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 6:55 am to wareaglepete
quote:
Your sex/gender/whatever is not assigned at birth. It is what it is. It’s observed.
You got seven down votes for this comment
Posted on 1/14/26 at 6:59 am to dallastigers
Imagine voting to have someone this stupid in the highest court in the land.
Then being proud of the stupidity this person unleashes on a nearly daily basis.
If you are a woman, how does this not insult you that supposed "feminists" don't know what a woman is?!?!
That rhetorical question isn't aimed at progressive females, BTW. I already know you are bat shite insane.
Then being proud of the stupidity this person unleashes on a nearly daily basis.
If you are a woman, how does this not insult you that supposed "feminists" don't know what a woman is?!?!
That rhetorical question isn't aimed at progressive females, BTW. I already know you are bat shite insane.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 7:03 am to Barbellthor
quote:
This is so god damned sinister and at the heart of the definition-changing of Marxists. She's saying 1) the surgery and chemical mutilations done to people are effective (not entirely unless done immediately at the onset of puberty, which is evil, so she's wrong in her premise), and 2) that such a person is thus in the class of people the state purports to protect--in other words, a man/boy who has done the surgeries (which is not what's required by many to compete with women) IS IN FACT a woman and thus your exclusion of them is you "not treating the class the same."
She's backdooring a definition that says Trans men (men who are Trans and identify as women) ARE WOMEN. Yet she could "not" define "woman."
This post wins the thread.
The day I finally realized that progressives, by and large, are not stupid, but EVIL, it all made sense. Yes, many are both, but their leaders are pure evil.
Remember, these are the same people that want you dead if you don't agree with the fricked up premise above.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 7:06 am to dallastigers
She’s so fricking stupid
Posted on 1/14/26 at 7:11 am to dallastigers
quote:
Justice Jackson: And so, to the extent, that you have an individual, who says what is happening in this law is that it is treating someone who is transgender, but who does not have, because of the medical interventions and the things that have been done, who does not have, uh, the same, uh, threat to physical competition and safety and all the reasons the state puts forward — that's actually a different class, says this individual. So you're not treating the class the same. And how do you respond to that?
You know she sat back after that incoherent diatribe feeling like she’s the smartest person in the room. The fact this imbecile is sitting on our highest court is a national embarrassment.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 8:30 am to HailToTheChiz
quote:
You got seven down votes for this comment
Pretty amazing, isn't it? Imagine thinking a doctor can decide the sex of your child once its born and just assign it on a piece of paper.
Unreal.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 8:34 am to dallastigers
Here's more from this case. How did we get to this point where people are afraid to answer a basic question. Insanity
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. quote:
HOLY SMOKES. SCOTUS Justice Sam Alito asks ACLU lawyer "what is a man and a woman?" and they DON'T HAVE A DEFINITION.
Alito's response is perfect.
ALITO: What does it mean to be a man or woman?
ACLU: We do not have a definition for the Court.
ALITO: How can a court determine whether there's discrimination on the basis of s*x, without KNOWING what s*x means?!
Posted on 1/14/26 at 8:35 am to wareaglepete
quote:It's actually assigned once your birth certificate is filled out.
Your sex/gender/whatever is not assigned at birth. It is what it is. It’s observed.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 8:35 am to dallastigers
Posted on 1/14/26 at 8:43 am to Byron Bojangles III
quote:
It's actually assigned once your birth certificate is filled out.
What? No, it is a box or blank filled in based on an observation. No one assigns what sex you are. Maybe someday we will have Gattica and they will be able to determine while still just an embryo, but until that time, no.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 8:53 am to RLDSC FAN
Alito should have followed with, "Then why are we here?"
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News