Comments by "Hugh Jorgan" (@HughJorgan1) on "Fact-checking Ted Cruz's claims against Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson" video.

An “I like beer” member of the SCOTUS is far better than an “I can’t define a woman” member of the SCOTUS.
18
An “I like beer” member of the SCOTUS is far better than an “I can’t define a woman” member of the SCOTUS.
5
She can’t define “woman” and wants to be on the SCOTUS? There’s something seriously wrong with that.
4
I assume you’re a woman. I’m curious what you think of Brown Jackson’s response to a GOP question where she stated she can’t define “woman”?
3
@cellardoor1122 ..A simple definition is that a man is a male human who can produce sperm. Does it bother you that she refuses to define a woman?
3
@ayuds7042 ..You clearly didn’t watch the exchange. The context of the question was for her to provide the biological definition of woman. To which Brown Jackson answered “I can’t, I’m not a biologist”. It’s pretty scary she’s willing to sacrifice all her personal integrity (particularly as a proud black woman) just to appease a few far left idiots in the Democrat party (i.e AOC) and the delusional special interest groups who think guys can just “identify” as women.
1
@ayuds7042 ..A woman is an adult female who can produce eggs (ova) that can be fertilized by male sperm. And they’re still a woman if, for some medical reason or medical procedure, they can’t produce eggs. As long as they have the biological makeup. If Brown Jackson had just given this factual definition she’d be respected. Instead, she chose to look like another brainwashed idiot on the left who’s making up science as they go. Look at it another way: anytime she now refers to women she can be asked “what do you mean by woman”…and it all starts again.
1
@atticuswalker8970 …The globally accepted definition of a woman is “an adult female who can produce eggs (ova) that can be fertilized by male sperm.” And they’re also a woman if for some medical reason (i.e menopause) or medical procedure (i.e a hysterectomy) they can’t produce eggs. As long as they have the biological makeup (i.e. the were born a female).
1
@atticuswalker8970 …The definition of female is the same…someone that has the biological ability to produce eggs. The definition of female (or girl and woman) has nothing to do with human rights. It’s just the scientific description of about half our species.
1
@atticuswalker8970 ..It’s only an issue for Democrats and the deranged leftists. They want to ignore science and redefine who a girl and woman is. The question was asked in the SCOTUS hearings to gauge where Brown-Jackson stands on the issue. She refused to answer because she was trying to appease the Democrats and the deranged leftists. It made her look like a complete idiot, particularly since the definition of a woman is globally accepted as fact.
1
@annelevin1935 …You’re talking about a minuscule percentage of the population. Their medical situation has nothing to do with the globally accepted definitions of a woman and a man. Moreover, it’s illogical to assume those born without clear gender characteristics even want be referred to as one of the two genders.
1
@cellardoor1122 ..”Cultural context” doesn’t remotely affect the factual definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’. Again, doesn’t it bother you that a woman wanting to be on the SCOTUS can’t define a woman?
1
@Alice-May ..I know facts are very upsetting to those on the left so your comment is pretty standard. The factual definitions of a ‘man’ and a ‘woman’ are irrefutable. And they will never change no matter how much some people and activist groups want them to.
1
@Earl_Larson …Doesn’t it bother you that she can’t define “woman”?
1
@a.k.7341 …Stop repeating lies. There was zero proof Kavanaugh was ever abusive to Christine Ford or any other women. It’s mind boggling you don’t know that.
1