Comments by "Daily Wire Third Stringer" (@DailyWireThirdStringer) on "Jackson is sworn in to Supreme Court, new rulings announced | WNT" video.
-
3
-
2
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
2
-
2
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
2
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
2
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
2
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden can nominate whoever he wants. Anyone crying foul that he's selecting on the basis of immutable characteristics better not lean Republican. Ronald Reagan specifically selected the first female nominee to the Supreme Court (Sandra Day O'Connor), his successor George H.W. Bush replaced the first African-American Justice (Thurgood Marshall) with Clarence Thomas, and just over a year ago President Trump made a shortlist of female judges to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat, ultimately deciding on Amy Coney Barrett. Well, two can play at that game...
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
1
-
1
-
Fun fact: The most prosperous societies on Earth are "socialist." I'm talking about Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the Netherlands, just to name a few. Do you mean to say that every time the government spends our taxpayer dollars on HELPING the American people by providing them with basic necessities that every other developed country already provides (universal healthcare, childcare, lower prescription drug costs, a liveable wage, paid maternity leave, etc.) instead of what our corrupt politicians have been spending it on thus far (endless war, the military-industrial complex, weapons for foreign countries, corporate subsidies, Wall Street bailouts, and so on), it is "socialism"?
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history. "Woman" also has two widely accepted definitions: a person who identifies with the female gender (psychological), and a person who possesses the female sex characteristics (biological). In case you were unaware, Justice Jackson is neither a psychologist or a biologist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fun fact: The most prosperous societies on Earth are "socialist." I'm talking about Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the Netherlands, just to name a few. Do you mean to say that every time the government spends our taxpayer dollars on HELPING the American people by providing them with basic necessities that every other developed country already provides (universal healthcare, childcare, lower prescription drug costs, a liveable wage, paid maternity leave, etc.) instead of what our corrupt politicians have been spending it on thus far (endless war, the military-industrial complex, weapons for foreign countries, corporate subsidies, Wall Street bailouts, and so on), it is "socialism"?
1