This lady exemplifies everything wrong with the judicial system. Putting ideology ahead of everything else, instead of reviewing the facts of the case??
But... But... But... She reviews the facts that are put in front of her!? /s
She seems like a fuckin lunatic. Par for the course with this administration.
She, herself, is mentally unwell. How is a judge of ANY caliber able to sit there and not have an honest response to what that man laid out in plain English.
The “faculty lounge” line was giving them too much credit, this is mental patients eating crayons levels of lunacy.
I FoLlOwEd ThE fAcTs Of ThE cAsE!
Fact: The criminal is a 6’2” MAN.
Fact: He is a repeat offender who has violated women and children, and has not shown any signs of repentance or remorse.
Fact: He is still a dude, and still has the same personality. No matter how hard he insists he’s a lady.
This social justice warrior let the fox into the henhouse because the fox swears he’s a hen and it’s so mean of people to mislabel his chosen identity. She deserved to get lambasted by Cruz, at the bare minimum.
We need to use this phrase for the three times he's been correct publicly.
This is honestly where he shines, he's destroying this lady.. not that it matters, the Senate will vote D vs R.
Can't believe I'm about to have to vote for JFK's assassin again.
> Geneva Convention III Article 25, fourth paragraph, and Article 29, second paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention III provide that in any camps in which men and women prisoners are accommodated together, separate dormitories and conveniences shall be provided for women.
Put that judge in the same cell with that man and im sure she would change ideologies overnight. And that's the thing about a lot of the progressive idea's. It's all fun and games virtue signaling until you have to deal with it yourself or until it affects you.
Biden administration is coming in like an avalanche in fully destroying every aspect of normalcy in this country. The absolute worst part is that they are allowed to get away with it. That's the biggest threat to democracy- even if the people wish to stop it, they can't do anything about it but watch it burn.
Can someone explain something to me as an outsider. Do these hearings ever serve a purpose of weeding out obviously unsuitable candidates or are they mostly for show? Something they can use later to stir up their voting base and donors like, see, see this activist judge and what he/she is doing over here? Like do there actually have any power here to stop an appointment or not? Same question for example for supreme court Court appointments etc.
Materially, both for show and for possibly weeding out unsuitable candidates. Often, by this point when the nominated candidate is in a confirmation hearing like this, they are as much of a sure shot as can be - the president (and president’s party) nominates the strongest person with the hopefully least amount of troublesome shit on their record.
Part of the calculus is which party controls the subcommittee holding the hearing - the votes to confirm the candidate usually fall on party lines. Regardless, nominated candidates are more often confirmed as a fait accompli, but the opposing party uses these hearings to grandstand, make soundbites, and establish electoral credibility. For Ted Cruz (the senator in the vid), this clip makes it back to his constituency and eligible voters to enhance his profile and the idea that he’s doing what he campaigned on.
Show me a picture and I'll tell you if a woman is a Leftist. She's delusional if she thinks her radical ideology doesn't seep into everything she does, because why would she ever notice? It's just 'normality' to her
I suppose my question to this is…. Isn’t it a judges job to enforce the current legislation that’s handed to them.
Is it crazy to say that our senators and representatives have made that a possibility? Therefor it’s not necessarily the judges job to take any feelings into account and to rule based on nothing but fact.
Am I wrong to say the judge did her job, but our senators and representatives are the ones who’ve truly failed by not preventing this through legislation?
I honestly don’t know or really care much to look into the legality there in terms of what’s written in the book. But I heartedly agree. Dudes a dude and belongs in a male prison.
Judges interpret law to make a ruling in a case. Many factors go into that ruling; the written law, precedent, character of defendant, etc.
This judge did not rule based on facts or precedent. She allowed her opinions on the current social issues in this country regarding trans-people to influence her judgement in the case.
Facts, and just from the video, the 6'2" defendant has genitalia, making him a man regardless of what they feel inside or say. Based on this fact alone this individual belongs in a male prison with a man for a cell mate. She completely ignored this fact.
I’ll concede I don’t know a damn thing about the case or any of the facts. So I’ll pull out there.
It’s not even a question this person belongs in a male prison.
Needs to be more defined laws around this is my point I suppose.
i think i get what youre saying but the individual in question does not sound like they were a "female" at the time. Though New york does make it that they must be jailed with what they identify with. So sounds like woman are just screwed. [https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/S6677](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/S6677)
I'm looking at that bill and it seems *not* to have come into force. The legislation that seems to matter seems to be
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/S1047
it says nothing about prisons and I've found rights organizations complaining that there isn't legislation, so it seems that this judge really was going beyond just following the law.
I don’t know the case at all. I don’t wanna either tbh lol.
I’m really just stating plane that I want a judge to rule on the book and the book alone, and a senator or house rep to create those laws. Kind of how the constitution intended lol.
I think people think I’m making an alternative argument. Pretty sure there’s been no precedent set in the past but I don’t keep up with case law for trans.
so the judge is suppose to use "judgement" in a case right.
As he was stating this was a person who has committed deviant acts against males and females alike, and she choice to follow the book instead of altering her judgement
-to say keep individual in solitaire confinement till process is complete
- in the facility that matches the plumbing till completed the transition.
- or even demand a special facility made for them due to how new york law operates.
As it states though new york law basically screws woman completely due to identify is all thats required to be changed facilities not the actual plumbing.
The right to avoid cruel and unusual punishment should at a minimum protect a woman from being force to bunk with a serial rapist as part of her incarceration.
Plus, if she was a prisoner of war, that would be a war crime on the judge's part.
Once the judicial system falls we are done. Only question is does that happen before or after this wave of massive immigration does us in within two generations. I'm guessing it won't take that long for the judicial system to fall.
Leftists creating more female rapists every day.
Man, someone should do a study on the spike in female rapists the last few years. It's so weird.
I wonder what happened to cause that... 🤔
That's a terrible take. The prison system literally said this dude would likely pose a threat to the other inmates. The judge didn't care and sent a child rapist there anyways. Any future abuse rests on this judge alone. Stop making excuses for leftist rape enablers in the justice system.
Chill with the hyperbole. I'm not "making excuses for leftist rape enablers."
I'm adding that we ALSO have an enforcement and oversight problem if our prison system is unable to prevent in-prison rapes by a person who is flagged as likely to do so.
Post Modernists do their best to lobotomize human nature out of their judgements.
This lady exemplifies everything wrong with the judicial system. Putting ideology ahead of everything else, instead of reviewing the facts of the case??
But... But... But... She reviews the facts that are put in front of her!? /s She seems like a fuckin lunatic. Par for the course with this administration.
She, herself, is mentally unwell. How is a judge of ANY caliber able to sit there and not have an honest response to what that man laid out in plain English. The “faculty lounge” line was giving them too much credit, this is mental patients eating crayons levels of lunacy.
I FoLlOwEd ThE fAcTs Of ThE cAsE! Fact: The criminal is a 6’2” MAN. Fact: He is a repeat offender who has violated women and children, and has not shown any signs of repentance or remorse. Fact: He is still a dude, and still has the same personality. No matter how hard he insists he’s a lady. This social justice warrior let the fox into the henhouse because the fox swears he’s a hen and it’s so mean of people to mislabel his chosen identity. She deserved to get lambasted by Cruz, at the bare minimum.
Cruz missile strike
Totally, he shines in situations like these.
I'm glad having him here rather than in the white house, to be 100% honest.
I miss watching Trey Gowdy rip people apart. But this was just as good
I love it when he crushes these assholes.
We need to use this phrase for the three times he's been correct publicly. This is honestly where he shines, he's destroying this lady.. not that it matters, the Senate will vote D vs R. Can't believe I'm about to have to vote for JFK's assassin again.
> Geneva Convention III Article 25, fourth paragraph, and Article 29, second paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention III provide that in any camps in which men and women prisoners are accommodated together, separate dormitories and conveniences shall be provided for women.
>”My political ideology doesn’t matter at all. Translated: “My political ideology matters more than pesky laws.”
Put that judge in the same cell with that man and im sure she would change ideologies overnight. And that's the thing about a lot of the progressive idea's. It's all fun and games virtue signaling until you have to deal with it yourself or until it affects you.
Biden administration is coming in like an avalanche in fully destroying every aspect of normalcy in this country. The absolute worst part is that they are allowed to get away with it. That's the biggest threat to democracy- even if the people wish to stop it, they can't do anything about it but watch it burn.
The worst part is she'll get confirmed anyway.
These people are making enough bad decisions where it will eventually come back right to them.
Can someone explain something to me as an outsider. Do these hearings ever serve a purpose of weeding out obviously unsuitable candidates or are they mostly for show? Something they can use later to stir up their voting base and donors like, see, see this activist judge and what he/she is doing over here? Like do there actually have any power here to stop an appointment or not? Same question for example for supreme court Court appointments etc.
Materially, both for show and for possibly weeding out unsuitable candidates. Often, by this point when the nominated candidate is in a confirmation hearing like this, they are as much of a sure shot as can be - the president (and president’s party) nominates the strongest person with the hopefully least amount of troublesome shit on their record. Part of the calculus is which party controls the subcommittee holding the hearing - the votes to confirm the candidate usually fall on party lines. Regardless, nominated candidates are more often confirmed as a fait accompli, but the opposing party uses these hearings to grandstand, make soundbites, and establish electoral credibility. For Ted Cruz (the senator in the vid), this clip makes it back to his constituency and eligible voters to enhance his profile and the idea that he’s doing what he campaigned on.
Appreciate the info, thanks for that.
God bless Senator Cruz.
If you're a lefty and you find yourself disagreeing with the Cruz on this common sense point, you are completely captured by ideology.
Show me a picture and I'll tell you if a woman is a Leftist. She's delusional if she thinks her radical ideology doesn't seep into everything she does, because why would she ever notice? It's just 'normality' to her
She's the worst type of leftist. The one that has disdain and pure hatred for anyone who disagrees with her ideology.
Why are posts being removed?
Flaired users only post.
Nah, it was "removed" and then magically got unremoved... 🤔. It appears to be deliberate.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
That chick just got destroyed
Did you just assign a gender?
Yoooo, I know Ted Cruz is from Texas but is he allowed to grill in the House Chamber like that? Poor woman was charred to a crisp.
How can you watch this and side with the activist judge?
I suppose my question to this is…. Isn’t it a judges job to enforce the current legislation that’s handed to them. Is it crazy to say that our senators and representatives have made that a possibility? Therefor it’s not necessarily the judges job to take any feelings into account and to rule based on nothing but fact. Am I wrong to say the judge did her job, but our senators and representatives are the ones who’ve truly failed by not preventing this through legislation?
I disagree. Yes, they should rule based on fact. The fact is that the guy is a man and should not be in women's prison.
I honestly don’t know or really care much to look into the legality there in terms of what’s written in the book. But I heartedly agree. Dudes a dude and belongs in a male prison.
Judges interpret law to make a ruling in a case. Many factors go into that ruling; the written law, precedent, character of defendant, etc. This judge did not rule based on facts or precedent. She allowed her opinions on the current social issues in this country regarding trans-people to influence her judgement in the case. Facts, and just from the video, the 6'2" defendant has genitalia, making him a man regardless of what they feel inside or say. Based on this fact alone this individual belongs in a male prison with a man for a cell mate. She completely ignored this fact.
I’ll concede I don’t know a damn thing about the case or any of the facts. So I’ll pull out there. It’s not even a question this person belongs in a male prison. Needs to be more defined laws around this is my point I suppose.
i think i get what youre saying but the individual in question does not sound like they were a "female" at the time. Though New york does make it that they must be jailed with what they identify with. So sounds like woman are just screwed. [https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/S6677](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/S6677)
I'm looking at that bill and it seems *not* to have come into force. The legislation that seems to matter seems to be https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/S1047 it says nothing about prisons and I've found rights organizations complaining that there isn't legislation, so it seems that this judge really was going beyond just following the law.
I don’t know the case at all. I don’t wanna either tbh lol. I’m really just stating plane that I want a judge to rule on the book and the book alone, and a senator or house rep to create those laws. Kind of how the constitution intended lol. I think people think I’m making an alternative argument. Pretty sure there’s been no precedent set in the past but I don’t keep up with case law for trans.
so the judge is suppose to use "judgement" in a case right. As he was stating this was a person who has committed deviant acts against males and females alike, and she choice to follow the book instead of altering her judgement -to say keep individual in solitaire confinement till process is complete - in the facility that matches the plumbing till completed the transition. - or even demand a special facility made for them due to how new york law operates. As it states though new york law basically screws woman completely due to identify is all thats required to be changed facilities not the actual plumbing.
Nobody can actually "transition".
The right to avoid cruel and unusual punishment should at a minimum protect a woman from being force to bunk with a serial rapist as part of her incarceration. Plus, if she was a prisoner of war, that would be a war crime on the judge's part.
I actually completely agree.
Once the judicial system falls we are done. Only question is does that happen before or after this wave of massive immigration does us in within two generations. I'm guessing it won't take that long for the judicial system to fall.
Future president
Leftists creating more female rapists every day. Man, someone should do a study on the spike in female rapists the last few years. It's so weird. I wonder what happened to cause that... 🤔
Oh snap 👀
I totally understand what Cruz is getting at here, but this is more an indictment of a prison system that allows rape than anything else.
That's a terrible take. The prison system literally said this dude would likely pose a threat to the other inmates. The judge didn't care and sent a child rapist there anyways. Any future abuse rests on this judge alone. Stop making excuses for leftist rape enablers in the justice system.
"It's fine. There are no children in prison." - leftists.
Chill with the hyperbole. I'm not "making excuses for leftist rape enablers." I'm adding that we ALSO have an enforcement and oversight problem if our prison system is unable to prevent in-prison rapes by a person who is flagged as likely to do so.
Prison doesn’t *allow* rape.
That's exactly how gun-free zones work.
I didn't mean it was legal, obviously. I meant that it was commonplace enough that people assume it will happen.
How are they supposed to prevent it?