Imagine being so loud and dumb that even Sonya Fucking Sotomayor thinks you're loud and dumb.

Quote

Daily Caller

@DailyCaller

·

Apr 30

🚨 During Supreme Court oral argument today, Justice Sotomayor CUT OFF Justice Jackson when she questioned a lawyer- "just let him finish," Sotomayor interjected.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5719259&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#48896265)

this reveals something important about libs and cons. lib shit is inherently performative and oral arguments their time to shine. this reminds me of all the meetings i've attended where the more useless people take up most of the time talking. libs act like the meeting *is* the job or that oral arguments *are* the end game, and so talking = contributing, and so the person who spoke the most contributed the most.

it's all a big performance. most matters can be decided on the briefs, and in fact are because the justices are not being informed or influenced during oral arguments. but the reason so many of the lawyers and judges are there isn't because they're seeking to efficiently and most effectively resolve disputes, it's because they want to be a big important person who talks in a prestigious room and everyone has to listen.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5719259&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#48896416)

The people at the top of pyramid do 99% performative talking head shit and 1% material contributions, gradually reversing to the bottom

Has nothing to do with politics

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5719259&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#48896424)

long version

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KLUQzcRhn8

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5719259&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#48896432)

in both cases it's about saying you're going to do something without actually doing. shitlibs yap and yap and hammer an "in this house" sign on their yard but never do anything.

note i'm talking about shitlibs and not small-l libs. sure, yapping performatively is not rooted in ideology. shitlib is not an ideology, it's a feminine reaction to whatever the current thing is.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5719259&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#48896449)

she finally ended her monologue and the lawyer for the the parents began rattling off cite after cite to the record where it was shown the bad stuff happened. so Jackson interrupted him, cut him off, and changed topics.

another instance was the recent case where she tried to get everyone to liken the case to Loving v Virginia and the lawyers were like, "uh, not really."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5719259&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#48896427)

https://www.c-span.org/program/public-affairs-event/mahmoud-v-taylor-oral-argument/658604

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5719259&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#48896616)

i'm sure the lib justices hate her even more than the con justices. just a total embarrassment

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5719259&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#48896640)

"i need you to focus on my question"

jfc not only is that straight up advocacy but she's doing emotional sassy black woman shit. she's doing dat too many lettuce at the highest court in the land!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5719259&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#48896659)

*clears throat* "Ahem, ma'am, I apologize, but uh, look, you're a stupid nigger. I gotta finish my errands and get groceries."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5719259&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#48896673)

This is just how women are. Like you said, the talking and the social performance is the end, not the means. You can say it's "lib," and yeah this is true because shitlibbery is fundamentally feminine, but what's really going on here is 'women'

If women weren't allowed to be judges, for example, and the entire supreme court was male, the lib males on the court wouldn't be acting in this way

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5719259&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#48896436)

to be fair mindless yapping is important in community building and if everyone was stoic goal-oriented men there would be a lot less joy and beauty in the world. there's a reason men miss their wives for reasons other than sex. but there's also a reason why women were deemed unsuitable for work that did not involve socialization. there's a reason why women continue to be overrepresented in jobs that require socializing like teaching and nursing. in medicine you see way more women in patient facing roles whereas men tend to do stuff in the lab or surgery.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5719259&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#48896461)

it's not surprising they care more about the number of words said, and the number of qualifications held by the speaker, than the truth of what's said

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5719259&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#48896482)

"she still dirty. I no cleam. u cleam."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5719259&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#48896490)

they rate gorsuch's claim that the book depicts bondage, 5 pinocchios

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5719259&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#48897705)

it was an officially designated pre-K book. pre-K.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5719259&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#48898249)

show your own kids whatever you want, man

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5719259&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#48898551)

and the libs want to play the "how dare you! how dare you interpret our conduct that way!" card when other people describe the obvious purpose of the book. but that card doesn't work as well as it used to.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5719259&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#48898489)

"hey guys did you see trump thought a photoshop of tattoos was real? grrr he's so dumb lol let's move past the fact we tried to chop your toddler's dick off"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5719259&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#48898560)

https://ballsandstrikes.org/scotus/pride-puppy-gorsch-religious-freedom/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5719259&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#48898639)

if, gosh, there is nothing sexual in the book, then why is it so important to libs that it be part of the curriculum?

and why is someone holding up a sign of "Marsha"? (you know who Marsha is, right?) and why "drag kings" and "drag queens"?

and why is the dedication to "all the beautiful queerdos"?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5719259&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#48898767)

https://youtu.be/OgNY_b641pI?t=72

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5719259&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#48898930)

I feel so sorry for kids

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5719259&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#48898597)

the idea that it's not about sexual indoctrination is insulting to everyone, including to the people who champion the book. why not just admit it and defend it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgNY_b641pI

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5719259&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310486#48898772)