Wingnuts Launch New Attack On Merrick Garland: He’s A Liberal Judge From A Liberal President [VIDEO]

Politico reports:

A deep-pocketed conservative advocacy group opposing Merrick Garland is spending a half-million dollars in five states for a new ad proclaiming that the Supreme Court nominee is “no moderate” — the latest phase of its pricey anti-Garland campaign.

The ad from Judicial Crisis Network will start running on TV and online Friday in West Virginia, Colorado, North Dakota, Iowa and New Hampshire. It’s intended to pressure Democratic senators and candidates against Garland by casting the jurist as a solid liberal who would transform the Supreme Court.

Accompanying the Judicial Crisis Network’s new ad buy is an email campaign — with messages sent to 1.5 million conservative activists nationwide but a particular focus in West Virginia, Colorado, North Dakota, Iowa and New Hampshire — denouncing Garland’s record and asking them to sign a petition urging senators to reject Garland.

The new buy from the conservative group, which had already spent $4 million on the court fight, comes as senators head home for a weeklong recess.

Prior to Obama’s election in 2008, the Judicial Crisis Network was known as the Judicial Confirmation Network. That tells you everything you need to know about them.

  • oikos
    • lymis

      Well said. Reminds me of the rant by the Michal Douglas character in The American President:
      “For the record, yes, I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU, but the more important question is “Why aren’t you, Bob?” Now this is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, so it naturally begs the question, why would a senator, his party’s most powerful spokesman and a candidate for President, choose to reject upholding the constitution? Now if you can answer that question, folks, then you’re smarter than I am, because I didn’t understand it until a few hours ago.

      America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You’ve gotta want it bad, ’cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say, “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.” You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.

      Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.”

      • i enjoyed that movie. i’m not often interested in romantic comedies, but that one was very cute.

    • Jerry

      Similar to JFK quote. Except now, conservative means fear and loathing of anyone who doesn’t look like you, believe the same religion as you, or speak the same language; and conservatives, above all, want to destroy any government program other than defense.

    • StraightGrandmother

      Liberals created the Environmental Protection Agency!

  • bkmn

    A political group that doesn’t have to disclose donors. JCN is funded by the Wellspring Committee, which has ties to NOM.

  • Phil

    Face it – Judicial Crisis Network views Attila the Hun as a liberal.

    • Mark

      and Mussolini too.

    • Phillip in L.A.


  • Treant

    I was a little cool on Garland, but this video convinces me he’d be GREAT for the Supreme Court!

    • Octavio

      A hah! And there’s the genius in their plan. That’s exactly what they want you to think. Bwa, ha, ha, ha, ha!

  • Michael Rush

    Liberal isn’t an insult , conservative is .

    • vorpal

      Conservatives can’t find their shoelaces untied without terming it a crisis, and quite possibly the fault of some Obama-fueled liberal conspiracy.

      These people masturbate to fear and persecution.

    • Gyeo

      They haven’t progress socially since the 1950’s, so of course in their minds they think liberal is the perfect insult.

  • Bluto

    I cannot fathom the alternate reality these people live in.

    • vorpal

      Consider that a blessing.

  • Elliott

    I think conservatives are finally realizing that their last hope for winning this election is to make the conversation about the SCOTUS instead of their presidential nominee. I doubt low-information voters will listen.

    • bambinoitaliano

      The same apply to those stay at home but vote liberals.

      • Jean-Marc in Canada

        Yup, be it the BernieBros or ImWithHer crowd, if liberals stay home because they throw a tantrum, they’ll have to accept their part in fucking up SCOTUS.

        • Reality.Bites

          Like the Nader supporters have accepted their part in Bush the Sequel?

          • Jean-Marc in Canada

            My point exactly. They’ll just bitch and moan and blame it on everyone else while not once seeing the irony of it all.

        • Balderdashing

          And continued GOP gerrymandering, and Christian religious supremacy recodified in laws, and increased sell-out of our rights to corporate executives, and the accelerated destruction of our environment, and…

    • Jeffg166

      Before peeing became an issue for them I would have agreed. Now I think it will be all about who pees where.

  • Dean

    I guess that we will never learn the true depth of the pits of hell. Just when we think we have found it the RTWNJ’s will surprise us with yet another batch of putrid slime. I hope Garland eventually gets the appointment and gets revenge on these assholes.

  • Sam_Handwich

    Obviously what the Judicial Crisis Queens fear most is their own Mitch McConnell cracking under the political strain of this boneheaded obstruction.

    • abel

      Mitch McConnell is the vilest politician in this country, even worse than Ted Cruz; he’s just not as dangerous as Cruz. But I sure hope this man isn’t re-elected next time.

  • Mark Neé Fuzz

    What’s the point anyway. Did I miss news about Bitch McConnell and company suddenly doing their jobs?

    • Reality.Bites

      You gotta spend money to grift money

  • Sam_Handwich

    Josh Marshall posted an interesting take on what the Garland/Trump fiasco might mean for republican senators in swing states….

    The key thing is that that this ‘not doing your job’ argument is most powerful with loosely politicized voters with minimal partisan attachments – precisely the people, the relatively few people, who are genuinely up for grabs in these kinds of elections.

    But Trump’s all but certain nomination adds an important new twist. …. The likelihood of Trump’s nomination was there for anyone to see in February when Republicans committed to this position. Now that it’s all but a certainly it casts the these swing states senate races in a much grimmer light for the incumbents.

    • BobSF_94117

      I can only assume that Obama’s relative quiessence on the stalling is that they plan to pound the Republicans on this issue in the campaign.

      • lymis

        One can hope. Between that and the GOP’s appalling record on veteran’s care, it’s two traditionally conservative issues that the Democrats can freely run with.

      • Phillip in L.A.

        yes, BobSF_94117–“let the DNC do the dirty work!”

  • Prion

  • Prion


  • Prion


  • Prion


  • WebSlinger

    The figure represents the average ideology of clerks that have worked for the justice during their time on the Supreme Court. Garland’s placement on the scale is based on the average ideology of the clerks that have worked for him during his time on the Court of Appeals.

    Article in the Washington Post:

    • Sam_Handwich

      from last week in case you missed it…

      • Octavio

        The growing boy needs his naps.

      • WebSlinger

        LOVED IT…I saw it and laughed so hard…

      • Stephen Elliot Phillips

        Thomas is not just a travesty of the judicial branch.
        He is the epitome of the flat earth, non-critical thinking that republicans believe affirmative action actually causes.
        Thomas was and is completely unqualified to be a judge on the supreme court.

      • Phillip in L.A.

        Wonderful! Thx, candidate Handwich!

    • Phillip in L.A.

      I like how Thomas approaches the asymptote, WebSlinger! Thx for posting.

      P.S. I’m not sure the “average ideology of clerks that have worked for the justice” is a valid surrogate for the “average ideology of a justice”–whatever that means.

  • Michael Smith

    If they hate Garland, just wait until Hillary gets in.

  • Bless their little hearts.

  • Bad Tom

    Well, Garland is no Scalia. To them nothing else is acceptable.

    • Reality.Bites

      Indeed. They wouldn’t confirm Roberts if Obama nominated him

  • Hank

    The other day I heard about Garland’s work overseeing the Ok;ahem bombing. From what they said he was on the ground and intimately overseeing, what took place. Let them play THAT in the “heartland”!!!

    “Garland’s responsibilities included the supervision of high-profile domestic-terrorism cases, including the Oklahoma City bombing, Ted Kaczynski (also known as the “Unabomber”), and the Atlanta Olympics bombings.[3][24]

    Garland insisted on being sent to Oklahoma City in the aftermath of that attack to examine the crime scene and oversee the investigation in preparation for the prosecution.[25] He represented the government at the preliminary hearings of the two main defendants, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols.[25] Garland offered to lead the trial team, but could not because he was needed at the Justice Department headquarters.”

    • Sam_Handwich

      Obama plays chess. Republicans play with themselves

    • Octavio

      Obviously all this proves he has a long affiliation with terrorists and commie pinkos. Hang ’em!

  • JT
    • Phillip in L.A.

      This will be in high-school textbooks in 2035, JT!


    Not a single reference on any case he has ruled on. The Senate Rethugs must finally be feeling the heat for stalling.

  • AtticusP

    No problem.

    Our next president, Clinton 45, will appoint SCOTUS justices far more liberal than Merrick Garland could ever hope to be.

    Fuck you, Judicial Crisis Network!

    • Sam_Handwich

      I tend to think that Garland’s nomination will continue through the fall and he’ll be quietly confirmed after the GOP”s disaster in November…..for precisely the reason you mentioned

      • canoebum

        A very real possibility.

  • Mark

    As a matter of fact, I don’t really care if it is Hillary or Bernie. Really, I don’t care. However, I do care who will be filling the chair at SCOTUS, which means I will vote blue no matter who.

  • i hate america. “liberal” is not a bad word, and people who are liberal are not automatically evil. but americans are so stupid that labeling people liberal has effectively become the new commie smear.

    meh, it’s too early to rant. but the concept that this push of ads would work on some people just makes me angry and sad at our polity and media.

    • Tigernan Quinn

      You hate America. Lady, I served in this country’s military, and although I will defend your right to say such drivel, you can kiss every bit of my dual citizenship ass. And what’s keeping you here, hater? Kindly see yourself out.

      • Alyssa

        fuck off with this patriotic bullshit.

      • Todd20036

        CD is ranting son. That’s all she’s doing. And yes, that’s her right. And no, she doesn’t hate the country, just the vileness of the GOTP and the willingness of the democrats to (in the spirit of compromise) allow them to get away with it for so long.

        But personally, I think everyone’s patience with the GOP and GOTP have run out.

    • The problem is not so much that conservatives turned liberal into a dirty word, but that liberals let them do it. They ran scared from the big ol’ mean right wing and this is the result.

  • lymis

    We need to have a law – an actual law – that requires the Senate to act in a reasonable amount of time to actually vote on these candidates, and if they don’t then the President’s appointment goes into effect by default.

    • billbear1961

      The President has done HIS constitutional DUTY and asked the Senate to “advise and consent” on this matter, as the Constitution requires.

      They’ve had their chance and DECLINED IT, lymis.

      At least one legal scholar has suggested a LEGAL case can be made that the President may now move ahead and place his nominee on the Court.

      • canoebum

        I like that idea. Failure to act in a timely manner should be taken as consent.

        • billbear1961

          Certainly as a waiver of one’s right to take part.

          I think that’s how the legal scholar put it: by refusing to act, they’ve effectively waived their right to advise and consent.

          They’ve got no right whatsoever to defy the Constitution and to refuse, indefinitely, to do what it clearly DEMANDS of them.

  • vorpal

    I went to the YouTube page to watch the video.
    I was shocked – utterly shocked – to see that both video ratings and comments had been disabled!

  • Charlie

    OK, so let’s say Scalia died in Feb 2008. Baby Bush is President and the Dems are in control of the Senate. Does anyone really believe that if Harry Reid said he won’t entertain any Bush nominees to replace Scalia until the NEW President takes office in January 2009 would fly easily with the vapid rethuglicans? I think not.

    • Of course not, because Democrats always cave. Republicans rarely do. I’m not saying we should take up Teabagger tactics of burning down the building because we can’t get our way, but the reason the right gets so much of what they want is that they stand firm while Democrats buckle to any pressure or criticism.

    • billbear1961

      A Senate controlled by Democrats did its constitutional DUTY in 1988, Reagan’s last year in office and an election year, and approved Reagan’s choice of Anthony Kennedy for SCOTUS.

      The current GOP Senate is flagrantly violating the Constitution and is GUILTY of blatant SEDITION.

  • You have to be an extreme right wing nut to think Garland is a liberal.

  • TampaDink

    Has there always been campaign ads opposing SCOTUS nominees (and I’ve been oblivious) or is this something new?

  • billbear1961

    “Who does this Obama think he IS, the President doing his constitutional DUTY?! The Constitution–ours to defy and DESTROY, America!”–American FASCISTS

  • billbear1961
  • Tor

    Why bother to campaign against him when the Senate won’t act anyway? Something else is at work here.

    • Phillip in L.A.

      Well, someone could be scared Judge Garland might be confirmed

    • Phillip in L.A.

      I bet it’s those meddling kids, Tor!

  • Duane Dimitrov

    Is this any surprise?

    Conservatives know their garbage “philosophy” is not shared by even a plurality of Americans. Why do you think they’ve been packing the courts at all levels for years? It’s their last line of defense.

    That’s why “Scalia’s Seat” is something they–quite literally–think belongs to them.

    • Yep — and should Ginsberg or one of the other liberal-leaning justices retire or pass on, they’ll insist only “strict conservative originalists” get those seats, too.

      • Duane Dimitrov

        This “originalist” judicial philosophy is such complete bullshit.

        I’m done treating it as if it’s a real thing.

    • The_Wretched

      They didn’t seem to think they had to appoint a relative moderate or woman to replace Sandra Day O’Connor.

      • Duane Dimitrov

        Oh, you’re now entering the territory of the “double standards that are never to be spoken of.”

        See…conservatives can do one thing, then scream bloody burder if the Democrats try and do the same thing. It’s just an immutable law of nature, like gravity.

  • Ninja0980

    The woman behind this effort clerked for Clarence Thomas, who replaced one of the most liberal members of the court with his far right asshole views.
    I’m assuming Ms. Severino had no problem when that occurred.

  • Balderdashing

    Wow, if Merrick Garland is a liberal, they’re probably holding out for a centrist like Jim Crow.

    • What makes you think they haven’t been looking for that already?

  • Cuberly

    The high probability that theyll lose this election, right after Scalia bought the farm, must be horrifying to them. Truly the last vestige of St. Reagan, gone.

    If we win, the potential to undo the worst of the worst of Scalia is within our grasp. That’s actually quite exciting.

    • Phillip in L.A.

      Are you saying Judge Garland would vote to overturn Citizens United, Cuberly?

      • Cuberly

        I don’t think he’ll be appointed to begin with. He’ll either withdrawl his name from consideration or Obama will.

        The far far far fringe is pulling the strings w/ the GOP on this they don’t want any Obama nominees considered. Period.

      • Cuberly

        Oops, I mean’t I don’t think he’ll be confirmed to begin with…sheesh…me and english. 🙁

  • So similar liberal organizations should run ads in Utah running Orrin Hatch’s quote saying that Obama should nominate someone like Merrick Garland,and ads in Iowa with similar quotes from Chuck Grassley.

  • So of course they’d change their name right back to the Judicial Confirmation Network the day a GOPer President is back in office. Because remember kids: Republicans only consider other Republicans to be legitimately elected officials whose every action carries the force of religious commandment. Any Democrats can go pound sand.

  • Jay George

    Damn, I wish I had money to throw away. }:^{

  • Tempus Fuggit

    Excuse please: how is this even a matter for advertisements?

  • Phillip in L.A.

    O/T But Important & Thanks George H.W. Bush & Son!

    Iraqi Shia protesters storm Baghdad parliament

  • TallBearNC

    My response is this:

    when Hillary or Bernie is elected for president, and the Democrats gain control of the Senate in November, none of this crap will matter because Hillery or Sanders – Bernie – will be able to put whom ever they want on the bench because they will have a democrat majority in the Senate , and can pretty much put up whomever they want unopposed and Republicans will have missed out on the chance to block a liberal judge from being on the bench. If he allowed Obama to make an appointment at least they would have a centrist and not a liberal judge.

    The Reason why this election is so critical is we already have a radical far religious right justice pass away – and he was a radical because he often based his decisions on his Christian faith versus the law and the constitution – which should’ve gotten him fired and disbarred a long time ago. In 2009, state Supreme Court judge got Sparred, fired, and even put in jail for a few months because he said that he refused marry an interracial couple because of his Christian faith. No matter what level of a judge you are, you swear and Oates to put your personal and spiritual/religious believes behind and you will rule in a fair and I’m partial manor based on the facts – not what your religion teaches you or what you were brought up to believe that may or may not be religious….Breaking that owes for a judge doesn’t just mean they get dismissed – depending on the offense and how many times I did it he can go as far as them being incarcerated

    The Republicans are making a very risky and dangerous mistake because they are betting on getting a Republican president and betting on keeping control of the senate. And the chances of both happening are slim at best

    They were smart, they would allow Obama to put a centrist on the bench versus having Sanders or Clinton putting an ultra liberal on the bench if Democrats gain control of the Senate which most polling and statistic, blah blah experts say is about a 90% chance dems will control the Senate after the November election. 25-33% chance Democrats can take the house in November as well

    I wish all of those things come true because I would love to watch the Republicans and the farm religious right just be utterly freaked out for the next four to possibly eight years. Say 4 to 8 because chances are Hillary or sanders would get elected again, but the house and senate could change majority at four years

    But if this November we end up with a Democratic president, and a complete Democratic majority Congress, there will be nothing Republicans can do to stop Democrats and liberals from passing Equality laws they want

    The laws will fly through Congress and the president will sign them. If Republicans try to sue over them , in fed court, or below, and try to get the law declared unconstitutional, a liberal Supreme Court will most likely uphold the law – unless Democrats actually do pass something unconstitutional which I highly doubt. The far extreme right (esp far right religious) seems to think they are the constitutional experts in this country when they are the ones who actually twist , wrongly, the Constitution out of any other group. In this scenario, Christians will find – correction, extreme far right Christian and Christian groups will find that they have completely lost their power base in this country – at least for a short time. I corrected myself because there are plenty of left Christians who except gay/bi people who are understanding of transgender’s and their bathroom needs, and they see the Bible for what it is and don’t twist it. This is the Republicans/far right Christian’s worst nightmare. People would still be free to practice and worship however they choose in their church or in their home, but religion and it’s oppressive effects would be nullified everywhere else in the United States. This is what the fanatics would call to death of religion in the America and the far right’s would consider this the death of America.

    scenarios and outcomes;

    D Pres, D Cong: explained above, Scotus could be 6 Libs, 3C (Utteral liberal control of the Supreme Court) and there’s no way conservatives could gather enough support to pass a constitutional amendment to block the rulings. This is something I would love to see because we have never seen this in the history of the United States. We have seen a complete Democrat government for a brief period of time under President Clinton, but the Supreme Court was tilted conservative

    D Pres, R House, D senate: scotus same as above , but democrats laws may/ or will die in the house

    D Pres, R Cong: VERY few dem laws will pass and VERY few Rep laws, Pres will be vetoing many Rep bills, scotus would end up balanced/slightly cons: 2L, 4?, 3C (?=centrist never know which way they may vote )

    R Pres, D Cong: same as above, but reversed. Neither side really get there laws passed because they will either be vetoed or die on the floor of Congress. The Supreme Court would pretty much look as directly as above because a Democrat controlled Senate would not allow anything but a centrist justice to be appointed

    R Pres, D Sen, R house: pretty much the same as The reverse condition listed above. Neither Democrats nor republicans will see laws pass. Chances are the republican president would veto anything they felt is too liberal, and they would definitely sign in anything that is Centris to Republican in nature. The Supreme Court would still probably end up looking like: 2L, 4?, 3C

    R everything, our WORST NIGHTMARES: pretty much all Republican bills presented will be signed into law, and nothing democrat would see the light of day unless there were some bipartisanship going on but those days seem to be over. The Supreme Court would be a horroe show for us liberals:
    2L, 7C. In this version of the United States, all marriage equality laws will be overturned at the Supreme Court level, and we would have anti-LGBT laws all over the country. We would have states probably recriminalize being gay or lesbian, and gay or lesbian people would probably have to flee to “safe states” where the state constitution protects the rights, but no federal protections exist. Basically this would roll the clock back on LGBT rights about 20+ years – except in some liberal states, cities, and counties.

    Notice I did not set up any scenarios with the House and Senate flipped as opposite as above – this is because as far as the Supreme Court is concerned that the above scenario’s cover everything that could happen to scotus.

    The only thing different would be if the Republicans wised up and allowed Obama to appoint a centrist judge before he left office. This would only impact his scenarios where the president and senates alignments are the same. If Obama were allowed to appoint of justice, and we ended up with a complete Democratic Congress and President then we would have one less liberal judge and one more centrist judge. So it wouldn’t be 6L3C, but 5L,1?,3C. It would still be a liberal Court, but not as strong as the most optimal scenario

    If we had everything Republican, and Obama were allowed to appoint of justice..correction to this and the above, he is allowed to appoint a justice and he Has, but the Senate is blocking the nomination earrings. Anyway if they confirmed his nomination and we ended up with everything Republican this is what the Supreme Court would look like
    Instead of 2L7C… 2L1?C

    The Supreme Court is not going to change this fast overnight and there is no guarantees that it will end up like this over the next 4 to 8 years. However, over the next 4-8 years Will be a historic moment for the United States because the president, for the first time, will probably Be replacing more justices than ever before in the history of United States

    This is all assuming that too liberal and two conservative justices will retire or pass away in the next 4-8 years, and that the above scenarios of the Congressional dynamics don’t flip-flop after four years

    • TallBearNC

      However when I talk about transgender bathroom needs I am talking about true transgender’s. If a teenager stands up and identifies as “non-binary” which basically means they feel they are not either gender, and wants to use either bathroom it will – that crap doesn’t fly with me. In fact the whole Non binary stuff doesn’t fly with me either. Way too much going on the Internet and stuff like that were kids and young adults are identifying as all sorts of other stuff when it has nothing to do with being a transgender or transsexual. We want transgender rights in the bathrooms, then we cannot be adding on these dozens of other sexual identity issues I have absolutely nothing to do with being transgender/transsexual. Why? Someone identifies as no gender, or as a third gender – there’s nothing that can be done for them. Human beings physically have no third gender so there is nothing to transition to. Typically both male and female is that identify this way 10 to look androgynous… And in that case, in my opinion, they belong in the bathroom that their physical sex matches. Some day the world could come up with a clear definition of what a third gender is, and what they look like, then somebody could transition to that third gender.. If somebody identifies is no gender, they have no way to really transition unless they want to just completely remove their genitals altogether, and look completely androgynous. This is why I do not buy a lot of the new gender identity things that are sweeping the world. Personally I think it’s teenagers and young adults who were having emotional crisis is and they either don’t know what to do or they want to do something to make him feel special. I have yet to see large group of mature (over 30) adults identify as non-binary, third gender, no gender

      If you are transgender, you have an identity crisis. There is a physical issue with the brain that causes a mental issue to cprop up. Persons physical body does not match what the brain thinks it is and what they consciously think it should be. It’s reversed. So in a FTM the biologically born female person – their brain expects a male body to Be there and penis, but instead the brain gets a female body with breasts and a vagina and vice versa for MTF. Even in this condition, I don’t think they should just get a free pass to use the bathroom they identify with until they have started psychological treatment and have been on hormones for a while – otherwise they will really look like they don’t belong in that bathroom. And to be honest women are more skittish of men being in their bathroom then men are skittish of women being in there’s – that’s why nobody making a stink over female to male transgenders or transsexuals

      But what I do find interesting is that they are making all this drama over women’s bathrooms. What about the men’s? For right people claim they must protect the women’s bathrooms from straight men who will use the quality laws to simply dresses women and claim they are transgender to get inside and do bad things. But for some reason they are completely unconcerned with women putting on men’s clothes to go into the men’s bathroom and do inappropriate things with other men and male children .

      In the and anti-transgender bathroom laws may actually work to our advantage. And In a way my advice is LET THEM PASS.

      At first people think I’m pretty freaking crazy for suggesting this, but look what happens when they pass… Republicans are going to get something they don’t expect

      Female to male transgender’s or transsexuals will be forced into the female bathrooms. Most of female to male transgender’s and transsexuals do not turn out looking androgynous. Most of them turned out looking like your man, even more often a big ol’ muscle man with chest hair and facial hair. The instant a woman calls the police and the police show up on scene, the transgender or transsexual person would present their ID which would list them as female, and there’s nothing the police could do to make them leave the bathroom because they are simply following the law… At this point conservatives were probably scream to have those laws undone. Why? Because the female to male transgender’s in transsexuals that are forced to use the women’s bathroom look for more like they were born a man versus a male to female transgender or is transsexual that would normally be allowed to use the female bathroom if no anti-trans bathroom lot existed.

      Some people still may say huh?

      It’s a simple fact, and you can look it any transgender or transsexual – transsexual meaning someone who has had complete sexual reassignment surgery. Technically people who have had full SRS can legally get a gender change in about half the states of this country, and then whether there is any equality law in effect or not – it won’t affect their use the bathroom

      Back to my point above: when females transition into males, most of the time they end up transitioning into a man that looks like they were born a man – the androgynous form I have seen far last often. It’s probably based on how much testosterone , and estrogen suppressors , the transgendered female to male takes

      However this is not the case in the male to female..and I apologize in advance to the male to female transgenders/sexually,but this is a fact not an opinion. Men do not transition to women as well as women do to men. 90% of the transgendered and transsexual male to females that I have either met across my lifetime, currently know in my life, and currently have seen on TV over the years, can easily be spotted as a transgender/transsexual – unless you ask the person which one, you won’t know. No one actually knows if someone is a transgender versus transsexual unless they told you they had fool SRS surgery. Some male to female transgender’s are flawless, and an extreme few look androgynous, but about 75% still have many mail qualities to them – it’s near impossible to get rid of all of the male aspects. Take Kaitlyn Jenner for example. If no one told me they were trans, I could easily tell they were trans because she looks physically part male and female in varying ways

      Is actually a biological or I should say biochemical reason for this. We all do start out sort of neutral in the womb.. However if you have a XY-male Embrio, and something goes wrong and they don’t produce any testosterone… they are born looking just like a female baby, and as they grow up they will look just like any normal girl or woman… However, they lack a uterus, and the vagina is only a blind pouch where it stops just a few inches in. This is because we all start mostly neutral, but with some female aspects already in place. When testosterone is introduced to a mail embryo, the tissue that would make up the ovaries turn into testicles and they drop, and the clitoris screws to become a penis, and the labia lips seal together and form the scrotum. So as you can see there’s a great deal of work that has to happen for a mail to come to term properly

      Now reverse the situation where you have a chromosomal xx female embryo. What happens if they failed to make estrogen? Often times they will come out with their sexual organs not fully developed

      As far is hermaphrodite babies are concerned… Typically they are genetically XY with only a partial amount of testosterone produced, and they can have the appearance of having genitalia of both sexes. This can happen with XX embryos but since there is nothing in an ex ex embryo to generate testosterone, typically hermaphrodite is happened when the mother is repeatedly exposed to testosterone – either by taking it to build muscle when she’s pregnant – why she would do that I have no idea, or she could have an ovarian cyst producing testosterone, or husband or boyfriend what’s on testosterone gel that gets on the mother and affects the female child.. This would also result in a hermaphrodite child of some type

      The best time for a male to transition to a female would be before puberty hits. Because once a physical male starts and goes through puberty, many aspects of their physical makeup are locked, and all the hormones and all the surgeries in the world will not undo them…. Good luck with most parents allowing their prepubescent children who are trans to start transitioning before puberty. Plus transitioning during puberty is highly discouraged as it jumps the rate of causing cancer through the roof .

      OK why the lesson or lecture in biology?

      It’s much easier for the body to transition from female to male because that’s sort of what it does when a male child – embryo starts producing testosterone. However once you have a fully, developed, I adult man , And that man is a transgender and decides to transition, it’s sort of like they are trying to take the processing go backwards – that’s the best way I can explain it. And going backwards is not easy for the body to do because it’s already developed. With female to male , it’s sort of like going forward.

      However that should be no reason to discriminate in the bathroom area, but my whole point is what would America rather have in the women’s restrooms?

      A female to male transgender/transsexual who looks exactly like your every day man or even more of a manly type man – and they have no idea there trans… Or would they rather have Quality and have a male to female transgender in their bathroom knowing that that’s an actual transgender person and not just a man putting on a dress. If I were one of these women that were scared of men in my bathroom, then I would much rather have the male to female transgender in my bathroom versus antsy trans logs for seeing female to male transgender’s into my bathroom where I would think there an actual natural born male and Freaking out. And if the male to female is one of the more flawless transitions and they would think it’s just your average female using the bathroom and have no issue.

      So to me it’s pretty cut and dry we need bathroom laws passing allowing transgendered and transsexual people access to the bathroom they identify with. In passing anti-trans laws, it will actually cause more problems in the women’s bathrooms

  • kaydenpat

    So what if he’s liberal?

  • Is Chief Justice Roberts not wading into this because he feels Congress and the administration need to work this out without his interference, or is he being a conservative shit sack trying to help right wingers keep a left-leaning justice from replacing the conservative shit sack who died?

  • Kelly Lape

    Liberals are as American as every other Citizen. The fact that one party continues to denigrate us for our political beliefs should tell you all you need to know about their “Values”