“The quickest way to a man’s heart is through his stomach”
-An old saying
“The quickest way to destroy a culture is by codifying the hypocrisy of its short-sighted, tyrannical, penis-envying women”
-A timeless truth
When 14-year-old John Jay joined Columbia University in 1760 (then King’s College), he likely had already learned, even at that young age, that women are, with few if any exceptions, unfit for legal scholarship: A woman’s thirst for narrative instead of logic–often in spite of it; coupled with her manic vies for self-preservation: These prevent her from engaging in the kind of cool, collected, consistent, manly thinking requisite for sufficiently expansive consideration of complicated consequences as come by Law. Said similarly: Driven by fun and fear, often enough to the point of folly, she cannot, in the long-term, be trusted to trust logic, much less reason–far less justice.
This understanding about women would in no way have been some manic mantra for Manly Jay: It was simply obvious to him as he began his studies at Columbia, a school which refused entrance to dainty scatter-brained cotton-stopped liabilities for more than one hundred years hence.
A decade or so after Jay’s study at Columbia–which, at that time, forewent Women’s Studies, Lesbian Literature, and Gender and Sexuality Law–his manly mind led him to pen Federalist Paper two, wherein by his manly foresight he entreated caution unto his posterity against the Sherry F. Colbs of the world: “[Her] ambition aim[s] at objects which d[o] not correspond with the public good, [and she is] indefatigable in [her] efforts to persuade the people to reject the advice of [our manly,] patriotic Congress.”
Indeed, since the time of Manly Jay, a succession of manly congresses have all seen fit to permit proliferation of the judicial precedent set by Jay, among the opinion of many others, regarding Jury Nullification:
“[Juries have] a right to take upon [them]selves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy[:] . . . . both objects are lawfully, within [a jury’s] power of decision.” Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1 (1794).
Yet, again in the second Federalist, Manly Jay foresaw many messy Sherry F. Colbs, by whom, “[m]any … [are] deceived and deluded, [and yet still] the great majority of the people [will] reason and decide judiciously”–except, of course, countless easily corruptible women, as well as a certain demographic with like mental and moral ineptitude: The hordes of hurried heretical migrants, who, as perennial wards of the state, amount to credulous slaves, dangerous to true democracy.
Manly Jay served as the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of The United States, as second Governor of New York, as Secretary of State, as President of the Continental Congress; more than a century later, his political fears surfaced succinctly.
Long after Manly Jay amplified allegiance to a government by the people and for the people; his alma mater, Columbia University, provided pretend professorship to Sherry F. Colbs–a she-academic (id est pseudo-academic) if ever there was one.
She-Sherry, in her penis-envious mumblings which contravene much of the manly advice of John Jay, derides Jury Nullification as being “a step toward anarchy.” Moreover, she she-asserts, in her fem-anesthetized fervor, the following: “I do not regard nullification as a right, and I oppose the idea of telling jurors that they can nullify.”
This, in an article which also ominously, churlishly welcomes the practical application of Colb’s tyrannical mindset: “[I]t highlights the fact that jury nullification is not exactly permissible, even though it is a power that jurors have.” The “it” in that sentence is the conviction of a juror for Contempt Of Court for Obstruction of Justice–for informing jurors of their right to nullify.
She-Sherry goes on to illustrate what makes Jury Nullification good vs bad:
- Jury Nullification is good when it prevents prosecution of slavery-abolitionists.
- Jury Nullification is bad when it inflicts Due Process on a women’s infallible rape-accusation (regardless that false-rape accusations are rampant in the USA).
At this point, it would be easy simply to dismiss She-Sherry as the sexist, short-sighted, maniacal, menopausal, penis-envious lunatic that she is–but there is more.
With a moral wick as quick as her witlessness
Civil Rights activist Laura Kriho died at 52, after a life spent advocating for the freedom to get high in Colorado, and was hailed by her supporters as “instrumental” in the legalization of wasting one’s life through getting high. And she was aforementioned juror, terrorized by a corrupt man in a black rob–because she informed others of their rights.
A few months after Kriho’s death, She-Sherry misused a heroic moment of Kriho’s life in order to she-demonstrate the importance of accepting the tyranny imposed by judiciary from safe within their corrupt and cowardly monopoly.
Obviously cowards in Colorado deserve what they get when they assent to their State’s corrupt Rape Shield laws; but how could sexist She-Sherry side with Corrupt-Ken in his decision to defame Legal Laura–given that Sherry is a sexist political-whore?
Hard cases, and misandrists, make bad law
Simple: Sometimes child-less She-Sherry wears her family-theorist hat, as when she wrote “When Sex Counts: Making Babies and Making Law.” Other times, she is a Men’s Rights Activist–advocating for men who, after a life of emotional and social abuse, pledge allegiance to sterility and misery through transsexualism. Yet in any case, She-Sherry’s core principle remains the same: “I have more faith in lawmakers and the executive branch of government than I do in my lay peers.”
The living grave of feminist pawns
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
-Some dumb, racist, sexist brown lady who now sits as a Justice on the most powerful court in the world.
Long before Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor was saying the kind of dumb, empty, sexist, racist things that only a weak-minded brown woman could get away with; or talking of her love for salsa dancing–in vain, womanly attempts at likeable vanity and inanity; long after she edited the Yale Law Journal; we have Sherry F. Colbs: Her tight lips and self-righteous eyes reminiscent of Margaret Sanger, with whom she shares a laughable dearth of morality, yet also of sense.
But it is a selective lack of sense. Obviously, Colbs, as well as plenty women and she-males like her, will have the wherewithal to triumphantly declare that Columbia is not Cornell; so they can exhibit enough attention to detail–when they choose. Moreover, they will cling to the “sexist” language of “Manly Jay” and “She-Sherry” etc.
But this is all theatrics to disguise the fact that they have no sense of self–at all–only a sense of group-identity, venal and tiered. They are quintessential socialists–addicted to a dream of utopia where they are among the oligarchic arbiters. They love power, and so are among those least fit to wield it justly. They are the enemies of liberty.