Breyer
- Thread starter bailey777
- Start date
Because Trump supporters are tired of electing pseudo-Republicans who go along to get along.
They're not in it to win an election - they're in it to stop Socialism from further destroying the country and tired of the incestuous, corrupt DC environment.
I understand trying to elect someone different... I'm all for that and have been for years. But can't we find someone who's not such an arrogant asshole. Where's a Ross Perot when we need one?
Sometimes you go with the arrogant asshole you have, instead of one you wish you had. Or soemthing like that.....I understand trying to elect someone different... I'm all for that and have been for years. But can't we find someone who's not such an arrogant asshole. Where's a Ross Perot when we need one?
I think Desantis comes closest to Trump with a smaller asshole factor. I can see him running, if Trump decides to sit it out. Maybe they'll cut a deal where Desantis will run and make Trump Secretary of State if he wins. lol That would really bring out the crazies.
According to this even the majority of Democrats don't support Biden saying he would appoint a black female.
slate.com
How Biden’s Vow to Name a Black Woman to the Supreme Court Backfired
The wording of a campaign promise has needlessly tokenized future SCOTUS nominees.
Now that is not a bad idea.... with a one way ticket.
I don't know which is the more astonishing claim you're trying to make... That you're not a racist, even though you've mentioned race in nearly every post in this thread? Or that Biden is "politicizing" the SCOTUS in a manner that apparently none of his predecessors (including our crazy-ex) ever did?I am stating a fact that Biden said he is picking a black woman so no other race will be considered I assume . How is that saying that a bad thing? I am using Biden's own words these are not things I just made up. For all I care he can name somebody purple I am simply repeating what Biden said.
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire: Reports
The 83-year-old is the oldest member of the high court, and its leading liberal.news.yahoo.com
We already know with 100% confidence Biden will pick a black woman because everything is about race to him. I would be my house it is a black woman and nobody else will be considered. Now he just has to find the most far left wing activist black woman judge in America.
Do you know when Black women were first elected to the Bar, and thus (theoretically) eligible to be appointed to SCOTUS? Charlotte Ray- 1872...
So in your mind, Biden's pledge to address a wrong is somehow worse than the deliberate exclusion of a particular race/gender historically? This is addressed to people like you...
"Just two days after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg and just weeks before the 2020 election, then-President Donald Trump declared he would limit his search for her replacement to only qualified female candidates.
"It will be a woman -- a very talented, very brilliant woman," Trump said during a Sept. 20, 2020, rally in North Carolina. "We haven't chosen yet, but we have numerous women on the list." He went on to nominate now-Justice Amy Coney Barrett a month later."
As the GOP nominee challenging Jimmy Carter in 1980, Ronald Reagan publicly promised -- weeks before the election -- that he would name a woman to the Supreme Court if given the chance.
"I am announcing today that one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can possibly find," Reagan said at an Oct. 15 news conference in Los Angeles. "It is time for a woman to sit among the highest jurists."
You probably weren't around for Reagan's pledge (I was just 25), but you had no problem with there being ZERO Black females on Trump's list. But if Biden releases his short list (which he hasn't) and there are ZERO white women, then THAT will suddenly be a problem? Less than 3 yrs after ZERO Black women on Trump's short list wasn't a problem?
So my non-racist friend, why is Coney Barrett more qualified than someone like either of the two assumed front runners Brown Jackson or Kruger? Do you think Biden is just choosing someone off the street? If you had no problem with Coney Barrett, why would you have a problem with Brown Jackson? Qualifications? I'm really interested in YOUR answer... Since you're obviously not a racist... Maybe you're really just a hypocrite?
What wrong is being addressed? The Sct isn't a representative role. It's not elected. 9 spots. Black women represent 1 maybe 2 percent of the entire bar?
Why pick nits? Cosmic has Bailey dead to rights. Let him enjoy the victory.
I was just thinking about this notion of addressing a wrong. I don't agree with it at the S.Ct. level. I think the more salient matter to address is why black women are probably 1 or 2 percent of the bar. And I"m guessing at that percentage based on blacks of both genders being 5%. Efforts should be made to increase those figures
Emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion won’t fix anything. All that does is make white elites feel better about the elite institutions they work in.
The real fix starts in elementary education. We’ve had government ECE for disadvantaged kids for a generation now. That ain’t working. The Democrat answer is to make ECE bigger. Ugh. No, the real answer lies in a basic overhaul of K-12 education that would inclde choice, meaningful accountability, more rigorous teacher education and better pay for teachers.
If I were a senator, the first question I’d ask Biden’s nominee is: “you are sitting before this committee because the president said it was important to for a black female to be a member of the court. Do you believe a black female should interpret and apply the due process clause, or the commerce, clause differently than a white male?
"No, Senator, I am sitting here because the president nominated me as eminently qualified for the position. Now, do you have any questions regarding my qualifications?"
No the why has an asterisk because Biden was vote pandering. He should have just done it and not provided vote-pandering notice. The asterisk reads: most qualified of all eligible black females.
And that's a shame
"And if you aren't embarrassed this country has NEVER deemed a Black woman to be qualified, that is on you".
Bush wanted to nominate Janice Rogers Brown who was very qualified. The racist Dems, including Biden, blocked that.
Don't forget Miguel Estrada either.
Miguel Estrada - Wikipedia
Don’t be a dumbass. My question focuses on Biden, not on the nominee. I would give her an open door to explain race and gender won’t matter to her.
Maybe it looks like you're just being a standard Senate asshole to you, but to the hypothetical nominee, it very much looks like you find it unfathomable that a black woman might be nominated because she's qualified.
"And I'd ask the gentleman from Missouri to please wait his turn to speak."
You are kinda right. I deliberately did leave an alternative path for her to blow the answer, like you did.
The purpose of the hearing, and my question, is to test her qualifications. No? I don't think there is a presumption either way.
No, the purpose of your question was to attack Biden. You said so yourself. If you want to test qualifications, my nominee repeats her first answer.
Rejecting Biden’s litmus test is the answer a self-assured qualified applicant would give. Your answer is way too defensive for a jurist.
You're responding to the same guy who claims Lois Lerner was not targeting Conservative groups. So, take it with a grain of salt.
No, rejecting your premise entirely is the answer a qualified applicant would give.
Your question sounded exactly like a question a real senator might ask.
I haven't bought my judicial "baseball" cards lately to know who the MVP candidates are, but I suspect it is not like there is a Tom Brady and a bunch of Ryan Leafs. I suspect there are many "very qualified" and it is crazy to think none are Black women. But if we are going there, do Republicans only find Catholics qualified?
Here is the real problem with what Biden has done and Ronnie did:
It is massively unfair to the nominee if she is indeed black as signaled. She may be very qualified but will always have the "quota" tag hanging over her that Biden put squarely on her.
Dumbass move.
It is massively unfair to the nominee if she is indeed black as signaled. She may be very qualified but will always have the "quota" tag hanging over her that Biden put squarely on her.
Dumbass move.
Cruz and Hawley should look to COH for advise on their questioning.
"President Reagan promised to nominate a woman to the Supreme Court. He kept his promise. President Trump promised to nominate a woman to the Supreme Court. He also kept his promise. My esteemed and long-serving colleague from Colorado never raised any concerns that the promises made by these presidents might - fairly or unfairly - call into question the qualifications of Justices O'Connor or Barrett.
"Now, President Biden has promised to nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court, and here you are. My question to you is this: As a black woman jurist, can you think of any reason why the promise to nominate a woman to the Court would not raise any concerns about the eventual candidate's qualifications, but the promise to nominate a black woman would?"
Not a serious question, or one the nominee should answer, but the kind of question the political hacks on the committee would ask to draw blood from each other, and exactly the kind of question my esteemed colleague from Colorado would deserve after his despicable display.
That would be a good question (for a senator
) but a question that we already know the answer to. I've always known that when Reagan, Trump, and Biden made those promises it was just to get votes. The ironic thing is that the statements more than likely helped Reagan and Trump more that Biden because he already had all the black vote. I guess it's possible that he picked up some women votes but I kind of doubt it made any difference to most women.
He should have promised to pick an illegal alien to serve on the court...oh wait, they're all allowed in to vote for Dems anyway.That would be a good question (for a senator
Regardless of why they did it, claiming to have a problem with it on principle only some of the time is the hallmark of partisan hackery. It is the partisan hackery of the fake Senator from Colorado I am concerned with at the moment, not the vote-whoring of Presidents Reagan, Trump, or Biden.That would be a good question (for a senator
The differences between your esteemed Senator from Colorado and Bailey, Cray, or Dan are purely cosmetic.
What I've notice thru the years is that it's partisan hackery when the opposition does something but isn't when their side does it.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
If there was absolutely no way possible that anyone would ever find out, would you
- Latest: JamieDimonsBalls