Breyer
- Thread starter bailey777
- Start date
Biden is doing this solely for himself and his own ego. He wants to be remembered in the history books as is his delusional head hs is some sort of modern day MLK be it a racist version. It is all about making history to this clown and nothing that is is plain and simple.
President Joe Biden makes his pick. Biden said as a candidate that if he were given the chance to nominate someone to the court, he would make history by choosing a Black woman. The White House has reiterated Biden’s campaign pledge since his election.
Anyone else glad Cornpop is not around to be in the discussion? To me the statement he made makes anyone he nominates suspect as far as getting appointed. It was ridiculous
Did You Know Reagan Picked Scalia for the Supreme Court Because He Was Italian?
Nominating Supreme Court justices in part because of background, race, and gender is nothing new.
These complaints should scan as absurd to anybody with an even glancing familiarity with the history of Supreme Court nominations, which have long involved demographic considerations. Ronald Reagan explicitly promised to nominate a woman during his run for president before picking Sandra Day O’Connor. When George H.W. Bush had to fill the seat of the court’s first black justice, Thurgood Marshall, he went with Clarence Thomas. (“I don’t feel he’s a quota,” Bush said at the time.) And as Jonathan Chait noted Thursday, there were commonly acknowledged Catholic and Jewish seats on the court during the mid-twentieth century.
However, it was not until last night that I personally learned that Reagan chose Antonin Scalia—the father of originalism, the patron saint of conservative jurisprudence—for the court at least in part because he was “of Italian extraction.”
No, that's what you have.
He has Biden Derangement Syndrome, as evidenced by his obsession with Biden. See how that works?
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
He shouldn’t have said it then and he shouldn’t have said it now. It’s pandering and it’s unacceptable. Despite all of my disdain for Trump, Biden cost my vote during his overt racial pandering. Pandering divides and doesn’t unify. Pick a black woman that’s highly qualified, by all means. Don’t virtue signal about it.
Long live Jo Jorgensen.
Last edited by a moderator:
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
It’s all dumb - did you expect me to defend that?Did You Know Reagan Picked Scalia for the Supreme Court Because He Was Italian?
Nominating Supreme Court justices in part because of background, race, and gender is nothing new.slate.com
These complaints should scan as absurd to anybody with an even glancing familiarity with the history of Supreme Court nominations, which have long involved demographic considerations. Ronald Reagan explicitly promised to nominate a woman during his run for president before picking Sandra Day O’Connor. When George H.W. Bush had to fill the seat of the court’s first black justice, Thurgood Marshall, he went with Clarence Thomas. (“I don’t feel he’s a quota,” Bush said at the time.) And as Jonathan Chait noted Thursday, there were commonly acknowledged Catholic and Jewish seats on the court during the mid-twentieth century.However, it was not until last night that I personally learned that Reagan chose Antonin Scalia—the father of originalism, the patron saint of conservative jurisprudence—for the court at least in part because he was “of Italian extraction.”
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I don’t think anybody (me included) really cares if the list is really limited to a specific race and sex. But that became a litmus test for people is sad. There are ways to do things and there are ways to do things. That’s not the way to do things meant to unify. Just pick her and get her approved.
Yes, it's all dumb. Especially all the gnashing of teeth over Biden doing what has been done for forever. What real difference is there between Biden saying he's going to do it and doing it without a prior commitment? Do you think Bailey or Jet or Cray would believe a black woman was the "best candidate" when she was announced? That they wouldn't claim there was pandering involved? That they'd concern themselves with her qualifications instead of her race or sex?
You don't really have much of an understanding do you? I don't know who the candidates may be but when you announce you are going to pick only from a very tiny percentage of the population it already says a lot.
When I made that post I was considering your thought comprehension!
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Because in a summer campaign that was waged while the Left and media let (and in some cases told) minorities think that police and conservatives were at war with them he decided to show “leadership” by overt pandering.
Racial pandering is part of the Big Grift - and further divides. I would hold - and have held - any politician and candidate liable for any pandering be it to Oath Keepers or otherwise well-intentioned BLM protestors. It’s disgusting to appeal to any kind of identity.
Exactly when Ginsburg (sp??) was approved something like 95-5 (don't know exactly). When they become political appointments? Was Bork the first where all this crap started or was there some before that?
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
You cite one example, which may have some merit. I can quote numerous examples, going back to Thomas where Dems have shown their collective asses in the nomination process. In fact, every one but Roberts.
What do think would have happened if Trump had campaigned on appointing a white woman or man to the court if he got another chance? Biden should have just kept his mouth shut and not telegraphed what he was gonna do and went ahead and done it. Color is NOT a qualification to be a Supreme Court justice. You and I know he was just campaigning for the black votes which he already had.
Maybe if the Republicans didn't name such shitty candidates the Dems wouldn't treat them so shabbily.
That's bogus. The candidates aren't shitty at all. This is part of the problem we have: "their candidates are extreme." That BS from partisans of both parties.
Gorsuch himself wasn't treated poorly. The circumstances that led to his nomination were a travesty and that's where the outrage was focused.
In other words if Republicans would pick candidates that agree with all the Democrats' position they would be treated well.... got it.
Liberal leaning judges vote "along party lines" way more than the conservative wing. In other words, conservative judges are able to think independently of each other, while the liberal wing is nothing more than a waddle of penguins.
I'll just have to disagree with you on that. Roberts was a good pick. But Thomas and Alito are outliers. Gorsuch seems to be well grounded. Kavanaugh is a lightweight who got the nod in a deal with Kennedy. Barrett... too early to tell, but I'll be surprised if she proves to be anything but an ideologue.
I meant Garland. Mixed them up. Not voting on him was bad behavior by the Republicans.
One Republican. Mitch McConnell. He couldn't allow the confirmation to proceed because he knew he would be confirmed.
There isn't a lightweight on the court, conservative, liberal or in between. We just disagree with some of them for their judicial philosophies.
You can blame one if you want, I think it was bad behavior by the entire Republican caucus. They should have spoken up for what's right, which is a vote and have the courage to stand by those votes - up or down.
Trump shockingly picked Gorsuch and the Dems showed their asses.
it doesn't matter who the pick is the other side is gonna dick.
No, Gorsuch was treated fairly. The outrage was aimed at what transpired to get him the nomination in the first place.
Trump got no credit from the opposition party for all the campaign promises he followed through on. He did get hell for a couple that he didn’t exactly follow through on (Mexico paying for the wall).
You have a funny definition of fair. Did Kavanaugh and Barrett get the same “fair” treatment?
