Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[Hairy Lime]

I keep looking at Supreme Courts and I am having trouble seeing the excluded men and the excluded white people. 

Whilst true that these categories can be shallow ones, it's the deeper differences of experience that correlate with those outward appearances that are essential to having a broadly representative court.  And don't forget that part of the experience of being, say, black is in HOW THE LEGAL SYSTEM TREATS YOU and what biases lie therein.  Which, by gosh, might have some bearing on matters of jurisprudence.

It is just a tempest in a right wing teapot. The right has decided there is no political harm in arguing African American women should just know their place and are running with it.

LOL!
The Biden track  record on SCOTUS nominations is known for his blatant  hypocrisy.
To wit: Janet Rogers Brown.
She was nominated to the DC Court of Appeals ( a frequent stepping stone to SCOTUS) by George W. Bush in 2003.
She was filibusterd by Biden, Byrd,and Obama , among  others, whose sole purpose was to keep the GOP from having a chance to eventually put her on the Supreme Court.  Brown won confirmation eventually  but only after a two year confirmation process.

And? Because Biden participated in a filibuster he is a hypocritr because... reasons? The right wing rage machine spins on.

You seem to be spinning your wheels.
Biden only had one reason to filibuster.  To keep the GOP of being in  position to appoint at black woman to SCOTUS.

No, to prevent BROWN from getting on the DC Court. The rest is just your outrage machine.

LOL
The whole filibuster had one objective. To keep Brown off SCOTUS.
Maybe you were out of the country then.

The filibuster began well before there was a Court vacancy, was one of several Bush appointments being held up, and was based on her extreme libertarian legal views. Perhaps you were out of the country then.

No. I was here and paying attention.

My bad. I forgot that in addition to being a right wing shill who never questions or.checks his sources you are also a cowardly fool who refuses to admit error. And will stubbornly cling to the notion that a failed cloture vote in October of 2003 was about speculation over her candidacy for a SCOTUS seat that only began when O'Connor seat opened up in July of 2005. In fact, the agreement to end the filibuster and proceed with an up and down vote 9n her nomination occurred in May of 2005, over a month before O'Connor retired.

Exactly what it was.
Rogers Brown was filibustered for the DC Court because the dems knew she was being groomed for the next SCOTUS seat by the GOP. Her nomination was stalled even though she had support of a dem controlled Senate.
When Bush was  reelected and the GOP took over the Senate she was renominated and won confirmation via a deal that the GOP would not blow up the filibuster. When O Connor  retired Bush considered Rogers Brown butBiden threatened  a filibuster. Alito was the eventual choice.  Hope this helps.

"forgot that in addition to being a right wing shill who never questions or.checks his sources you are also a cowardly fool who refuses to admit error." Hope this helps.

I did not make any errors.

None you will admit, but then, you never do, even when you go from Brown being actively filibusterd to stop her from being on the Court to a threatened one, and ignored that there was a threatened filibuster of Alito as well. All because some right wing rage machine web site posted a false equivalency you swallowed without question.

[REDSTATEWARD]

I keep looking at Supreme Courts and I am having trouble seeing the excluded men and the excluded white people. 

Whilst true that these categories can be shallow ones, it's the deeper differences of experience that correlate with those outward appearances that are essential to having a broadly representative court.  And don't forget that part of the experience of being, say, black is in HOW THE LEGAL SYSTEM TREATS YOU and what biases lie therein.  Which, by gosh, might have some bearing on matters of jurisprudence.

It is just a tempest in a right wing teapot. The right has decided there is no political harm in arguing African American women should just know their place and are running with it.

LOL!
The Biden track  record on SCOTUS nominations is known for his blatant  hypocrisy.
To wit: Janet Rogers Brown.
She was nominated to the DC Court of Appeals ( a frequent stepping stone to SCOTUS) by George W. Bush in 2003.
She was filibusterd by Biden, Byrd,and Obama , among  others, whose sole purpose was to keep the GOP from having a chance to eventually put her on the Supreme Court.  Brown won confirmation eventually  but only after a two year confirmation process.

And? Because Biden participated in a filibuster he is a hypocritr because... reasons? The right wing rage machine spins on.

You seem to be spinning your wheels.
Biden only had one reason to filibuster.  To keep the GOP of being in  position to appoint at black woman to SCOTUS.

No, to prevent BROWN from getting on the DC Court. The rest is just your outrage machine.

LOL
The whole filibuster had one objective. To keep Brown off SCOTUS.
Maybe you were out of the country then.

The filibuster began well before there was a Court vacancy, was one of several Bush appointments being held up, and was based on her extreme libertarian legal views. Perhaps you were out of the country then.

No. I was here and paying attention.

My bad. I forgot that in addition to being a right wing shill who never questions or.checks his sources you are also a cowardly fool who refuses to admit error. And will stubbornly cling to the notion that a failed cloture vote in October of 2003 was about speculation over her candidacy for a SCOTUS seat that only began when O'Connor seat opened up in July of 2005. In fact, the agreement to end the filibuster and proceed with an up and down vote 9n her nomination occurred in May of 2005, over a month before O'Connor retired.

Exactly what it was.
Rogers Brown was filibustered for the DC Court because the dems knew she was being groomed for the next SCOTUS seat by the GOP. Her nomination was stalled even though she had support of a dem controlled Senate.
When Bush was  reelected and the GOP took over the Senate she was renominated and won confirmation via a deal that the GOP would not blow up the filibuster. When O Connor  retired Bush considered Rogers Brown butBiden threatened  a filibuster. Alito was the eventual choice.  Hope this helps.

"forgot that in addition to being a right wing shill who never questions or.checks his sources you are also a cowardly fool who refuses to admit error." Hope this helps.

I did not make any errors.

None you will admit, but then, you never do, even when you go from Brown being actively filibusterd to stop her from being on the Court to a threatened one, and ignored that there was a threatened filibuster of Alito as well. All because some right wing rage machine web site posted a false equivalency you swallowed without question.

What does a threatened filibuster of Alito have to do with Biden and his hypocrisy over a black woman on SCOTUS?

[facilitatorn]

Red has seen the markets, the case numbers, and the dirtbags, nut jobs, and empty suits vying for GOP nominations.

He is pretending to feel betrayed at the idea of a very good President making the Supreme Court better reflect America in contrast to republicans nominating Catholic after Catholic to get their grift going on Hispanic Catholic voters they need but pretty openly hate and abuse wherever they have the power.

In Reds world, a Supreme Court vacancy should be a chance for the federalist society to ratfuck the power structure, politics, and social fabric of the United States for detestable ends.

[facilitatorn]

http://www.salon.com/2022/02/01/donald-lackeys-failed-him--and-saved-democracy/

[LarryBnDC]

Nope.

I am fine with one of the women mentioned.

I prefer it not be Ifill.

Should I repeat this every hour for you?

Ifill had Thurgood Marshall old job before she stepped down. What is wrong with having a civil rights attorney on the bench?

Oh, never mind.

[LarryBnDC]

She was filibusterd by Biden, Byrd,and Obama , among  others, whose sole purpose was to keep the GOP from having a chance to eventually put her on the Supreme Court.  Brown won confirmation eventually  but only after a two year confirmation process.


2 years?

Mon Dieu!

Well, McConnell was filibusfering every Court nominee until the filibuster rule was reformed. So, good that this sort of gamesmanship is gone for Court appointments. It should be gone for.everything.

Republicans have no leg to stand on.



https://www.salon.com/2016/06/08/chair_of_the_imbecile_caucus_sen_tom_cotton_proudly_stands_at_the_vanguard_of_shameless_republican_obstructionism/

[LarryBnDC]

I keep looking at Supreme Courts and I am having trouble seeing the excluded men and the excluded white people. 

Whilst true that these categories can be shallow ones, it's the deeper differences of experience that correlate with those outward appearances that are essential to having a broadly representative court.  And don't forget that part of the experience of being, say, black is in HOW THE LEGAL SYSTEM TREATS YOU and what biases lie therein.  Which, by gosh, might have some bearing on matters of jurisprudence.

It is just a tempest in a right wing teapot. The right has decided there is no political harm in arguing African American women should just know their place and are running with it.

LOL!
The Biden track  record on SCOTUS nominations is known for his blatant  hypocrisy.
To wit: Janet Rogers Brown.
She was nominated to the DC Court of Appeals ( a frequent stepping stone to SCOTUS) by George W. Bush in 2003.
She was filibusterd by Biden, Byrd,and Obama , among  others, whose sole purpose was to keep the GOP from having a chance to eventually put her on the Supreme Court.  Brown won confirmation eventually  but only after a two year confirmation process.

And? Because Biden participated in a filibuster he is a hypocritr because... reasons? The right wing rage machine spins on.

You seem to be spinning your wheels.
Biden only had one reason to filibuster.  To keep the GOP of being in  position to appoint at black woman to SCOTUS.

You already had Clarence Thomas.

Doing wrong. I mean for picking the wrong Negro and saying I am picking him because he is a Negro. Im opposed to that. . . . My dad told me way back that you cant use race. For example, there is no difference between a white snake and a black snake. They will both bite. . . .

Thurgood Marshall

There was no need for another.

[kiidcarter8]

Yep

No need for a Tim Scott after Obama.

Sad that Tim wouldn't be celebrated by his brethren.

[facilitatorn]

Yep

No need for a Tim Scott after Obama.

Sad that Tim wouldn't be celebrated by his brethren.

His understanding of history, economics, science, public policy, not to mention right and wrong all fall short of the bar for a career in public service.

[LarryBnDC]

Yep

No need for a Tim Scott after Obama.

Sad that Tim wouldn't be celebrated by his brethren.

Fuck Tim Scott

All skinfolk aint kin folk

[luee]

Why should the American people have to suffer an inferior federal justice for political reasons? Just take the best person available. I have no problem with Kamella running for president.

[Hamilton Samuels]

Biden looks stupid for guaranteeing a black woman SCOTUS. Good pols never put their own balls in a vise.

Nonsense, Forrest. Plenty of highly qualified African American candidates. The Repos criticizing him on this issue would find something wrong with any process he used. No reason for him to pay attention to any of that criticism.

Easier to ignore it.
Truth is Biden never considered anyone except black women, in his campaign promises and his presidency.

And?

And, by saying you exclude others who are not female and black, you practice bigotry, at the very least.

But that wasn't my criticism, nor am I here to defend what the Grand Old Prevaricators might do.

From the standpoint of the average American, saying you only will look at one group of folks for a position is seen as unfair. That's why it is dumb politics, especially when you represent a party who says that is about inclusion, not exclusion.

Everyone wants to be able to have equal opportunity for any job in this country, but Joe B is essentially saying that some are more equal than others at  this time, and that concept doesn't fly for most Americans.

 

[Hamilton Samuels]

I guess she never heard of Jesse Owens or the concept of "The Master Race"?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/01/media/whoopi-goldberg-the-view-suspended/index.html

That said, I'm not in favor of suspending her, though I get the need to protect the brand of Disney/ABC, etc. I rather have her stay on the show and be publicly educated by special guest after special guest who can clarify for her exactly what the white supremacists known as Nazis were trying to do. Make it a week long affair and call it "The Education of Ms.Goldberg".

Suspension merely ends the conversation, or worse, distorts it.

Creating more conversation so that she and her viewers can learn from her mistake would seem to be a better way to go.



 

[Hairy Lime]

Why should the American people have to suffer an inferior federal justice for political reasons? Just take the best person available. I have no problem with Kamella running for president.

Never in the history of the Supreme Court has any president chosen "the best person available" unless you 8nclude in your concept of "best person" the type of demographic and political considerations that are leading Biden to choose a qualified African American woman. And that you think thlse.demographic considerations would lead to an "inferior federal justice" says some things about your underlying assumptions you should seriously reflect on.

[REDSTATEWARD]

I keep looking at Supreme Courts and I am having trouble seeing the excluded men and the excluded white people. 

Whilst true that these categories can be shallow ones, it's the deeper differences of experience that correlate with those outward appearances that are essential to having a broadly representative court.  And don't forget that part of the experience of being, say, black is in HOW THE LEGAL SYSTEM TREATS YOU and what biases lie therein.  Which, by gosh, might have some bearing on matters of jurisprudence.

Then why did Biden work overtime to deny a black woman born in poverty in the deep segregated South (who worked her way through college and law school as a single mother)
a shot at sitting on SCOTUS?