Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Brad Johnson on January 26, 2022, 12:31:56 PM
-
Just announced. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire.
https://www.everythinglubbock.com/news/politics/breyer-announces-retirement-from-supreme-court/?utm_medium=referral&utm_content=kamc&utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwAR1eM8irXLi8wzn6soqDlsJ5Ekgj0F-Jg2qs-TvQBIaRlOegvgId1OVsGjs
At least conservatives aren't losing a seat. For now, anyway.
Brad
-
If they're going to dust off the court packing scheme, now's the time.
-
Justice Kamila Harris :facepalm:
-
If they're going to dust off the court packing scheme, now's the time.
If they couldn't get the votes to end the filibuster, I doubt they can pack the court.
-
Well, this should be interesting.
-
Well, this should be interesting.
That's an understatement.
-
If they couldn't get the votes to end the filibuster, I doubt they can pack the court.
Exactly... but I want them to expend time and energy on another failed effort. Another failure for the Democrats leading into the midterms.
-
The GOP should show Biden's eventual nominee all the respect that the Democrats showed Kavanaugh.
(Any bets that Biden will nominate an immigrant trans POC LGBTQEIEIO to that position, since diversity, equity and inclusion are more important to him than constitutional law?)
-
Let’s hope he pulls a Harriet Meyers and the donks bicker over the choice so long the elections happen and the Rs manage to stall the nomination until the new senate is seated. Then they can compel a far less radically leftist nominee.
-
According to NPR News, it's down to Ketanji Brown Jackson and California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger. KBJ was on President Obama's shortlist for the court in 2016, and Kruger (also a black woman) served as assistant, and then deputy solicitor general in both Democratic and Republican administrations prior to her nomination to California's highest court.
-
According to NPR News, it's down to Ketanji Brown Jackson and California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger. KBJ was on President Obama's shortlist for the court in 2016, and Kruger (also a black woman) served as assistant, and then deputy solicitor general in both Democratic and Republican administrations prior to her nomination to California's highest court.
Hmmm . . . hard to get a good read on Ketanji Brown Jackson's judicial philosophy from the Wikipedia article, but it seems she's married to former House Speaker Paul Ryan's brother-in-law . . .
Leondra Kruger's father was Jewish, so appointing her would continue the tradition of another Jewish seat on SCOTUS, letting Biden check off another diversity box.
-
It's astounding to me that liberals (and this POS president) continue to use racist and sexist criteria over qualifications, but somehow it's not racist or sexist. We are SO bizarro world.
Anyways, if "black woman" is the primary criteria, then here's my vote. =)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FKC9G_OXsAog0G6?format=jpg&name=900x900)
-
Breyer is upset because this apparently unofficially leaked, and was not an official announcement from his office. Makes you wonder how bad the administration, or more likely the current puppet masters, want him out so they can get their nominee in.
https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2022/01/26/he-should-reverse-his-decision-justice-breyer-reportedly-upset-retirement-was-leaked-to-media-before-his-announcement/
-
A Liberal for a Liberal, how it's going to be.
-
"Leondra Kruger's father was Jewish, so appointing her would continue the tradition of another Jewish seat on SCOTUS, letting Biden check off another diversity box."
But that wouldn't sit well with a lot of the far left because, let's face it... they HATE Jews/Israel.
Even if the nominee were a phobic self-heating Jew of monumental proportions it wouldn't be suitable, because Jew/Israel.
-
I've seen reports that VP Harris is in the running.
-
I've seen reports that VP Harris is in the running.
Put her on the SC, fill the vacancy with Nancy and 25th amendment Biden. Winner, winner, chicken dinner.
[barf]
-
https://babylonbee.com/news/mcconnell-says-senate-should-not-confirm-new-supreme-court-nominee-just-three-years-before-presidential-election/
-
The GOP should show Biden's eventual nominee all the respect that the Democrats showed Kavanaugh.
(Any bets that Biden will nominate an immigrant trans POC LGBTQEIEIO to that position, since diversity, equity and inclusion are more important to him than constitutional law?)
Stacy Abrams' sister is reportedly one of the front runners.
-
Keep in mind that "constitutional law" courses in law school are more about getting around it than about adhering to it...
-
Keep in mind that "constitutional law" courses in law school are more about getting around it than about adhering to it...
That ... and teaching prospective attorneys that the Constitution (and especially the Bill of Rights) is a musty old piece of paper whose only rightful place is in a museum. And that the Constitution doesn't mean what the words meant when they were written, it means what we can twost and torture the words into meaning today -- when viewed through the lens of European law.
[barf]
-
I was thinking a bit about this and how the Rs should handle it, given that they're not going to stop an appointment.
The "vengeance" part of me wants to see the appointee Kavanaughed just so the Ds can get a taste of their own medicine (of course I know how the MSM will twist it given that it's not happening to a white guy). If the appointee is someone like Ifill, who is a dream candidate for the squad, that could be appropriate though.
Otherwise, if it's someone like Brown-Jackson, who seems to be rising to the top and also looks to have the creds, even if they are very liberal, it would be interesting to see the Rs say, "ok by us", or even "good choice", not lift a finger to stop it, and that's that. Sure, it could cause an MSM orgasm of "Biden won!", but it could also cause a lot of far left heads to explode trying to figure out why the Rs didn't fight it.
If this were an appointee to fill a 4-4 vacancy during the last year of a lame duck presidency, I might call for a different strategy. In a one to one swap given the current makeup, not being total whackos like the Ds were during Kavanaugh could be a good strategy.
-
Keep in mind that "constitutional law" courses in law school are more about getting around it than about adhering to it...
QFT.
Yeah, that seems to be the whole point with lawyers these days. It isn't about understanding and complying with the law, it is about how to bend it to do whatever you want to do.
-
. . .
If this were an appointee to fill a 4-4 vacancy during the last year of a lame duck presidency, I might call for a different strategy. In a one to one swap given the current makeup, not being total whackos like the Ds were during Kavanaugh could be a good strategy.
I think vigorous questioning would be appropriate as well as bringing forth every bad decision they've made and making it public, but as for laying siege to the hearing chambers and pounding on the doors the way Kavanaugh's opponents did - NO. Just NO.
(Saw on TV last night that one of the presumptive front runners has had her decisions unanimously overturned by an appeals court many times. This would be a valid line of attack during the hearings.)
-
QFT.
Yeah, that seems to be the whole point with lawyers these days. It isn't about understanding and complying with the law, it is about how to bend it to do whatever you want to do.
Lawful Evil alignment.
-
*expletive deleted*ck em give whoever 10 times worse treatment than Kavanaugh and Barrett were treated.
Whoever Biden puts forth will be the worst of the worst anyway might as well be complete asses about it.
Give the democrats their own medicine.
-
(Saw on TV last night that one of the presumptive front runners has had her decisions[/i] unanimously overturned by an appeals court many times. This would be a valid line of attack during the hearings.)
I saw an interview this morning that brought up an interesting point: For schools and private business, the SC itself has ruled against the gender and race threshold as unconstitutional and unlawful. So demanding that only a black woman can be the next Justice, without considering other qualified candidates, is contrary to the SC itself.
-
I saw an interview this morning that brought up an interesting point: For schools and private business, the SC itself has ruled against the gender and race threshold as unconstitutional and unlawful. So demanding that only a black woman can be the next Justice, without considering other qualified candidates, is contrary to the SC itself.
They're democrats so whats your point?
-
McConnell Could Stop Biden From Replacing Justice Stephen Breyer Due To ‘Little-Noticed Backroom Deal’: Report
https://www.dailywire.com/news/mcconnell-could-stop-biden-from-replacing-justice-stephen-breyer-due-to-little-noticed-backroom-deal-report
TIME Magazine reported. “Well, in a little-noticed backroom deal that took more than a month to hammer out, McConnell and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer agreed to a power-sharing plan in February that splits committee membership, staffs and budgets in half.”
“If all 11 Republican members of the Judiciary Committee oppose Biden’s pick and all 11 Democrats back her, the nomination goes inert.
-
*expletive deleted*ck em give whoever 10 times worse treatment than Kavanaugh and Barrett were treated.
Whoever Biden puts forth will be the worst of the worst anyway might as well be complete asses about it.
Give the democrats their own medicine.
As divided as the media says the country is, that wouldn't be too wise with midterms in November.
-
As divided as the media says the country is, that wouldn't be too wise with midterms in November.
I would just say they should hold their feet to the fire and quiz them on past decisions (respectfully). If they are hard left, I am sure there will be plenty of stuff to dig up.
However, I don't think they should do like the Dems and dig up former classmates or colleagues to accuse them of crimes or harassment.
-
I would just say they should hold their feet to the fire and quiz them on past decisions (respectfully). If they are hard left, I am sure there will be plenty of stuff to dig up.
However, I don't think they should do like the Dems and dig up former classmates or colleagues to accuse them of crimes or harassment.
That's how it should be. Interview the appointees on past legal decisions.
I don't care if they liked to eat cottage cheese off the chest of a transgender hooker on Friday nights during law school.
-
As divided as the media says the country is, that wouldn't be too wise with midterms in November.
Our elections are a farce. The only thing that matters is who is counting the votes. I don't believe for one fraction of a second that Biden received more votes than any presidential candidate in history.
Even being agnostic on the subject sucks you into the make believe matrix world the powers that be want you to fumble around in.
The livestock don't get a say.
-
Our elections are a farce. The only thing that matters is who is counting the votes. I don't believe for one fraction of a second that Biden received more votes than any presidential candidate in history.
Even being agnostic on the subject sucks you into the make believe matrix world the powers that be want you to fumble around in.
The livestock don't get a say.
20,000,000 12,000,000more votes than Obama.
while also
400 200 fewer counties than Obama.
Fraudulent election.
Fixt my numbers. Sorry about that.
-
12 million more votes than Obama '08, not 20.
I don't have super strong feelings on the amount of fraud or not in 2020, but out of curiosity, is Trump's 74 mil tally also obviously fraudulent?
-
12 million more votes than Obama '08, not 20.
I don't have super strong feelings on the amount of fraud or not in 2020, but out of curiosity, is Trump's 74 mil tally also obviously fraudulent?
If their motive is to minimize trump and maximize biden, then one would presume Trump's number to be lower than factual reality.
-
12 million more votes than Obama '08, not 20.
I don't have super strong feelings on the amount of fraud or not in 2020, but out of curiosity, is Trump's 74 mil tally also obviously fraudulent?
While I’m sure there was some level of pro-Trump illegal voting it was mostly meaningless, like the media would like us to believe in regards to pro-Biden illegal voting. The red flags for fuckery in Trump’s favor are scant (and that generous). The red flags for fuckery in Biden’s favor are substantial, especially in Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, and Pennsylvania.
-
Biden is hiring a black woman for SCOTUS because she is a black woman and not a good judge.
Later, when we point out that the black woman got her job because she is a black woman, we will be called racists.
-WM Briggs
-
So given this background, I will be curious to see if Michelle Childs will be "Biden's" pick:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/clyburn-confirms-he-urged-biden-nominate-black-woman-supreme-court-floats-possible-candidate
-
Biden Commits To Picking A Diversity Hire For SCOTUS Since That Worked So Well With His VP
-BB
-
I don't have super strong feelings on the amount of fraud or not in 2020, but out of curiosity, is Trump's 74 mil tally also obviously fraudulent?
https://youtu.be/YpuRcmPnSTM
-
https://youtu.be/YpuRcmPnSTM
[popcorn] [popcorn] [popcorn]
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
https://youtu.be/YpuRcmPnSTM
Haha. So clever.
I see many folks claim that the sheer number of votes for Biden is evidence of fraud. It's the most votes ever so it must be faked!
I just asked if the second most votes ever was similarly unbelievable.
-
Exclusive: The Babylon Bee Has Obtained Biden's List Of Possible SCOTUS Nominees
https://babylonbee.com/news/exclusive-the-babylon-bee-has-obtained-bidens-list-of-possible-scotus-nominees
:rofl:
-
Haha. So clever.
I see many folks claim that the sheer number of votes for Biden is evidence of fraud. It's the most votes ever so it must be faked!
I just asked if the second most votes ever was similarly unbelievable.
Yes, our elections are all suspect.
The machines have been shown to not be secure, the chain of custody of ballots was violated in multiple jurisdictions and on and on.
There is no reason to think only one side is capable of cheating. In this case it's just obvious that a record number of voters didn't vote for Joe Biden. He could barely fill a high school gymnasium with supporters during the rare occasion he ventured out. And Kamala?
The powers that be are rubbing our noses in it and there are still ding a lings who are defending the integrity of our elections.
-
Lawful Evil alignment.
Bold strategy, let's see how it plays out for em'.
They're pushing a black, you watch it be Abrams.
-
Haha. So clever.
I see many folks claim that the sheer number of votes for Biden is evidence of fraud. It's the most votes ever so it must be faked!
I just asked if the second most votes ever was similarly unbelievable.
Just think about it for a minute. If Biden's vote totals are believable (as you are implying), then turnout must have been exceptionally high in that election. If that was the case, Trump's numbers are more believable, not less.
Regardless of the turnout for Biden, there's every reason to expect that turnout for Trump would be much higher than the ~60 million he got in 2016. Obviously, for all the turmoil of his first term, the dire warnings of stock market collapse, world war, mass deportations, and racial oppression never came true. Republicans and independents that were too nervous to vote Trump in 2016 had no reason to be nervous anymore. In fact, they had a lot of reasons to be enthusiastic about voting for Trump in 2020. He even had a higher percentage of black men voting for him.
Lastly, if you think Republican ballot-stuffers could get away with anything close to what Democrats do, you really, really haven't been paying attention to how our news media and justice system have been working - especially the past 2 years.
-
Stop looking at the total votes. They do not matter. That's what they want you looking at.
Look at how few votes it took to flip swing states. That was all that was needed. It wasn't very many votes.
Several states elections broke the states constitution. There are finally some state judges saying that but it should have happened much sooner.
-
Stop looking at the total votes. They do not matter. That's what they want you looking at.
Look at how few votes it took to flip swing states. That was all that was needed. It wasn't very many votes.
Several states elections broke the states constitution. There are finally some state judges saying that but it should have happened much sooner.
This. It was all the “oh all the counties in GA reported their totals but this ONE where the water main suddenly broke and delayed the count”, “blocking windows and running poll watchers off while counters wearing Biden hats and masks count the votes”, and “trump was ahead until 3am when Biden took a MASSIVE jump” type *expletive deleted*it in the swing states that did it.
The total numbers are kind of irrelevant when the blatant counting fraud occurs in those key states
And not a damn bit of actual investigation was done.
-
The only one I am interested in is that it feels like in places like Pennsylvania Biden ran up the score in counties he lost. Hey Trump won, nothing to see here. But Biden lost by way less than he should have. Leaving the Biden win localities to bring it home. Well that and the lowest ever reject rate of absentee ballots in a year when many did it for the first time...
-
Just think about it for a minute. If Biden's vote totals are believable (as you are implying), then turnout must have been exceptionally high in that election. If that was the case, Trump's numbers are more believable, not less.
Regardless of the turnout for Biden, there's every reason to expect that turnout for Trump would be much higher than the ~60 million he got in 2016. Obviously, for all the turmoil of his first term, the dire warnings of stock market collapse, world war, mass deportations, and racial oppression never came true. Republicans and independents that were too nervous to vote Trump in 2016 had no reason to be nervous anymore. In fact, they had a lot of reasons to be enthusiastic about voting for Trump in 2020. He even had a higher percentage of black men voting for him.
Lastly, if you think Republican ballot-stuffers could get away with anything close to what Democrats do, you really, really haven't been paying attention to how our news media and justice system have been working - especially the past 2 years.
Trump saw a 9% gain in popular votes in his second election over his first. This is the same bump Reagan saw in his second election. So those numbers actually comport with history as we know it.
Not campaigning and then pulling 12 million more votes than the most popular candidate ever (Obama '08) while carrying 200 fewer counties does not comport with history or mathematical probability.
-
"Not campaigning and then pulling 12 million more votes than the most popular candidate ever (Obama '08) while carrying 200 fewer counties does not comport with history or mathematical probability."
There's a HUGE error in your assessment.
You're assuming that all counties have the same number of voters and that carrying 200 fewer counties would result in a linear loss in votes for a candidate
Nope.
Given general population/political dynamics as they shook out the last couple of elections, I think it's VERY likely that most of those counties that Biden "lost" were relatively low population low registered voter counties in already predominantly red and purple areas of the country.
You're also assuming that the loss of a county means that all registered voters in that county voted the same way.
Also nope.
A county with 1000 registered voters -- 501 who voted for Trump and 499 who voted for Biden -- would still be a "loss" for Biden but with almost negligible effect.
-
As I said, I don't have strong feelings on the integrity of the election overall, because there's a lot of smoke, but no visible flames. No real evidence. I'm fully aware that the election system has proven to be designed in such a way that there can be no real proof found, and that is it's own issue. I agree that the red flags abound on Biden's side, and had a real audit been possible, it may have been very illuminating. But it wasn't possible, so it didn't happen.
I was only commenting on the folks that claim that the sheer number 81 million defies belief, and only then with a question.
Just think about it for a minute. If Biden's vote totals are believable (as you are implying), then turnout must have been exceptionally high in that election. If that was the case, Trump's numbers are more believable, not less.
Right. We agree. Other than the fact that I wasn't implying anything about Biden's numbers. I was implying that the election turnout numbers were linked in believability. Both candidates had unusually high numbers.
I will add that I think you underestimate how polarizing Trump was among the "Republicans and independents that were too nervous to vote Trump in 2016" crowd. He, and his media enemies, managed to instill just a ton of unfounded hate in a lot of independents that I met around the country. They were voting for Biden despite the good course the economy was on, and the lack of world ending moves by Trump, just because they hated him. I think that's where a lot of the Biden buyers remorse is coming from now. I have no real evidence of that, it's just my feeling from talking to people around the country.
-
"I will add that I think you underestimate how polarizing Trump was among the "Republicans and independents that were too nervous to vote Trump in 2016" crowd. He, and his media enemies, managed to instill just a ton of unfounded hate in a lot of independents that I met around the country. They were voting for Biden despite the good course the economy was on, and the lack of world ending moves by Trump, just because they hated him. I think that's where a lot of the Biden buyers remorse is coming from now. I have no real evidence of that, it's just my feeling from talking to people around the country."
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think much the same mechanism was at play in 2016 when Trump won. Only the roles were reversed -- in 2016 people came out and voted for Trump because they couldn't stand the thought of Hillary being president.
In 2020 people came out and voted for Biden because they couldn't stand the thought of Trump being president.
In both scenarios people who supported the eventual winner came to regret their decision.
-
In this case it's just obvious that a record number of voters didn't vote for Joe Biden.
Correct, they voted against Trump. ;)
-
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/01/did_over_100000_people_older_than_124_years_vote_in_wisconsin.html
Head in the sand folks have their heads in the sand. The elections are fake.
-
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/01/did_over_100000_people_older_than_124_years_vote_in_wisconsin.html
Head in the sand folks have their heads in the sand. The elections are fake.
Just another reason the voter rolls should be purged every so often and 3rd party registration should be illegal. If you can't show ID or prove who you are, you don't get to vote.
-
Just another reason the voter rolls should be purged every so often and 3rd party registration should be illegal. If you can't show ID or prove who you are, you don't get to vote.
Agreed, but I think banning 3rd party registration is a fantasy at this point.
-
If you can't show ID or prove who you are, you don't get to vote.
The whole ID debacle is especially infuriating now that "covid IDs" are supposed to be no big deal to get and show.
-
I will add that I think you underestimate how polarizing Trump was among the "Republicans and independents that were too nervous to vote Trump in 2016" crowd. He, and his media enemies, managed to instill just a ton of unfounded hate in a lot of independents that I met around the country. They were voting for Biden despite the good course the economy was on, and the lack of world ending moves by Trump, just because they hated him. I think that's where a lot of the Biden buyers remorse is coming from now. I have no real evidence of that, it's just my feeling from talking to people around the country.
When I was talking about people too nervous to vote for Trump in 2016, and then voting for him in 2020, I was only suggesting it would explain a much higher number of votes for Trump in 2020, regardless of those who voted for Biden. The people I have in mind are those who seriously considered voting for him in 2016, but were scared off by the anti-Trump hysteria. After all, we didn't know what kind of president he'd be then.
-
When I was talking about people too nervous to vote for Trump in 2016, and then voting for him in 2020, I was only suggesting it would explain a much higher number of votes for Trump in 2020, regardless of those who voted for Biden. The people I have in mind are those who seriously considered voting for him in 2016, but were scared off by the anti-Trump hysteria. After all, we didn't know what kind of president he'd be then.
Myself and most of my close circle of friends were in the category of non-Trump voters in ‘16 (write-in, 3rd party, or abstention) but came around and pulled the lever for him in ’20. I don’t personally know anybody that voted Trump in ‘16 and switched to Biden in ‘20.
-
The only one I am interested in is that it feels like in places like Pennsylvania Biden ran up the score in counties he lost. Hey Trump won, nothing to see here. But Biden lost by way less than he should have. Leaving the Biden win localities to bring it home. Well that and the lowest ever reject rate of absentee ballots in a year when many did it for the first time...
https://www.spotlightpa.org/news/2022/01/pennsylvania-mail-voting-unconstitutional-supreme-court-appeal/
It ain't over yet
-
Myself and most of my close circle of friends were in the category of non-Trump voters in ‘16 (write-in, 3rd party, or abstention) but came around and pulled the lever for him in ’20. I don’t personally know anybody that voted Trump in ‘16 and switched to Biden in ‘20.
I didn’t vote in 16 because I believed Trump was going to be a complete joke of a president.
I didn’t expect him to actually be good for the economy and for keeping us out of more foreign bullshit.
I enthusiastically voted for him in 2020. I personally think his support was much higher in 2020 because I saw a lot more flags and bumper stickers and a lot more people like me who had lots of doubt in 16 but were happy to vote in 2020 for him.
I met very few Biden supporters and most of them were *expletive deleted*ing transplants from the big cities up North.
-
This is perfect.
Biden’s Nominee—Whoever That May Be—Sexually Assaulted Me in the 1980s (https://amgreatness.com/2022/01/28/bidens-nominee-replacing-breyer-on-scotus-whoever-that-nominee-may-be-sexually-assaulted-me-in-the-1980s/)
-
The MSM is exhausting.
"How many black women do you have on staff, and how are they informing your decision on the appointee?"
Like what? The black woman secretary? Or the black woman operations manager? Or what? We're using random black women to choose the next SCJ? Idiots.
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2022/02/01/mitch-mcconnell-asked-how-many-black-women-he-has-on-staff-to-help-inform-him-on-bidens-scotus-nominee/
-
The MSM is exhausting.
"How many black women do you have on staff, and how are they informing your decision on the appointee?"
Like what? The black woman secretary? Or the black woman operations manager? Or what? We're using random black women to choose the next SCJ? Idiots.
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2022/02/01/mitch-mcconnell-asked-how-many-black-women-he-has-on-staff-to-help-inform-him-on-bidens-scotus-nominee/
I have been laboring under the mistaken belief it was the Senators themselves that were elected by the people, and charged with carrying out the people's business. Had no idea we were actually supposed to be electing the Senators' Aryan race staff members.
-
Now Roberts, maybe
Breaking News: 2nd Supreme Court Justice Considering Retirement?!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVoQN1eRw10
-
Roberts is not that old. If this is true, it certainly has my spidey senses tingling regarding the old deep state and a pre-Trump status quo.
-
Biden's pick is Ketanji Brown-Jackson.
She is probably the least controversial of anyone on the list and appears to have the legal chops (my disagreements to many of her positions not withstanding). It will be interesting to see how this goes. IMO, she will be harder to Kavanaugh, were the Rs to go in that direction, than many of the other potential appointees.
-
I presume calls of racism if she doesn’t get 100% of the votes.
-
Didn't take them long to pounce on what they "know" the R's will do.
Looking forward to how Rs will intentionally mispronounce Brown Jackson’s first name
— Jennifer 'I stand with Ukraine' Rubin 🇺🇦🇺🇦 (@JRubinBlogger) February 25, 2022
WaPo writer predicted ‘Rs’ would mispronounce Biden SCOTUS nominee’s name (because racism), then it got awkward
https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2022/02/25/wapo-writer-predicted-rs-would-mispronounce-biden-scotus-nominees-name-because-racism-then-it-got-awkward/
-
Didn't take them long to pounce on what they "know" the R's will do.
WaPo writer predicted ‘Rs’ would mispronounce Biden SCOTUS nominee’s name (because racism), then it got awkward
https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2022/02/25/wapo-writer-predicted-rs-would-mispronounce-biden-scotus-nominees-name-because-racism-then-it-got-awkward/
:laugh: I almost posted a prediction about that, since they already pulled that stunt with Kam - AL -uh.
-
Hell, I can't pronounce her name and I consider myself pretty well read and literate. I don't know why blacks think they can name their kids unpronounceable bullshit and then get offended when the rest of us are confused as to how to pronounce said name.
-
Hell, I can't pronounce her name and I consider myself pretty well read and literate. I don't know why blacks think they can name their kids unpronounceable bullshit and then get offended when the rest of us are confused as to how to pronounce said name.
Or whites, for that matter.
-
Name Ketanji generally means Home or Pure Gold, it is unisex and Hindu origin.
-
That's not a particularly hard name to pronounce......
-
That's not a particularly hard name to pronounce......
"It's spelled Raymond Luxury-Yacht but it's pronounced Throat-Warbler Mangrove"
-
Stop being insubordinate and churlish.
Ref for Boomers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd7FixvoKBw
-
Stop being insubordinate and churlish.
Ref for Boomers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd7FixvoKBw
Thanks for the link. I love that skit but hadn't seen it in so long I forgot about it
-
Or whites, for that matter.
For Whites it's generally absurd spelling of common names.
-
For Whites it's generally absurd spelling of common names.
(https://kemmeyer.typepad.com/less_clutter_noise/images/2008/08/26/cindi.jpg)
-
Stop being insubordinate and churlish.
Ref for Boomers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd7FixvoKBw
That's not a particularly hard name to pronounce......
Not really the point. In this case any subtle mispronunciation gets you a media pileup of of racism accusations. And if you nail the pronunciation and whatever they're calling grammar, it's patronizing. There is no win.
AA-RON. lol
The defense rests.
-
(https://kemmeyer.typepad.com/less_clutter_noise/images/2008/08/26/cindi.jpg)
:cool:
-
(https://i.gifer.com/9A00.gif)
-
For Whites it's generally absurd spelling of common names.
That ain't the half of it. I could list some stoopid white people names, but it would probably offend half the people on the board. Not that I'm beyond that, of course.
-
That ain't the half of it. I could list some stoopid white people names, but it would probably offend half the people on the board. Not that I'm beyond that, of course.
No argument from me, I hate everyone equally. But I'm not backing down on blacks taking the prize for stupid, unpronounceable bullshit names.
-
No argument from me, I hate everyone equally. But I'm not backing down on blacks taking the prize for stupid, unpronounceable bullshit names.
As Dr. Sowell has taught us, each ethnic group excels in their different areas. :laugh:
-
Hell, I can't pronounce her name and I consider myself pretty well read and literate. I don't know why blacks think they can name their kids unpronounceable bullshit and then get offended when the rest of us are confused as to how to pronounce said name.
La-A, pronounced La dash uh, because the "-" it not be silent.
-
As Dr. Sowell has taught us, each ethnic group excels in their different areas. :laugh:
Exactly.
I've taken more *expletive deleted*it from sheet wearing morons for pointing out Sowell and Thomas are both brilliant while pointing out that I have no use whatsoever for your average "urban" black. (or urban anything, for that matter). That group acting like a bunch of violent, 80 IQ tribesmen have more than earned my contempt. And then they have the audacity to blame me for it. lol.
So yeah, I'm not excited about Biden's affirmative action nominee with the unpronounceable, culturally appropriated* name.
*Thanks for clearing that up, Charby.
-
La-A, pronounced La dash uh, because the "-" it not be silent.
Classic.
-
https://youtu.be/2xwXq0OZrMQ
The nomination video.
Biden lists what he considers her bona fides; "The courage to stand up for what she thinks is right". What an extraordinary qualification... which has nothing to do with being a justice of the Supreme Court.
And then he mispronounces her name.
-
And then he mispronounces her name.
That's okay, he's not an R
-
Libs aren't happy about their gal being "disrespected".
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2022/03/18/awww-karma-senate-democrats-are-super-mad-at-republicans-for-disrespecting-their-scotus-nominee-and-gosh-they-can-suck-it/
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2022/03/18/kavanaugh-would-like-a-word-media-matters-throwing-a-fit-over-josh-hawley-calling-out-ketanji-brown-jacksons-record-backfires/
-
Libs aren't happy about their gal being "disrespected".
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2022/03/18/awww-karma-senate-democrats-are-super-mad-at-republicans-for-disrespecting-their-scotus-nominee-and-gosh-they-can-suck-it/
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2022/03/18/kavanaugh-would-like-a-word-media-matters-throwing-a-fit-over-josh-hawley-calling-out-ketanji-brown-jacksons-record-backfires/
This is the Left's usual garbage - elevating non-whites to demigod, above-the-law status.
-
Hopefully it's nothing serious, but man, this sure has me hoping Thomas stays healthy into 2024. He's the best justice on the court right now, IMO.
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2022/03/20/justice-clarence-thomas-hospitalized-friday-evening-after-experiencing-flu-like-systems-and-the-left-reacts-just-like-youd-expect/
-
And many on the left are reacting exactly like you expect them to ranging from "Don't get Well" to lets get the ball rolling on his replacement now.
-
Meanwhile, back to the current opening: They (the left) just don't understand the Constitution, or the role of the Supreme Court.
https://apnews.com/article/ketanji-brown-jackson-confirmation-hearing-live-updates-54fe3957e4cca1a6d6dde5202631d0c2
Janette McCarthy Wallace, general counsel of the NAACP, said she was excited to see a Black woman on the verge of a high court seat.
“Representation matters,” Wallace said. “It’s critical to have diverse experience on the bench. It should reflect the rich cultural diversity of this country.”
Sorry, Ms. Wallace, but it's not about "representation," and it's not at all critical to have diverse experience on the Supreme Court. The "rich cultural diversity of the country" has nothing whatsoever to do with looking at a case and deciding if the underlying principles are in accord with the Constitution ... or not. All that's required (and is "critical") is an ability to read and understand what the Constitution says, and what the people who wrote it meant when they wrote it.
That's all. Nothing to do with "representation." Nothing to do with "diverse experience."
-
Man, the entire MSM is coming out in defense of child sex offenders in order to defend the appointee.
-
Man, the entire MSM is coming out in defense of child sex offenders in order to defend the appointee.
They are just getting ahead of the story when Zucker, Cuomo, H. Biden, and G. Maxwell start naming names. Their names.
-
Man, the entire MSM is coming out in defense of child sex offenders in order to defend the appointee.
Say what? I must have missed an important memo.
Whatchu talking about, Willis?
-
Say what? I must have missed an important memo.
Whatchu talking about, Willis?
I don't know much about it yet, but she supposedly has been lenient in cases involving sexual abuse of children. (I can see where political elites and especially democrats would like that)
-
Say what? I must have missed an important memo.
Whatchu talking about, Willis?
The Republican questioning of Brown-Jackson has been focusing on her leniency for pedophiles and the like. The MSM is now running cover and stating that it's "mainstream" to give child sex offenders light sentences, even though Brown-Jackson's are far under the guidelines. They're essentially beginning to argue that child sex offenses are not that big a deal.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FOZHq8oWYAsAdZq?format=png&name=small)
-
Say what? I must have missed an important memo.
Whatchu talking about, Willis?
If you heard about racists attacking Jackson because they are racists - that's what they were talking about. Also, the Left had to bring up Roy Moore again, because they thought that would help.
-
People have more access to porn these days, so they should be punished less for child porn.
https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2022/03/22/ketanji-brown-jackson-explaining-how-federal-sentencing-guidelines-for-child-pornography-offenders-are-out-of-date-is-not-the-best-look-video/
I guess if you wanted to argue that it is unfortunately easy to click on the wrong link and have something like that pop up, there is a case for leniency for something that was done accidentally, or via a malevolent link. However her cases that are being highlighted are not "I accidentally clicked the wrong link". They are cases involving hundreds and thousands of images. And "easy access to porn" does not excuse the physical abuse cases.
-
If you heard about racists attacking Jackson because they are racists - that's what they were talking about. Also, the Left had to bring up Roy Moore again, because they thought that would help.
Also saw someone saying that any criticism of her is inciting violence against blacks
-
I figure any judge Biden wants to nominate will be terrible, so what is the point of caring about this one?
-
I figure any judge Biden wants to nominate will be terrible, so what is the point of caring about this one?
It’s pretty much a wash, lefty for lefty.
But, she did say the 2nd Amendment is an individual right….
-
But, she did say the 2nd Amendment is an individual right….
Since the SCOTUS has already explicitly said that, she pretty much had to agree or look like a total idiot. That doesn't mean she wouldn't vote to overturn Heller in a heartbeat if given the opportunity.
-
But, she did say the 2nd Amendment is an individual right….
Every gun banning pol says that.
-
Every gun banning pol says that.
Even Beto says that, occasionally, when he's flip flopping in a desperate attempt to break his solid losing election record.
-
After 7 years at Harvard, Biden's Supreme Court pick can't define a 'woman'
'I'm not a biologist'
https://www.wnd.com/2022/03/7-years-harvard-bidens-suprem
-
After 7 years at Harvard, Biden's Supreme Court pick can't define a 'woman'
'I'm not a biologist'
https://www.wnd.com/2022/03/7-years-harvard-bidens-suprem
She's following precedent. Back in '73, SCOTUS said they couldn't figure out when life begins...
-
After 7 years at Harvard, Biden's Supreme Court pick can't define a 'woman'
'I'm not a biologist'
https://www.wnd.com/2022/03/7-years-harvard-bidens-suprem
I saw some great comments about that. From memory:
Lawyer: Was a man or woman driving the getaway vehicle?
Witness: How would I know? I'm not a biologist.
-
https://babylonbee.com/news/riddler-stumps-batman-with-question-what-is-a-woman
-
After 7 years at Harvard, Biden's Supreme Court pick can't define a 'woman'
'I'm not a biologist'
https://www.wnd.com/2022/03/7-years-harvard-bidens-suprem
From the link:
He explained, "Of course, it is not that someone as erudite and sophisticated as Judge Jackson can’t tell us the answer. It is that she won’t. At times during the hearing, she has put on her best constitutional originalist hat. It was almost like we were listening to the late, great Justice Antonin Scalia himself.
"But it’s a pose. Jackson bobs and weaves, demonstrating that she is well versed in constitutional originalism and statutory textualism – the judicial philosophy that judges must apply the law as written, consistent with its public meaning at the time it was adopted, not make it up as they go along. But Jackson has been careful just to describe this philosophy, not to adopt it as her own."
He explained Jackson is not revealing her own thoughts "because she is smart and grasps that we wouldn’t like the answer very much. She calculates that she has the votes and if she just toughs it out, without revealing anything too alarming, she will be confirmed."
-
She's following precedent. Back in '73, SCOTUS said they couldn't figure out when life begins...
They couldn't define Porn either....one just said he knew when he saw it. shrug.
-
Oh brother.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1506746325567737863
-
Oh brother.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1506746325567737863
So put him in the NO column?
Actually shocked he didn't take a sock off.
-
"When did Democrats become so pro-pedophile? Has it always been so or is it a more recent trend made easier by technology? At any other time in American history the mere defense of these perversions would be far more than disqualifying… now it’s not even shameful to them."
- Donald Trump Jr.
-
"When did Democrats become so pro-pedophile? "
When they realized that that was yet another uncaptured voter group.
-
Once the LGBTWTFBBQ crowd became an important voting bloc.
-
"When did Democrats become so pro-pedophile? "
When they realized that that was yet another uncaptured voter group.
And they called us crazy for predicting this.
-
On a related note, not much is being said about Justice Clarence Thomas still being in the hospital for an infection. Early speculation was that would be out by last Tuesday, two days ago.
-
I heard some clips of Jackson's questioning. The exchange between Cruz and Durban was just Durban trying to cover for Jackson, but prevent him from asking quetsions about the pedophile issue. Then the next Senator asked the same questions. She couldn't give a straightforward answer. Couldn't even spout a reasonable line of BS. I was not very impressed. When politicians are running verbal rings around you, you are either not very smart or not at all prepared.
-
When politicians are running verbal rings around you, you are either not very smart or not at all prepared.
Not mutually exclusive conditions.
Besides, how prepared did she really need to be? It's not like she isn't going to be confirmed regardless of anything she says or how FUBAR her judicial decisions from the past have been.
-
Not mutually exclusive conditions.
Besides, how prepared did she really need to be? It's not like she isn't going to be confirmed regardless of anything she says or how FUBAR her judicial decisions from the past have been.
Salty Cracker was speculating that she was meant to be rejected to give them something to campaign on this Fall.
-
And they called us crazy for predicting this.
And hateful.
Because love is love.
-
Salty Cracker was speculating that she was meant to be rejected to give them something to campaign on this Fall.
I gotta disagree with that only because she was the least far left of the final list.
-
Maybe she'll surprise us and actually do the job.
Hey, you can always hope. After all, Kavanaugh has been rather a disappointment, and Amy Coney Barret has been a major disappointment.
-
On a related note, not much is being said about Justice Clarence Thomas still being in the hospital for an infection. Early speculation was that would be out by last Tuesday, two days ago.
Thomas was just discharged from the hospital.
-
Thomas was just discharged from the hospital.
And will be walking right into the maw of some shitstorm that apparently just started about texts his wife wrote. I'm suddenly seeing calls for impeachment everywhere.
-
The only one I've seen calling for his impeachment is Ilhan Omar.
Good luck with that. She'll forget it soon enough and go back to hating on the Jews/Israel.
-
Because love is love.
https://youtu.be/3odMTPuzLwY?t=87
Brad
-
Ok, Mehdi Hasan is also calling for Democrats to impeach Thomas.
He's an MSNBC talking head and, if anything, is even farther to the left than Omar.
-
Please try to impeach the only black man on SCOTUS in an election year for something his wife did that was probably not illegal. I keep seeing headline that say we have the texts but haven't seen anyone print them.
Come on Dem's I dare you.
-
^^^Here are some of the messages. Nothing particularly shocking, in my view.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/24/virginia-thomas-mark-meadows-texts/
-
I couldn't read the whole dribble. If that was the worst they have it's nothing. She is intitled to an opinion just like everyone else.
-
Y'all don't like her because she has too much empathy.
Actually shocked they didn't throw in black and female in for good measure. Or maybe that's just automatically assumed nowadays.
Democrats praised President Joe Biden’s choice of the Harvard-educated lawyer and appellate court judge as long overdue, making the judicial branch begin to look more like America.
But Republicans argue Jackson brings too much empathy to the job. https://t.co/392C6FSXK8
— The Associated Press (@AP) March 25, 2022
https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2022/03/25/the-ap-zeroes-in-on-republicans-real-problem-with-ketanji-brown-jackson-shes-got-too-much-empathy/
-
'Democrats praised President Joe Biden’s choice of the Harvard-educated lawyer and appellate court judge as long overdue, making the judicial branch begin to look more like America.'
Really? America is that pedophile friendly?
-
Are Leftists demanding to see Mrs. Thomas's yearbook yet?
I should probably start a fake Twitter account, and post provocative photos of her (alleged) yearbook. Should I wait until April 1st?
-
Are Leftists demanding to see Mrs. Thomas's yearbook yet?
I should probably start a fake Twitter account, and post provocative photos of her (alleged) yearbook. Should I wait until April 1st?
No need to wait. Add her to the pictures of Ralph Northam from Virginia.
-
'Democrats praised President Joe Biden’s choice of the Harvard-educated lawyer and appellate court judge as long overdue, making the judicial branch begin to look more like America.'
That doesn't look like America.
-
I couldn't read the whole dribble. If that was the worst they have it's nothing. She is intitled to an opinion just like everyone else.
Not according the the left. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-s-clarence-thomas-released-from-hospital-after-week-long-stay/ar-AAVuSqT
They are dredging up ethics "authorities" who are authoritatively proclaiming that it's a conflict of interest, so Clarence Thomas must go. Basically, they smell blood in the water and they're trying extra hard to get Biden another nomination so they can push the court back toward the leftist/liberal/woke orientation they so dearly want.
According to the rules, only Justice Thomas can say if there's a conflict of interest rising to a level that would call for him to recuse himself. He and his wife have been married for a long time. I'm fairly certain that they have had a few discussions about her freedom to hold her opinions and to not try to influence him, and his freedom to vote his view of the law in cases without incurring her wrath.
My parents were both registered Republicans, because when I was growing up our little town was Republican. The Democrats (who have since taken over, and pretty much ruined the place) were a tiny minority. Nonetheless, my father was such a staunch Republican that he would have voted for Attila the Hun if Attila had been a Republican. My mother found such unreasoning loyalty to the party sufficiently troublesome that she always voted Democratic, just to counteract my father's vote. (Yeah, that was an equally unreasoning strategy, but Mom didn't see it that way.) So IMHO the fact that Mrs. Thomas holds certain opinions and exercises her freedom to express them is a HUGE nothingburger.
[Edit to add]Here's how far they're trying to push it: From the same link I posted above:
Stephen Gillers, an ethics expert at New York University Law School, said Justice Thomas had an obligation under the recusal statute to know about his wife’s activities. He can’t claim ignorance about her work, Gillers said, or intentionally avoid becoming informed about her actions.
“It was his job to ensure the public would not question his impartiality” in cases involving the 2020 election and Congress’s investigation of the attack on the Capitol, Gillers said. “The public would suspect that the Thomases talked about the post-election challenge.”
So, according to this mental giant, a Supreme Court justice who intentionally lives his life in a way that preserves his objectivity is WRONG. Apparently this clown thinks justices aren't allowed be objective -- they apparently have an affirmative obligation to inform themselves of things that might create a conflict of interest ... so they can then be required to recuse themselves on the basis of the conflict that they intentionally didn't avoid.
Words fail me.
-
If the left didn’t have double standards they would have no standards at all.
-
Again, she'll very likely get in, but...
“I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights.”
https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2022/04/02/instant-no-vote-scotus-nominees-written-answer-to-sen-cruzs-natural-rights-question-catches-lots-of-attention/
-
Again, she'll very likely get in, but...
https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2022/04/02/instant-no-vote-scotus-nominees-written-answer-to-sen-cruzs-natural-rights-question-catches-lots-of-attention/
I was just coming here to post that.
Bet it won't effect one single dem vote and that makes me very sad.
-
Anyone really surprised?
Liberals believe that the only rights are those created by, and doled out with an eyedropper by, the Government.
-
Again, she'll very likely get in, but...
https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2022/04/02/instant-no-vote-scotus-nominees-written-answer-to-sen-cruzs-natural-rights-question-catches-lots-of-attention/
And I give about 3/5s of a *expletive deleted*it about her opinion. See how that works?
SCOTUS was well on it's way to being a joke before they nominated her. Confirming her would just make it official.
-
This is stunning.
The Declaration of Independence proclaims:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights….”
KBJ says she has”no position” on whether this is true. https://t.co/0VV5dg3ssS
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) April 3, 2022
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2022/04/03/stunning-and-not-in-a-good-way-ted-cruz-just-blisters-kbj-for-having-no-position-on-whether-or-not-our-rights-are-inherent/
Just based on her statement on rights in a sane world she shouldn't, wouldn't get a single yes vote but we don't live in a sane world do we?
-
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2022/04/03/stunning-and-not-in-a-good-way-ted-cruz-just-blisters-kbj-for-having-no-position-on-whether-or-not-our-rights-are-inherent/
Just based on her statement on rights in a sane world she shouldn't, wouldn't get a single yes vote but we don't live in a sane world do we?
Susan Collins is apparently a “yes” so now it’ll be a “bi-partisan” vote to confirm.
-
And I give about 3/5s of a *expletive deleted*it about her opinion. See how that works?
3/5s? Man, you're generous.
-
Susan Collins is apparently a “yes” so now it’ll be a “bi-partisan” vote to confirm.
Susan Collins is a RINO. I used to think it was surprising that someone like her could represent the state of Maine, but Maine was a very different state when my grandparents were alive and our summer vacation was always to visit them in Maine. The southern )populated) part of Maine today is pretty much just an extension or Massachusetts, politically.
-
This is where we're at now.
Someone who openly dismisses the constitution is one step away from sitting on the SCOUS for life because much of senate either has the same views or don't want to be smeared as racist in the MSM.
-
Someone who openly dismisses the constitution is one step away from sitting on the SCOUS for life because much of senate either has the same views or don't want to be smeared as racist in the MSM.
What did she say about the constitution?
-
What did she say about the constitution?
"I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights."
Strictly speaking, the reference to inalienable (i.e. natural) rights doesn't stem from the Constitution, it's in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
-
What did she say about the constitution?
"I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights."
Which to me at least is completely counter to the whole idea of the Bill of Rights
-
Looks like she's in
The United States Senate on Thursday voted to confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson as the 116th Justice of the United States Supreme Court. All Democrats in the Senate voted to confirm Biden's SCOTUS nominee, joined by three Republicans: Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Mitt Romney of Utah.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spencerbrown/2022/04/07/breaking-three-republicans-join-democrats-to-confirm-bidens-supreme-court-nominee-n2605615
-
As soon as I saw the count I knew who the three were.
-
As soon as I saw the count I knew who the three were.
WtF is up with the people in Utah? I mean, Maine is kinda weird, and it’s unlikely anyone to the right of Collins can win there anymore. Alaska has always been a strange mix of rugged individualism and teat suckling. So Murky is exasperating but I can sorta see why AK keeps her. But Utah? They need to kick Romney to the curb. There’s no excuse for that.
-
WtF is up with the people in Utah? I mean, Maine is kinda weird, and it’s unlikely anyone to the right of Collins can win there anymore. Alaska has always been a strange mix of rugged individualism and teat suckling. So Murky is exasperating but I can sorta see why AK keeps her. But Utah? They need to kick Romney to the curb. There’s no excuse for that.
Living in Iderho for a few years now, I am learning that Mormons really stick together.
-
Living in Iderho for a few years now, I am learning that Mormons really stick together.
Yeah, but there’s plenty of decent Mormons that could replace him.
-
As soon as I saw the count I knew who the three were.
Yep.
-
I presume she will recuse herself from any decisions on affirmative action. ;/
-
I presume she will recuse herself from any decisions on affirmative action. ;/
:rofl:
-
WtF is up with the people in Utah? I mean, Maine is kinda weird, and it’s unlikely anyone to the right of Collins can win there anymore. Alaska has always been a strange mix of rugged individualism and teat suckling. So Murky is exasperating but I can sorta see why AK keeps her. But Utah? They need to kick Romney to the curb. There’s no excuse for that.
Same reason Lindsay Graham wins every *expletive deleted*ing time- his backers are powerful and very much RINOs.
-
Romney is up for reelection in 2024. I guess we will see if he wins or if he has challengers at all. 6 year Senate terms are a long time sometimes.
I can't remember. Did Trump help Romney campaign? I was thinking he might have.
-
I presume she will recuse herself from any decisions on affirmative action. ;/
And any decision involving the Constitution
-
Wow, some people asked her questions on her stance on constitutional matters.
History will never forget the flagrant disrespect the GOP showed Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson during her confirmation hearings.
— Robert Reich (@RBReich) April 7, 2022
BTW: Haven't the dems been assuming her gender?
-
History will never forget the time Democrats appointed a pedo lover to the Supreme Court
-
History will never forget the time Democrats appointed a pedo lover to the Supreme Court
They needed to guarantee she would get all the dem votes because they couldn't count on black and female being enough
-
This meme just got more relevant:
(https://i.imgflip.com/4vks64.jpg)
-
3/5s? Man, you're generous.
I'm applying the same standards she is WRT the Founders and Constitution. If those are the rules she want's to play by I'm fine with them.
-
Amazing isn't it how Thomas is still being attacked by the left but ANY criticism of Jackson is automatically racist
-
Amazing isn't it how Thomas is still being attacked by the left but ANY criticism of Jackson is automatically racist
That's because Thomas is the Oreo Cookie of the judiciary.
I'd say Jackson is a cookie chock full of nuts, but that might be deemed sexist.
-
Sworn in
BTW: Another copy and paste AP article
The 51-year-old Jackson is the court’s 116th justice, and she took the place of the justice she once worked for. Justice Stephen Breyer’s retirement took effect at noon.
Ketanji Brown Jackson sworn in, becomes 1st Black woman on Supreme Court
https://www.wave3.com/2022/06/30/ketanji-brown-jackson-be-sworn-into-supreme-court/
-
Hopefully won't change much since one liberal replaced another
-
Ketanji Brown Jackson sworn in, becomes 1st Black woman on Supreme Court
Are you sure about that? Since we don't know what a woman is ...
-
Are you sure about that? Since we don't know what a woman is ...
I just copy and pasted the headline to the link
I'm sure the AP writers are not biologists
-
If Mitch had a spine he should have told Biden he would filibuster her in the name of Janice Rogers Brown.