If anyone is paying attention to the SCOTUS nominee hearings, the new recycled narrative is that President Biden supports child pornography because of this nominee’s allegedly going light with her sentencing. It’s also the narrative that the war in Ukraine is happening so bus loads of children can be taken by human traffickers. It’s the new Comet Pizza, joe Biden flavor.
Does Pearl Jam really think that America looks like a black woman? Does Pearl Jam also think that there are no Asians in America?
Well Biden only had one nominee, so he had to make a decision.
But for the record, there are 21MM Black women in the US, so at some level, yeah she does. Does the pick offend you?
I've discussed this in depth here already so I'm not going down that road again but feel free to look through my past comments if you really care. (spoiler: I know you don't and that is ok)
yeah, and simple math is hard. biden has one pick to make. so he chose one person who isn't white and isn't male. you somehow want him to pick every single minority represented in america and smash them all into one position.
Racial bias isn't hard to understand either.
saying this is racial bias is like complaining about no white history month.
Do you think a black woman would be a better pick than an asian woman? Biden decided that a black woman was best because of racial bias.
do you know the history and demographics of the country you live in? there are 50 million black people in the US. 18 million asian americans. do you understand the symbolism of lifting up an african american female to the highest court in the land?
he wants to make the court look more like america. maybe asian woman or asian "they" is next. or a native american. or a transgendered Pilipino. or...or....there's lot to choose from, but ya gotta start somewhere.
you're just trying to make some stupid argument about reverse discrimination.
There has never been any asian representation on the SCOTUS. That's my point. Let's put multiple black people on the SCOTUS and completely leave asians out of it.
There's never been a public defender on the court either. And she was that. That's a unique qualification that has been sorely missed, considering the rampant miscarriages of justice we have seen in our country's history. Don't you think that's important?
Yes. I can agree that is important but are all public defenders black women? Why does color matter? Because Biden said it did.
Because the court should look like America. Did we just come full circle?
Were you upset when Trump announced he was going to nominate a woman? If not, why not?
The court should look like America. Therefore it cannot and should not be old white guys and a couple of white women. The QtRUmplicans not liking President Biden nominating a black woman is all part of the replacement theory that drives them to try and keep America as white as possible. Even though they will lose the battle and white people will inevitably be the a minority.
If anyone is paying attention to the SCOTUS nominee hearings, the new recycled narrative is that President Biden supports child pornography because of this nominee’s allegedly going light with her sentencing. It’s also the narrative that the war in Ukraine is happening so bus loads of children can be taken by human traffickers. It’s the new Comet Pizza, joe Biden flavor.
Does Pearl Jam really think that America looks like a black woman? Does Pearl Jam also think that there are no Asians in America?
Well Biden only had one nominee, so he had to make a decision.
But for the record, there are 21MM Black women in the US, so at some level, yeah she does. Does the pick offend you?
I've discussed this in depth here already so I'm not going down that road again but feel free to look through my past comments if you really care. (spoiler: I know you don't and that is ok)
yeah, and simple math is hard. biden has one pick to make. so he chose one person who isn't white and isn't male. you somehow want him to pick every single minority represented in america and smash them all into one position.
Racial bias isn't hard to understand either.
saying this is racial bias is like complaining about no white history month.
Do you think a black woman would be a better pick than an asian woman? Biden decided that a black woman was best because of racial bias.
do you know the history and demographics of the country you live in? there are 50 million black people in the US. 18 million asian americans. do you understand the symbolism of lifting up an african american female to the highest court in the land?
he wants to make the court look more like america. maybe asian woman or asian "they" is next. or a native american. or a transgendered Pilipino. or...or....there's lot to choose from, but ya gotta start somewhere.
you're just trying to make some stupid argument about reverse discrimination.
There has never been any asian representation on the SCOTUS. That's my point. Let's put multiple black people on the SCOTUS and completely leave asians out of it.
There's never been a public defender on the court either. And she was that. That's a unique qualification that has been sorely missed, considering the rampant miscarriages of justice we have seen in our country's history. Don't you think that's important?
Yes. I can agree that is important but are all public defenders black women? Why does color matter? Because Biden said it did.
Because the court should look like America. Did we just come full circle?
Were you upset when Trump announced he was going to nominate a woman? If not, why not?
The court should look like America. Therefore it cannot and should not be old white guys and a couple of white women. The QtRUmplicans not liking President Biden nominating a black woman is all part of the replacement theory that drives them to try and keep America as white as possible. Even though they will lose the battle and white people will inevitably be the a minority.
There was an AA guest on Morning Joe today talking about how Jackson will be better for the Court because it will look more like America.
The reality is she will vote almost exactly the way Breyer did. And the Court will still have a 6-3 conservative majority enabling it to aggressively pursue a very conservative agenda (get ready for open carry NY). With most expecting the Dems to lose congress this year, it’s unlikely that Biden will have any more of a liberal contribution to the Court. So why are some dissing all the old white Jewish men by saying Jackson is an improvement? Some may be just a little insulted at that assumption. The Court unfortunately decides cases based on political ideology, not demographics. If it did use demos…
edit, intended to mention maybe the silver lining is she could talk some sense into Thomas, but looking at how extremist his spouse is, that’s doubtful.
If anyone is paying attention to the SCOTUS nominee hearings, the new recycled narrative is that President Biden supports child pornography because of this nominee’s allegedly going light with her sentencing. It’s also the narrative that the war in Ukraine is happening so bus loads of children can be taken by human traffickers. It’s the new Comet Pizza, joe Biden flavor.
Does Pearl Jam really think that America looks like a black woman? Does Pearl Jam also think that there are no Asians in America?
Well Biden only had one nominee, so he had to make a decision.
But for the record, there are 21MM Black women in the US, so at some level, yeah she does. Does the pick offend you?
I've discussed this in depth here already so I'm not going down that road again but feel free to look through my past comments if you really care. (spoiler: I know you don't and that is ok)
yeah, and simple math is hard. biden has one pick to make. so he chose one person who isn't white and isn't male. you somehow want him to pick every single minority represented in america and smash them all into one position.
Racial bias isn't hard to understand either.
saying this is racial bias is like complaining about no white history month.
Do you think a black woman would be a better pick than an asian woman? Biden decided that a black woman was best because of racial bias.
do you know the history and demographics of the country you live in? there are 50 million black people in the US. 18 million asian americans. do you understand the symbolism of lifting up an african american female to the highest court in the land?
he wants to make the court look more like america. maybe asian woman or asian "they" is next. or a native american. or a transgendered Pilipino. or...or....there's lot to choose from, but ya gotta start somewhere.
you're just trying to make some stupid argument about reverse discrimination.
There has never been any asian representation on the SCOTUS. That's my point. Let's put multiple black people on the SCOTUS and completely leave asians out of it.
There's never been a public defender on the court either. And she was that. That's a unique qualification that has been sorely missed, considering the rampant miscarriages of justice we have seen in our country's history. Don't you think that's important?
Yes. I can agree that is important but are all public defenders black women? Why does color matter? Because Biden said it did.
Because the court should look like America. Did we just come full circle?
Were you upset when Trump announced he was going to nominate a woman? If not, why not?
The court should look like America. Therefore it cannot and should not be old white guys and a couple of white women. The QtRUmplicans not liking President Biden nominating a black woman is all part of the replacement theory that drives them to try and keep America as white as possible. Even though they will lose the battle and white people will inevitably be the a minority.
There was an AA guest on Morning Joe today talking about how Jackson will be better for the Court because it will look more like America.
The reality is she will vote almost exactly the way Breyer did. And the Court will still have a 6-3 conservative majority enabling it to aggressively pursue a very conservative agenda (get ready for open carry NY). With most expecting the Dems to lose congress this year, it’s unlikely that Biden will have any more of a liberal contribution to the Court. So why are some dissing all the old white Jewish men by saying Jackson is an improvement? Some may be just a little insulted at that assumption. The Court unfortunately decides cases based on political ideology, not demographics. If it did use demos…
edit, intended to mention maybe the silver lining is she could talk some sense into Thomas, but looking at how extremist his spouse is, that’s doubtful.
Yes she will likely rule like Breyer, but there's something to be said about the role model she can be to young Black girls everywhere. And that's nothing to write off. Obama being elected president was huge for the AA community to show young, Black men that they can strive to be the leader of the free world. RBG did the same for women. She was a hero to many a woman in this country. So just because she will cast a vote like Breyer doesn't make her nomination (and hopefully confirmation) meaningless.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,299
If anyone is paying attention to the SCOTUS nominee hearings, the new recycled narrative is that President Biden supports child pornography because of this nominee’s allegedly going light with her sentencing. It’s also the narrative that the war in Ukraine is happening so bus loads of children can be taken by human traffickers. It’s the new Comet Pizza, joe Biden flavor.
Does Pearl Jam really think that America looks like a black woman? Does Pearl Jam also think that there are no Asians in America?
Well Biden only had one nominee, so he had to make a decision.
But for the record, there are 21MM Black women in the US, so at some level, yeah she does. Does the pick offend you?
I've discussed this in depth here already so I'm not going down that road again but feel free to look through my past comments if you really care. (spoiler: I know you don't and that is ok)
yeah, and simple math is hard. biden has one pick to make. so he chose one person who isn't white and isn't male. you somehow want him to pick every single minority represented in america and smash them all into one position.
Racial bias isn't hard to understand either.
saying this is racial bias is like complaining about no white history month.
Do you think a black woman would be a better pick than an asian woman? Biden decided that a black woman was best because of racial bias.
do you know the history and demographics of the country you live in? there are 50 million black people in the US. 18 million asian americans. do you understand the symbolism of lifting up an african american female to the highest court in the land?
he wants to make the court look more like america. maybe asian woman or asian "they" is next. or a native american. or a transgendered Pilipino. or...or....there's lot to choose from, but ya gotta start somewhere.
you're just trying to make some stupid argument about reverse discrimination.
There has never been any asian representation on the SCOTUS. That's my point. Let's put multiple black people on the SCOTUS and completely leave asians out of it.
There's never been a public defender on the court either. And she was that. That's a unique qualification that has been sorely missed, considering the rampant miscarriages of justice we have seen in our country's history. Don't you think that's important?
Yes. I can agree that is important but are all public defenders black women? Why does color matter? Because Biden said it did.
Because the court should look like America. Did we just come full circle?
Were you upset when Trump announced he was going to nominate a woman? If not, why not?
The court should look like America. Therefore it cannot and should not be old white guys and a couple of white women. The QtRUmplicans not liking President Biden nominating a black woman is all part of the replacement theory that drives them to try and keep America as white as possible. Even though they will lose the battle and white people will inevitably be the a minority.
There was an AA guest on Morning Joe today talking about how Jackson will be better for the Court because it will look more like America.
The reality is she will vote almost exactly the way Breyer did. And the Court will still have a 6-3 conservative majority enabling it to aggressively pursue a very conservative agenda (get ready for open carry NY). With most expecting the Dems to lose congress this year, it’s unlikely that Biden will have any more of a liberal contribution to the Court. So why are some dissing all the old white Jewish men by saying Jackson is an improvement? Some may be just a little insulted at that assumption. The Court unfortunately decides cases based on political ideology, not demographics. If it did use demos…
edit, intended to mention maybe the silver lining is she could talk some sense into Thomas, but looking at how extremist his spouse is, that’s doubtful.
Yes she will likely rule like Breyer, but there's something to be said about the role model she can be to young Black girls everywhere. And that's nothing to write off. Obama being elected president was huge for the AA community to show young, Black men that they can strive to be the leader of the free world. RBG did the same for women. She was a hero to many a woman in this country. So just because she will cast a vote like Breyer doesn't make her nomination (and hopefully confirmation) meaningless.
and given women hold a slight majority population wise, it brings the court closer to that parity too
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,299
If anyone is paying attention to the SCOTUS nominee hearings, the new recycled narrative is that President Biden supports child pornography because of this nominee’s allegedly going light with her sentencing. It’s also the narrative that the war in Ukraine is happening so bus loads of children can be taken by human traffickers. It’s the new Comet Pizza, joe Biden flavor.
Does Pearl Jam really think that America looks like a black woman? Does Pearl Jam also think that there are no Asians in America?
Well Biden only had one nominee, so he had to make a decision.
But for the record, there are 21MM Black women in the US, so at some level, yeah she does. Does the pick offend you?
I've discussed this in depth here already so I'm not going down that road again but feel free to look through my past comments if you really care. (spoiler: I know you don't and that is ok)
heather cox richardson, phd
historian. professor of history boston college
March 21, 2022 (Monday)
Today is the anniversary of Georgia Senator Alexander Stephens’s Cornerstone Speech, given in 1861 just after he became the provisional vice president of the Confederacy. All these years later, the themes of that speech are still with us.
Stephens spoke in Savannah, Georgia, to explain the difference between the United States and the fledgling Confederacy. That difference, he said, was slavery. The American Constitution was defective because it based the government on the principle that all men were created equal. Confederate leaders had corrected the Founding Fathers’ error by basing the Confederate government on the idea that some people were better than others.
In contrast to the government the Founding Fathers had created, the Confederacy rested on the “great truth” that “the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”
Their determination to promote their new philosophy meant that the southern states insisted on states’ rights. The majority of Americans, speaking through the federal government, insisted on reining enslavement in, restricting it to the southern states where it already existed, while southern enslavers wanted to expand their “peculiar institution” to the nation’s newly acquired western lands. In white southerners’ view, federal oversight was tyranny, and true democracy meant that state legislatures should be able to do as their voters wished.
So long as a majority of voters in the southern states voted for human enslavement, democracy had been served. Those same states, of course, limited voting to a few wealthy white men.
The Republican Party had organized in the mid-1850s to stand against this version of American democracy. Those who joined the new party recognized that if enslavers were able to take control of new western states, they would use their votes in Congress and in the Electoral College to take over the federal government and make slavery national.
The government, Illinois lawyer Abraham Lincoln warned, could not “endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided,” he told an audience in June 1858. “It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new—North as well as South.”
For his part, Lincoln insisted on basing the nation on the idea that “all men are created equal,” as the Founders stated—however hypocritically—in the Declaration of Independence. I should like to know,” Lincoln said in July 1858, “if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop…. If that declaration is not the truth, let us get the Statute book, in which we find it and tear it out! Who is so bold as to do it!”
Less than a month after Stephens gave the Cornerstone Speech, the Confederates fired on a federal fort in Charleston Harbor, and the Civil War began. When it ended, almost exactly four years later, southern state legislatures again tried to circumscribe the lives of the Black Americans who lived within their state lines. The 1865 Black Codes said that Black people couldn’t own firearms, for example, or congregate. They had to treat their white neighbors with deference and were required to sign yearlong work contracts every January or be judged vagrants, punishable by arrest and imprisonment. White employers could get them out of jail by paying their fines, but then they would have to work off their debt.
To make the principle that all men are created equal and entitled to equality before the law a reality, Congress passed the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and sent it off to the states for ratification. The states added it to the Constitution in 1868. The Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
That’s quite a sentence. It guarantees that no state can discriminate against any of its citizens. And then the amendment goes on to say that “Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
This is what is at stake today, both in the Senate hearings on the confirmation of the Honorable Ketanji Brown Jackson, and more generally. Is our democratic system served so long as state legislatures can do what they wish without federal interference? Or should the federal government protect equality among all its citizens?
Ideally, of course, states would write fair laws without federal interference, and to create those circumstances after the Civil War, Congress passed the Military Reconstruction Act, permitting Black men to vote, and then passed and sent off to the states for ratification the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, guaranteeing the right to vote to Black men. When the Fifteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1870, the system had been fixed, most American men believed: the right to vote should protect all interests in the states.
Quickly, though, southern states took away the vote of the Black voters they insisted were trying to redistribute wealth from hardworking white taxpayers into public works projects to benefit the states’ poorer inhabitants. With Black voters cut out of the system, state legislatures enacted harshly discriminatory laws, and law enforcement looked the other way when white people violated the rights of Black and Brown citizens.
After World War II, the Supreme Court used the due process and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to overrule state laws that favored certain citizens over others, and Congress passed the 1965 Voting Rights Act to give Black and Brown Americans a say in the state governments under which they lived.
Now, the Republicans, at this point to a person, are echoing the pre–Civil War Democrats to say that democracy means that states should be able to do what they wish without interference from the federal government. So, for example, Texas—and now other states—should be able to ban abortion regardless of the fact that abortion is a constitutional right. States should be able to stop public school teachers from covering certain “divisive” topics: Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) asked an apparently nonplussed Judge Jackson, “Is it your personal hidden agenda to incorporate Critical Race Theory into our legal system?” And states should be able to restrict the vote, much as southern states did after the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment and as 19 Republican-dominated states have done since the 2020 election.
Members of the new Republican Party in the 1850s recognized that, in that era, the doctrine of states’ rights meant not only the continued enslavement of Black Americans in the South, but also the spread of enslavement across the nation as southern enslavers moved west to create new states that would overawe the free states in Congress and the Electoral College. The spread of their system was exactly what Stephens called for 161 years ago today.
Now, in 2022, as Republican-dominated states lock down into one-party systems, their electoral votes threaten to give them the presidency in 2024 regardless of what a majority of Americans want. At that point, the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection before the law will be vitally important, if only the Supreme Court will enforce it.
And that’s a key reason why, 161 years to the day after enslaver Alexander Stephens gave the Cornerstone Speech, the confirmation hearing of a Black woman, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, to the Supreme Court matters.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
If anyone is paying attention to the SCOTUS nominee hearings, the new recycled narrative is that President Biden supports child pornography because of this nominee’s allegedly going light with her sentencing. It’s also the narrative that the war in Ukraine is happening so bus loads of children can be taken by human traffickers. It’s the new Comet Pizza, joe Biden flavor.
Does Pearl Jam really think that America looks like a black woman? Does Pearl Jam also think that there are no Asians in America?
Well Biden only had one nominee, so he had to make a decision.
But for the record, there are 21MM Black women in the US, so at some level, yeah she does. Does the pick offend you?
I've discussed this in depth here already so I'm not going down that road again but feel free to look through my past comments if you really care. (spoiler: I know you don't and that is ok)
yeah, and simple math is hard. biden has one pick to make. so he chose one person who isn't white and isn't male. you somehow want him to pick every single minority represented in america and smash them all into one position.
Racial bias isn't hard to understand either.
saying this is racial bias is like complaining about no white history month.
Do you think a black woman would be a better pick than an asian woman? Biden decided that a black woman was best because of racial bias.
do you know the history and demographics of the country you live in? there are 50 million black people in the US. 18 million asian americans. do you understand the symbolism of lifting up an african american female to the highest court in the land?
he wants to make the court look more like america. maybe asian woman or asian "they" is next. or a native american. or a transgendered Pilipino. or...or....there's lot to choose from, but ya gotta start somewhere.
you're just trying to make some stupid argument about reverse discrimination.
There has never been any asian representation on the SCOTUS. That's my point. Let's put multiple black people on the SCOTUS and completely leave asians out of it.
There's never been a public defender on the court either. And she was that. That's a unique qualification that has been sorely missed, considering the rampant miscarriages of justice we have seen in our country's history. Don't you think that's important?
Yes. I can agree that is important but are all public defenders black women? Why does color matter? Because Biden said it did.
Because the court should look like America. Did we just come full circle?
Were you upset when Trump announced he was going to nominate a woman? If not, why not?
The court should look like America. Therefore it cannot and should not be old white guys and a couple of white women. The QtRUmplicans not liking President Biden nominating a black woman is all part of the replacement theory that drives them to try and keep America as white as possible. Even though they will lose the battle and white people will inevitably be the a minority.
There was an AA guest on Morning Joe today talking about how Jackson will be better for the Court because it will look more like America.
The reality is she will vote almost exactly the way Breyer did. And the Court will still have a 6-3 conservative majority enabling it to aggressively pursue a very conservative agenda (get ready for open carry NY). With most expecting the Dems to lose congress this year, it’s unlikely that Biden will have any more of a liberal contribution to the Court. So why are some dissing all the old white Jewish men by saying Jackson is an improvement? Some may be just a little insulted at that assumption. The Court unfortunately decides cases based on political ideology, not demographics. If it did use demos…
edit, intended to mention maybe the silver lining is she could talk some sense into Thomas, but looking at how extremist his spouse is, that’s doubtful.
Yes she will likely rule like Breyer, but there's something to be said about the role model she can be to young Black girls everywhere. And that's nothing to write off. Obama being elected president was huge for the AA community to show young, Black men that they can strive to be the leader of the free world. RBG did the same for women. She was a hero to many a woman in this country. So just because she will cast a vote like Breyer doesn't make her nomination (and hopefully confirmation) meaningless.
Biden is having terrible poll numbers with AA voters, despite his strong support for their programs. The temporary EITC expansion during Covid was groundbreaking for its success reducing child poverty. When the program ended, did Bidens base rally around him over its success and the need to re-elect more democrats so it can be implemented again?
nope, instead Biden dropped 23% among AA voters. Just five years after Obama, these voters were not inspired enough to understand politics is a long game, requires winning repeatedly on Election Day, and a president with only 50 votes in the senate has significant restrictions on what can be passed into law. They’re more interested in blaming him than expanding political power, So I’m just a bit skeptical about the value of role models in politics, outside of individual, isolated cases for young folks already invested in the agenda.
If anyone is paying attention to the SCOTUS nominee hearings, the new recycled narrative is that President Biden supports child pornography because of this nominee’s allegedly going light with her sentencing. It’s also the narrative that the war in Ukraine is happening so bus loads of children can be taken by human traffickers. It’s the new Comet Pizza, joe Biden flavor.
Does Pearl Jam really think that America looks like a black woman? Does Pearl Jam also think that there are no Asians in America?
Well Biden only had one nominee, so he had to make a decision.
But for the record, there are 21MM Black women in the US, so at some level, yeah she does. Does the pick offend you?
I've discussed this in depth here already so I'm not going down that road again but feel free to look through my past comments if you really care. (spoiler: I know you don't and that is ok)
yeah, and simple math is hard. biden has one pick to make. so he chose one person who isn't white and isn't male. you somehow want him to pick every single minority represented in america and smash them all into one position.
Racial bias isn't hard to understand either.
saying this is racial bias is like complaining about no white history month.
Do you think a black woman would be a better pick than an asian woman? Biden decided that a black woman was best because of racial bias.
do you know the history and demographics of the country you live in? there are 50 million black people in the US. 18 million asian americans. do you understand the symbolism of lifting up an african american female to the highest court in the land?
he wants to make the court look more like america. maybe asian woman or asian "they" is next. or a native american. or a transgendered Pilipino. or...or....there's lot to choose from, but ya gotta start somewhere.
you're just trying to make some stupid argument about reverse discrimination.
There has never been any asian representation on the SCOTUS. That's my point. Let's put multiple black people on the SCOTUS and completely leave asians out of it.
There's never been a public defender on the court either. And she was that. That's a unique qualification that has been sorely missed, considering the rampant miscarriages of justice we have seen in our country's history. Don't you think that's important?
Yes. I can agree that is important but are all public defenders black women? Why does color matter? Because Biden said it did.
Because the court should look like America. Did we just come full circle?
Were you upset when Trump announced he was going to nominate a woman? If not, why not?
The court should look like America. Therefore it cannot and should not be old white guys and a couple of white women. The QtRUmplicans not liking President Biden nominating a black woman is all part of the replacement theory that drives them to try and keep America as white as possible. Even though they will lose the battle and white people will inevitably be the a minority.
There was an AA guest on Morning Joe today talking about how Jackson will be better for the Court because it will look more like America.
The reality is she will vote almost exactly the way Breyer did. And the Court will still have a 6-3 conservative majority enabling it to aggressively pursue a very conservative agenda (get ready for open carry NY). With most expecting the Dems to lose congress this year, it’s unlikely that Biden will have any more of a liberal contribution to the Court. So why are some dissing all the old white Jewish men by saying Jackson is an improvement? Some may be just a little insulted at that assumption. The Court unfortunately decides cases based on political ideology, not demographics. If it did use demos…
edit, intended to mention maybe the silver lining is she could talk some sense into Thomas, but looking at how extremist his spouse is, that’s doubtful.
Yes she will likely rule like Breyer, but there's something to be said about the role model she can be to young Black girls everywhere. And that's nothing to write off. Obama being elected president was huge for the AA community to show young, Black men that they can strive to be the leader of the free world. RBG did the same for women. She was a hero to many a woman in this country. So just because she will cast a vote like Breyer doesn't make her nomination (and hopefully confirmation) meaningless.
Biden is having terrible poll numbers with AA voters, despite his strong support for their programs. The temporary EITC expansion during Covid was groundbreaking for its success reducing child poverty. When the program ended, did Bidens base rally around him over its success and the need to re-elect more democrats so it can be implemented again?
nope, instead Biden dropped 23% among AA voters. Just five years after Obama, these voters were not inspired enough to understand politics is a long game, requires winning repeatedly on Election Day, and a president with only 50 votes in the senate has significant restrictions on what can be passed into law. They’re more interested in blaming him than expanding political power, So I’m just a bit skeptical about the value of role models in politics, outside of individual, isolated cases for young folks already invested in the agenda.
I won't argue your points because I generally agree, but I don't understand the connection you are drawing to her nomination. She deserves it based on her merits and what she can represent to a community. Whether that translates into more solid voting should not be the primary objective of Biden. I don't believe he sees it as transactional, like Trump would. "I did this for you, now you owe me". He made the commitment to nominate a Black woman during the campaign, and now he's fulfilling upon it.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,446
edited March 2022
I remember when these deplorable chants and signs started popping up that some people tried to bothsides it by saying the Democrats had "fuck Trump" signs too. Yeah....it's not the same thing. It was never the same thing. These people have no shame.
I remember when these deplorable chants and signs started popping up that some people tried to bothsides it by saying the Democrats had "fuck Trump" signs too. Yeah....it's not the same thing. It was never the same thing. These people have no shame.
Shouldn't the "F* Donald Trump" people have equal time on her show? I'm so sick of the liberal media showing one side only.
I remember when these deplorable chants and signs started popping up that some people tried to bothsides it by saying the Democrats had "fuck Trump" signs too. Yeah....it's not the same thing. It was never the same thing. These people have no shame.
Shouldn't the "F* Donald Trump" people have equal time on her show? I'm so sick of the liberal media showing one side only.
I remember when these deplorable chants and signs started popping up that some people tried to bothsides it by saying the Democrats had "fuck Trump" signs too. Yeah....it's not the same thing. It was never the same thing. These people have no shame.
Shouldn't the "F* Donald Trump" people have equal time on her show? I'm so sick of the liberal media showing one side only.
So much suppression of free speech.
Look at that sign in the upper right... "2024 - the rules have changed". What does that even mean? Is that like "Fuck your feelings"?
I remember when these deplorable chants and signs started popping up that some people tried to bothsides it by saying the Democrats had "fuck Trump" signs too. Yeah....it's not the same thing. It was never the same thing. These people have no shame.
Shouldn't the "F* Donald Trump" people have equal time on her show? I'm so sick of the liberal media showing one side only.
So much suppression of free speech.
Look at that sign in the upper right... "2024 - the rules have changed". What does that even mean? Is that like "Fuck your feelings"?
I remember when these deplorable chants and signs started popping up that some people tried to bothsides it by saying the Democrats had "fuck Trump" signs too. Yeah....it's not the same thing. It was never the same thing. These people have no shame.
Shouldn't the "F* Donald Trump" people have equal time on her show? I'm so sick of the liberal media showing one side only.
So much suppression of free speech.
Look at that sign in the upper right... "2024 - the rules have changed". What does that even mean? Is that like "Fuck your feelings"?
If anyone is paying attention to the SCOTUS nominee hearings, the new recycled narrative is that President Biden supports child pornography because of this nominee’s allegedly going light with her sentencing. It’s also the narrative that the war in Ukraine is happening so bus loads of children can be taken by human traffickers. It’s the new Comet Pizza, joe Biden flavor.
Does Pearl Jam really think that America looks like a black woman? Does Pearl Jam also think that there are no Asians in America?
Well Biden only had one nominee, so he had to make a decision.
But for the record, there are 21MM Black women in the US, so at some level, yeah she does. Does the pick offend you?
I've discussed this in depth here already so I'm not going down that road again but feel free to look through my past comments if you really care. (spoiler: I know you don't and that is ok)
yeah, and simple math is hard. biden has one pick to make. so he chose one person who isn't white and isn't male. you somehow want him to pick every single minority represented in america and smash them all into one position.
Racial bias isn't hard to understand either.
saying this is racial bias is like complaining about no white history month.
Do you think a black woman would be a better pick than an asian woman? Biden decided that a black woman was best because of racial bias.
do you know the history and demographics of the country you live in? there are 50 million black people in the US. 18 million asian americans. do you understand the symbolism of lifting up an african american female to the highest court in the land?
he wants to make the court look more like america. maybe asian woman or asian "they" is next. or a native american. or a transgendered Pilipino. or...or....there's lot to choose from, but ya gotta start somewhere.
you're just trying to make some stupid argument about reverse discrimination.
There has never been any asian representation on the SCOTUS. That's my point. Let's put multiple black people on the SCOTUS and completely leave asians out of it.
There's never been a public defender on the court either. And she was that. That's a unique qualification that has been sorely missed, considering the rampant miscarriages of justice we have seen in our country's history. Don't you think that's important?
Yes. I can agree that is important but are all public defenders black women? Why does color matter? Because Biden said it did.
Because the court should look like America. Did we just come full circle?
Were you upset when Trump announced he was going to nominate a woman? If not, why not?
The court should look like America. Therefore it cannot and should not be old white guys and a couple of white women. The QtRUmplicans not liking President Biden nominating a black woman is all part of the replacement theory that drives them to try and keep America as white as possible. Even though they will lose the battle and white people will inevitably be the a minority.
There was an AA guest on Morning Joe today talking about how Jackson will be better for the Court because it will look more like America.
The reality is she will vote almost exactly the way Breyer did. And the Court will still have a 6-3 conservative majority enabling it to aggressively pursue a very conservative agenda (get ready for open carry NY). With most expecting the Dems to lose congress this year, it’s unlikely that Biden will have any more of a liberal contribution to the Court. So why are some dissing all the old white Jewish men by saying Jackson is an improvement? Some may be just a little insulted at that assumption. The Court unfortunately decides cases based on political ideology, not demographics. If it did use demos…
edit, intended to mention maybe the silver lining is she could talk some sense into Thomas, but looking at how extremist his spouse is, that’s doubtful.
Yes she will likely rule like Breyer, but there's something to be said about the role model she can be to young Black girls everywhere. And that's nothing to write off. Obama being elected president was huge for the AA community to show young, Black men that they can strive to be the leader of the free world. RBG did the same for women. She was a hero to many a woman in this country. So just because she will cast a vote like Breyer doesn't make her nomination (and hopefully confirmation) meaningless.
Biden is having terrible poll numbers with AA voters, despite his strong support for their programs. The temporary EITC expansion during Covid was groundbreaking for its success reducing child poverty. When the program ended, did Bidens base rally around him over its success and the need to re-elect more democrats so it can be implemented again?
nope, instead Biden dropped 23% among AA voters. Just five years after Obama, these voters were not inspired enough to understand politics is a long game, requires winning repeatedly on Election Day, and a president with only 50 votes in the senate has significant restrictions on what can be passed into law. They’re more interested in blaming him than expanding political power, So I’m just a bit skeptical about the value of role models in politics, outside of individual, isolated cases for young folks already invested in the agenda.
I won't argue your points because I generally agree, but I don't understand the connection you are drawing to her nomination. She deserves it based on her merits and what she can represent to a community. Whether that translates into more solid voting should not be the primary objective of Biden. I don't believe he sees it as transactional, like Trump would. "I did this for you, now you owe me". He made the commitment to nominate a Black woman during the campaign, and now he's fulfilling upon it.
I definitely agree she is qualified and deserving, just leaves a bad taste that people believe replacing a white Jewish male judge somehow changes the impact the Court has in our lives or the benefit to liberal causes. Judging people based on gender and skin color should be bad in either direction
Can someone point me to a legitimate story on this whole Hunter Biden laptop thing? All the conservative rags are screaming at the top of their lungs "See! We told you so...Hunter is a criminal and the NYT just admitted they covered it all up! If this truth had come out in 2020, Trump would still be president! Hunter is a child pornographer and sold government secrets and Joe profited! Etc. etc. etc". So the problems I've found are:
1 - The supposed NYT story is behind a paywall that I will not subscribe to just to find this BS out.
2 - All, and I mean all, stories I can find point back to a conservative rag that, sorry, I just don't trust. I like to make sure independent and/or multiple sides of the political spectrum or foreign press are picking it up too.
I don't want my head in the sand and I want to make sure my internal biases don't ignore this if it IS is fact a real story, I just can't find the substance behind the outrage, and yes I know 'consider the source'. Anyone have any good info on this?
24 years old, mid-life crisis
nowadays hits you when you're young
If anyone is paying attention to the SCOTUS nominee hearings, the new recycled narrative is that President Biden supports child pornography because of this nominee’s allegedly going light with her sentencing. It’s also the narrative that the war in Ukraine is happening so bus loads of children can be taken by human traffickers. It’s the new Comet Pizza, joe Biden flavor.
Does Pearl Jam really think that America looks like a black woman? Does Pearl Jam also think that there are no Asians in America?
Well Biden only had one nominee, so he had to make a decision.
But for the record, there are 21MM Black women in the US, so at some level, yeah she does. Does the pick offend you?
I've discussed this in depth here already so I'm not going down that road again but feel free to look through my past comments if you really care. (spoiler: I know you don't and that is ok)
yeah, and simple math is hard. biden has one pick to make. so he chose one person who isn't white and isn't male. you somehow want him to pick every single minority represented in america and smash them all into one position.
Racial bias isn't hard to understand either.
saying this is racial bias is like complaining about no white history month.
Do you think a black woman would be a better pick than an asian woman? Biden decided that a black woman was best because of racial bias.
do you know the history and demographics of the country you live in? there are 50 million black people in the US. 18 million asian americans. do you understand the symbolism of lifting up an african american female to the highest court in the land?
he wants to make the court look more like america. maybe asian woman or asian "they" is next. or a native american. or a transgendered Pilipino. or...or....there's lot to choose from, but ya gotta start somewhere.
you're just trying to make some stupid argument about reverse discrimination.
There has never been any asian representation on the SCOTUS. That's my point. Let's put multiple black people on the SCOTUS and completely leave asians out of it.
There's never been a public defender on the court either. And she was that. That's a unique qualification that has been sorely missed, considering the rampant miscarriages of justice we have seen in our country's history. Don't you think that's important?
Yes. I can agree that is important but are all public defenders black women? Why does color matter? Because Biden said it did.
Because the court should look like America. Did we just come full circle?
Were you upset when Trump announced he was going to nominate a woman? If not, why not?
The court should look like America. Therefore it cannot and should not be old white guys and a couple of white women. The QtRUmplicans not liking President Biden nominating a black woman is all part of the replacement theory that drives them to try and keep America as white as possible. Even though they will lose the battle and white people will inevitably be the a minority.
There was an AA guest on Morning Joe today talking about how Jackson will be better for the Court because it will look more like America.
The reality is she will vote almost exactly the way Breyer did. And the Court will still have a 6-3 conservative majority enabling it to aggressively pursue a very conservative agenda (get ready for open carry NY). With most expecting the Dems to lose congress this year, it’s unlikely that Biden will have any more of a liberal contribution to the Court. So why are some dissing all the old white Jewish men by saying Jackson is an improvement? Some may be just a little insulted at that assumption. The Court unfortunately decides cases based on political ideology, not demographics. If it did use demos…
edit, intended to mention maybe the silver lining is she could talk some sense into Thomas, but looking at how extremist his spouse is, that’s doubtful.
Yes she will likely rule like Breyer, but there's something to be said about the role model she can be to young Black girls everywhere. And that's nothing to write off. Obama being elected president was huge for the AA community to show young, Black men that they can strive to be the leader of the free world. RBG did the same for women. She was a hero to many a woman in this country. So just because she will cast a vote like Breyer doesn't make her nomination (and hopefully confirmation) meaningless.
Biden is having terrible poll numbers with AA voters, despite his strong support for their programs. The temporary EITC expansion during Covid was groundbreaking for its success reducing child poverty. When the program ended, did Bidens base rally around him over its success and the need to re-elect more democrats so it can be implemented again?
nope, instead Biden dropped 23% among AA voters. Just five years after Obama, these voters were not inspired enough to understand politics is a long game, requires winning repeatedly on Election Day, and a president with only 50 votes in the senate has significant restrictions on what can be passed into law. They’re more interested in blaming him than expanding political power, So I’m just a bit skeptical about the value of role models in politics, outside of individual, isolated cases for young folks already invested in the agenda.
I won't argue your points because I generally agree, but I don't understand the connection you are drawing to her nomination. She deserves it based on her merits and what she can represent to a community. Whether that translates into more solid voting should not be the primary objective of Biden. I don't believe he sees it as transactional, like Trump would. "I did this for you, now you owe me". He made the commitment to nominate a Black woman during the campaign, and now he's fulfilling upon it.
I definitely agree she is qualified and deserving, just leaves a bad taste that people believe replacing a white Jewish male judge somehow changes the impact the Court has in our lives or the benefit to liberal causes. Judging people based on gender and skin color should be bad in either direction
I'm not sure I have read anyone saying that this is a Court game changer. As I pointed out earlier, no one gets mad when Trump said he was going to nominate a woman. This is no different. Different backgrounds bring different perspectives. There's nothing wrong with that.
I remember when these deplorable chants and signs started popping up that some people tried to bothsides it by saying the Democrats had "fuck Trump" signs too. Yeah....it's not the same thing. It was never the same thing. These people have no shame.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,299
If anyone is paying attention to the SCOTUS nominee hearings, the new recycled narrative is that President Biden supports child pornography because of this nominee’s allegedly going light with her sentencing. It’s also the narrative that the war in Ukraine is happening so bus loads of children can be taken by human traffickers. It’s the new Comet Pizza, joe Biden flavor.
Does Pearl Jam really think that America looks like a black woman? Does Pearl Jam also think that there are no Asians in America?
Well Biden only had one nominee, so he had to make a decision.
But for the record, there are 21MM Black women in the US, so at some level, yeah she does. Does the pick offend you?
I've discussed this in depth here already so I'm not going down that road again but feel free to look through my past comments if you really care. (spoiler: I know you don't and that is ok)
yeah, and simple math is hard. biden has one pick to make. so he chose one person who isn't white and isn't male. you somehow want him to pick every single minority represented in america and smash them all into one position.
Racial bias isn't hard to understand either.
saying this is racial bias is like complaining about no white history month.
Do you think a black woman would be a better pick than an asian woman? Biden decided that a black woman was best because of racial bias.
do you know the history and demographics of the country you live in? there are 50 million black people in the US. 18 million asian americans. do you understand the symbolism of lifting up an african american female to the highest court in the land?
he wants to make the court look more like america. maybe asian woman or asian "they" is next. or a native american. or a transgendered Pilipino. or...or....there's lot to choose from, but ya gotta start somewhere.
you're just trying to make some stupid argument about reverse discrimination.
There has never been any asian representation on the SCOTUS. That's my point. Let's put multiple black people on the SCOTUS and completely leave asians out of it.
There's never been a public defender on the court either. And she was that. That's a unique qualification that has been sorely missed, considering the rampant miscarriages of justice we have seen in our country's history. Don't you think that's important?
Yes. I can agree that is important but are all public defenders black women? Why does color matter? Because Biden said it did.
Because the court should look like America. Did we just come full circle?
Were you upset when Trump announced he was going to nominate a woman? If not, why not?
The court should look like America. Therefore it cannot and should not be old white guys and a couple of white women. The QtRUmplicans not liking President Biden nominating a black woman is all part of the replacement theory that drives them to try and keep America as white as possible. Even though they will lose the battle and white people will inevitably be the a minority.
There was an AA guest on Morning Joe today talking about how Jackson will be better for the Court because it will look more like America.
The reality is she will vote almost exactly the way Breyer did. And the Court will still have a 6-3 conservative majority enabling it to aggressively pursue a very conservative agenda (get ready for open carry NY). With most expecting the Dems to lose congress this year, it’s unlikely that Biden will have any more of a liberal contribution to the Court. So why are some dissing all the old white Jewish men by saying Jackson is an improvement? Some may be just a little insulted at that assumption. The Court unfortunately decides cases based on political ideology, not demographics. If it did use demos…
edit, intended to mention maybe the silver lining is she could talk some sense into Thomas, but looking at how extremist his spouse is, that’s doubtful.
Yes she will likely rule like Breyer, but there's something to be said about the role model she can be to young Black girls everywhere. And that's nothing to write off. Obama being elected president was huge for the AA community to show young, Black men that they can strive to be the leader of the free world. RBG did the same for women. She was a hero to many a woman in this country. So just because she will cast a vote like Breyer doesn't make her nomination (and hopefully confirmation) meaningless.
Biden is having terrible poll numbers with AA voters, despite his strong support for their programs. The temporary EITC expansion during Covid was groundbreaking for its success reducing child poverty. When the program ended, did Bidens base rally around him over its success and the need to re-elect more democrats so it can be implemented again?
nope, instead Biden dropped 23% among AA voters. Just five years after Obama, these voters were not inspired enough to understand politics is a long game, requires winning repeatedly on Election Day, and a president with only 50 votes in the senate has significant restrictions on what can be passed into law. They’re more interested in blaming him than expanding political power, So I’m just a bit skeptical about the value of role models in politics, outside of individual, isolated cases for young folks already invested in the agenda.
I won't argue your points because I generally agree, but I don't understand the connection you are drawing to her nomination. She deserves it based on her merits and what she can represent to a community. Whether that translates into more solid voting should not be the primary objective of Biden. I don't believe he sees it as transactional, like Trump would. "I did this for you, now you owe me". He made the commitment to nominate a Black woman during the campaign, and now he's fulfilling upon it.
I definitely agree she is qualified and deserving, just leaves a bad taste that people believe replacing a white Jewish male judge somehow changes the impact the Court has in our lives or the benefit to liberal causes. Judging people based on gender and skin color should be bad in either direction
replacing? he is stepping down. biden is filling the seat. what are your thoughts on the RBG's seat getting filled by a catholic extremist? your tone here suggests there's antisemitism afoot.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Can someone point me to a legitimate story on this whole Hunter Biden laptop thing? All the conservative rags are screaming at the top of their lungs "See! We told you so...Hunter is a criminal and the NYT just admitted they covered it all up! If this truth had come out in 2020, Trump would still be president! Hunter is a child pornographer and sold government secrets and Joe profited! Etc. etc. etc". So the problems I've found are:
1 - The supposed NYT story is behind a paywall that I will not subscribe to just to find this BS out.
2 - All, and I mean all, stories I can find point back to a conservative rag that, sorry, I just don't trust. I like to make sure independent and/or multiple sides of the political spectrum or foreign press are picking it up too.
I don't want my head in the sand and I want to make sure my internal biases don't ignore this if it IS is fact a real story, I just can't find the substance behind the outrage, and yes I know 'consider the source'. Anyone have any good info on this?
nope. i'm still waiting myself.
Flight Risk out NOW!
www.headstonesband.com
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,299
Can someone point me to a legitimate story on this whole Hunter Biden laptop thing? All the conservative rags are screaming at the top of their lungs "See! We told you so...Hunter is a criminal and the NYT just admitted they covered it all up! If this truth had come out in 2020, Trump would still be president! Hunter is a child pornographer and sold government secrets and Joe profited! Etc. etc. etc". So the problems I've found are:
1 - The supposed NYT story is behind a paywall that I will not subscribe to just to find this BS out.
2 - All, and I mean all, stories I can find point back to a conservative rag that, sorry, I just don't trust. I like to make sure independent and/or multiple sides of the political spectrum or foreign press are picking it up too.
I don't want my head in the sand and I want to make sure my internal biases don't ignore this if it IS is fact a real story, I just can't find the substance behind the outrage, and yes I know 'consider the source'. Anyone have any good info on this?
nope. i'm still waiting myself.
see if you two can access this, its a gift article feature nyt has.....
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,446
edited March 2022
Thanks Mick. As usual, I don't think that is nearly as damning as some make it out be for Joe. And I remember thinking the same thing a year and a half ago when reading about what was actually in the emails.
Post edited by The Juggler on
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,299
Thanks Mick. As usual, I don't think that is nearly as damning as some make it out be for Joe. And I remember thinking the same thing a year and a half ago when reading about what was actually in the emails.
so it works? cool. can gift up to 10 articles a month....
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
If anyone is paying attention to the SCOTUS nominee hearings, the new recycled narrative is that President Biden supports child pornography because of this nominee’s allegedly going light with her sentencing. It’s also the narrative that the war in Ukraine is happening so bus loads of children can be taken by human traffickers. It’s the new Comet Pizza, joe Biden flavor.
Does Pearl Jam really think that America looks like a black woman? Does Pearl Jam also think that there are no Asians in America?
Well Biden only had one nominee, so he had to make a decision.
But for the record, there are 21MM Black women in the US, so at some level, yeah she does. Does the pick offend you?
I've discussed this in depth here already so I'm not going down that road again but feel free to look through my past comments if you really care. (spoiler: I know you don't and that is ok)
yeah, and simple math is hard. biden has one pick to make. so he chose one person who isn't white and isn't male. you somehow want him to pick every single minority represented in america and smash them all into one position.
Racial bias isn't hard to understand either.
saying this is racial bias is like complaining about no white history month.
Do you think a black woman would be a better pick than an asian woman? Biden decided that a black woman was best because of racial bias.
do you know the history and demographics of the country you live in? there are 50 million black people in the US. 18 million asian americans. do you understand the symbolism of lifting up an african american female to the highest court in the land?
he wants to make the court look more like america. maybe asian woman or asian "they" is next. or a native american. or a transgendered Pilipino. or...or....there's lot to choose from, but ya gotta start somewhere.
you're just trying to make some stupid argument about reverse discrimination.
There has never been any asian representation on the SCOTUS. That's my point. Let's put multiple black people on the SCOTUS and completely leave asians out of it.
There's never been a public defender on the court either. And she was that. That's a unique qualification that has been sorely missed, considering the rampant miscarriages of justice we have seen in our country's history. Don't you think that's important?
Yes. I can agree that is important but are all public defenders black women? Why does color matter? Because Biden said it did.
Because the court should look like America. Did we just come full circle?
Were you upset when Trump announced he was going to nominate a woman? If not, why not?
The court should look like America. Therefore it cannot and should not be old white guys and a couple of white women. The QtRUmplicans not liking President Biden nominating a black woman is all part of the replacement theory that drives them to try and keep America as white as possible. Even though they will lose the battle and white people will inevitably be the a minority.
There was an AA guest on Morning Joe today talking about how Jackson will be better for the Court because it will look more like America.
The reality is she will vote almost exactly the way Breyer did. And the Court will still have a 6-3 conservative majority enabling it to aggressively pursue a very conservative agenda (get ready for open carry NY). With most expecting the Dems to lose congress this year, it’s unlikely that Biden will have any more of a liberal contribution to the Court. So why are some dissing all the old white Jewish men by saying Jackson is an improvement? Some may be just a little insulted at that assumption. The Court unfortunately decides cases based on political ideology, not demographics. If it did use demos…
edit, intended to mention maybe the silver lining is she could talk some sense into Thomas, but looking at how extremist his spouse is, that’s doubtful.
Yes she will likely rule like Breyer, but there's something to be said about the role model she can be to young Black girls everywhere. And that's nothing to write off. Obama being elected president was huge for the AA community to show young, Black men that they can strive to be the leader of the free world. RBG did the same for women. She was a hero to many a woman in this country. So just because she will cast a vote like Breyer doesn't make her nomination (and hopefully confirmation) meaningless.
Biden is having terrible poll numbers with AA voters, despite his strong support for their programs. The temporary EITC expansion during Covid was groundbreaking for its success reducing child poverty. When the program ended, did Bidens base rally around him over its success and the need to re-elect more democrats so it can be implemented again?
nope, instead Biden dropped 23% among AA voters. Just five years after Obama, these voters were not inspired enough to understand politics is a long game, requires winning repeatedly on Election Day, and a president with only 50 votes in the senate has significant restrictions on what can be passed into law. They’re more interested in blaming him than expanding political power, So I’m just a bit skeptical about the value of role models in politics, outside of individual, isolated cases for young folks already invested in the agenda.
I won't argue your points because I generally agree, but I don't understand the connection you are drawing to her nomination. She deserves it based on her merits and what she can represent to a community. Whether that translates into more solid voting should not be the primary objective of Biden. I don't believe he sees it as transactional, like Trump would. "I did this for you, now you owe me". He made the commitment to nominate a Black woman during the campaign, and now he's fulfilling upon it.
I definitely agree she is qualified and deserving, just leaves a bad taste that people believe replacing a white Jewish male judge somehow changes the impact the Court has in our lives or the benefit to liberal causes. Judging people based on gender and skin color should be bad in either direction
replacing? he is stepping down. biden is filling the seat. what are your thoughts on the RBG's seat getting filled by a catholic extremist? your tone here suggests there's antisemitism afoot.
Hope you’re kidding. I started this by saying I was offended when a Black journalist was saying this is so much better for America. The theme of my comments is what’s so wrong about Breyer? Judging Jackson and Breyer by their demos is hurtful, in either direction. We need to stop judging by color and gender. Or those poor whites over fifty trying to get a job in corporate America’s also.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,299
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Comments
The QtRUmplicans not liking President Biden nominating a black woman is all part of the replacement theory that drives them to try and keep America as white as possible. Even though they will lose the battle and white people will inevitably be the a minority.
The reality is she will vote almost exactly the way Breyer did. And the Court will still have a 6-3 conservative majority enabling it to aggressively pursue a very conservative agenda (get ready for open carry NY). With most expecting the Dems to lose congress this year, it’s unlikely that Biden will have any more of a liberal contribution to the Court. So why are some dissing all the old white Jewish men by saying Jackson is an improvement? Some may be just a little insulted at that assumption. The Court unfortunately decides cases based on political ideology, not demographics. If it did use demos…
edit, intended to mention maybe the silver lining is she could talk some sense into Thomas, but looking at how extremist his spouse is, that’s doubtful.
and given women hold a slight majority population wise, it brings the court closer to that parity too
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Today is the anniversary of Georgia Senator Alexander Stephens’s Cornerstone Speech, given in 1861 just after he became the provisional vice president of the Confederacy. All these years later, the themes of that speech are still with us.
Stephens spoke in Savannah, Georgia, to explain the difference between the United States and the fledgling Confederacy. That difference, he said, was slavery. The American Constitution was defective because it based the government on the principle that all men were created equal. Confederate leaders had corrected the Founding Fathers’ error by basing the Confederate government on the idea that some people were better than others.
In contrast to the government the Founding Fathers had created, the Confederacy rested on the “great truth” that “the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”
Their determination to promote their new philosophy meant that the southern states insisted on states’ rights. The majority of Americans, speaking through the federal government, insisted on reining enslavement in, restricting it to the southern states where it already existed, while southern enslavers wanted to expand their “peculiar institution” to the nation’s newly acquired western lands. In white southerners’ view, federal oversight was tyranny, and true democracy meant that state legislatures should be able to do as their voters wished.
So long as a majority of voters in the southern states voted for human enslavement, democracy had been served. Those same states, of course, limited voting to a few wealthy white men.
The Republican Party had organized in the mid-1850s to stand against this version of American democracy. Those who joined the new party recognized that if enslavers were able to take control of new western states, they would use their votes in Congress and in the Electoral College to take over the federal government and make slavery national.
The government, Illinois lawyer Abraham Lincoln warned, could not “endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided,” he told an audience in June 1858. “It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new—North as well as South.”
For his part, Lincoln insisted on basing the nation on the idea that “all men are created equal,” as the Founders stated—however hypocritically—in the Declaration of Independence. I should like to know,” Lincoln said in July 1858, “if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop…. If that declaration is not the truth, let us get the Statute book, in which we find it and tear it out! Who is so bold as to do it!”
Less than a month after Stephens gave the Cornerstone Speech, the Confederates fired on a federal fort in Charleston Harbor, and the Civil War began. When it ended, almost exactly four years later, southern state legislatures again tried to circumscribe the lives of the Black Americans who lived within their state lines. The 1865 Black Codes said that Black people couldn’t own firearms, for example, or congregate. They had to treat their white neighbors with deference and were required to sign yearlong work contracts every January or be judged vagrants, punishable by arrest and imprisonment. White employers could get them out of jail by paying their fines, but then they would have to work off their debt.
To make the principle that all men are created equal and entitled to equality before the law a reality, Congress passed the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and sent it off to the states for ratification. The states added it to the Constitution in 1868. The Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
That’s quite a sentence. It guarantees that no state can discriminate against any of its citizens. And then the amendment goes on to say that “Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
This is what is at stake today, both in the Senate hearings on the confirmation of the Honorable Ketanji Brown Jackson, and more generally. Is our democratic system served so long as state legislatures can do what they wish without federal interference? Or should the federal government protect equality among all its citizens?
Ideally, of course, states would write fair laws without federal interference, and to create those circumstances after the Civil War, Congress passed the Military Reconstruction Act, permitting Black men to vote, and then passed and sent off to the states for ratification the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, guaranteeing the right to vote to Black men. When the Fifteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1870, the system had been fixed, most American men believed: the right to vote should protect all interests in the states.
Quickly, though, southern states took away the vote of the Black voters they insisted were trying to redistribute wealth from hardworking white taxpayers into public works projects to benefit the states’ poorer inhabitants. With Black voters cut out of the system, state legislatures enacted harshly discriminatory laws, and law enforcement looked the other way when white people violated the rights of Black and Brown citizens.
After World War II, the Supreme Court used the due process and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to overrule state laws that favored certain citizens over others, and Congress passed the 1965 Voting Rights Act to give Black and Brown Americans a say in the state governments under which they lived.
Now, the Republicans, at this point to a person, are echoing the pre–Civil War Democrats to say that democracy means that states should be able to do what they wish without interference from the federal government. So, for example, Texas—and now other states—should be able to ban abortion regardless of the fact that abortion is a constitutional right. States should be able to stop public school teachers from covering certain “divisive” topics: Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) asked an apparently nonplussed Judge Jackson, “Is it your personal hidden agenda to incorporate Critical Race Theory into our legal system?” And states should be able to restrict the vote, much as southern states did after the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment and as 19 Republican-dominated states have done since the 2020 election.
Members of the new Republican Party in the 1850s recognized that, in that era, the doctrine of states’ rights meant not only the continued enslavement of Black Americans in the South, but also the spread of enslavement across the nation as southern enslavers moved west to create new states that would overawe the free states in Congress and the Electoral College. The spread of their system was exactly what Stephens called for 161 years ago today.
Now, in 2022, as Republican-dominated states lock down into one-party systems, their electoral votes threaten to give them the presidency in 2024 regardless of what a majority of Americans want. At that point, the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection before the law will be vitally important, if only the Supreme Court will enforce it.
And that’s a key reason why, 161 years to the day after enslaver Alexander Stephens gave the Cornerstone Speech, the confirmation hearing of a Black woman, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, to the Supreme Court matters.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
nope, instead Biden dropped 23% among AA voters. Just five years after Obama, these voters were not inspired enough to understand politics is a long game, requires winning repeatedly on Election Day, and a president with only 50 votes in the senate has significant restrictions on what can be passed into law. They’re more interested in blaming him than expanding political power, So I’m just a bit skeptical about the value of role models in politics, outside of individual, isolated cases for young folks already invested in the agenda.
.
.mrussel1 said:
I definitely agree she is qualified and deserving, just leaves a bad taste that people believe replacing a white Jewish male judge somehow changes the impact the Court has in our lives or the benefit to liberal causes. Judging people based on gender and skin color should be bad in either direction
nowadays hits you when you're young
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
www.headstonesband.com
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
cool. can gift up to 10 articles a month....
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
the new SCOTUS robe spring collection.
www.headstonesband.com
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CbbRC5Mg4WR/?utm_medium=copy_link
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©