And what was that about Dems not being concerned with “racial equity,” again? Particularly, when compared to repubs? Or are we only comparing Dems against themselves? Like with the economic failure currently gripping the nation?
They do it cause they are politicians and they pander.
but does anyone disagree that for any of these jobs it would just be better to shut the fuck up and nominate whomever you think would be best for the job?
I mean we’d end up in a better place as a society…but those politicians would lose some stupid votes from fucking idiots that buy into their political bullshit.
"god please let it be another young, conservative, bible thumping, white guy."
sounds like an unpopular position. as it should be.
Yes, I totally agree. I don't even have an issue if he had said, "I will not be nominating a person that is white." I agree that there needs to be racial diversity on the SCOTUS but it isn't true racial equality to pledge it to 1 ethnic group that is represented when other ethnic groups are not.
we cannot have that with 9 justices.
and even if we did have one justice from every ethnicity, even that one person would not represent everyone in that ethnicity.
what about all of the uncle ruckuses of the world?
wait i guess clarence thomas could represent uncle ruckus, but not many of the rest of the african american community.
Yeah but the sky is blue!
See, I too can argue points that you aren't trying to make like what you are doing to me. You are trying to deflect from the fact that this administration promised racial equity but didn't bother giving under represented ethnic groups a chance at a seat on the SCOTUS. That is not racial equity.
Please link us to an Administration or candidate or POTUS Biden statement promising “racial equity.” In the absence of such, your argument is garbage.
"god please let it be another young, conservative, bible thumping, white guy."
sounds like an unpopular position. as it should be.
Yes, I totally agree. I don't even have an issue if he had said, "I will not be nominating a person that is white." I agree that there needs to be racial diversity on the SCOTUS but it isn't true racial equality to pledge it to 1 ethnic group that is represented when other ethnic groups are not.
we cannot have that with 9 justices.
and even if we did have one justice from every ethnicity, even that one person would not represent everyone in that ethnicity.
what about all of the uncle ruckuses of the world?
wait i guess clarence thomas could represent uncle ruckus, but not many of the rest of the african american community.
Yeah but the sky is blue!
See, I too can argue points that you aren't trying to make like what you are doing to me. You are trying to deflect from the fact that this administration promised racial equity but didn't bother giving under represented ethnic groups a chance at a seat on the SCOTUS. That is not racial equity.
Please link us to an Administration or candidate or POTUS Biden statement promising “racial equity.” In the absence of such, your argument is garbage.
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: We have a real chance to deliver real equity across the board to everyone - Black, white, Latino, Asian American.
BIDEN: Good jobs, good schools, affordable housing, clean air, clean water.
I'm not sure what your problem is with this. I mean, he's saying he wants to help lift up minorities. He is doing that with this nomination. But your "either he lifts them all up in this single specific scenario or he lifts none of them up" is a bit of a head scratcher.
"god please let it be another young, conservative, bible thumping, white guy."
sounds like an unpopular position. as it should be.
Yes, I totally agree. I don't even have an issue if he had said, "I will not be nominating a person that is white." I agree that there needs to be racial diversity on the SCOTUS but it isn't true racial equality to pledge it to 1 ethnic group that is represented when other ethnic groups are not.
we cannot have that with 9 justices.
and even if we did have one justice from every ethnicity, even that one person would not represent everyone in that ethnicity.
what about all of the uncle ruckuses of the world?
wait i guess clarence thomas could represent uncle ruckus, but not many of the rest of the african american community.
Yeah but the sky is blue!
See, I too can argue points that you aren't trying to make like what you are doing to me. You are trying to deflect from the fact that this administration promised racial equity but didn't bother giving under represented ethnic groups a chance at a seat on the SCOTUS. That is not racial equity.
Please link us to an Administration or candidate or POTUS Biden statement promising “racial equity.” In the absence of such, your argument is garbage.
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: We have a real chance to deliver real equity across the board to everyone - Black, white, Latino, Asian American.
BIDEN: Good jobs, good schools, affordable housing, clean air, clean water.
I'm not sure what your problem is with this. I mean, he's saying he wants to help lift up minorities. He is doing that with this nomination. But your "either he lifts them all up in this single specific scenario or he lifts none of them up" is a bit of a head scratcher.
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: "We have a real chance to deliver real equity across
the board to everyone - Black, white, Latino, Asian American."...... Except when it comes to SCOTUS nominations.
Did I say lift them all up in this single scenario? No. You are putting words in my mouth like others are here to deflect the fact that Biden limited his "racial equity" to only 1 ethnic group when some groups have no representation at all when it comes to his SCOTUS nomination.
And what was that about Dems not being concerned with “racial equity,” again? Particularly, when compared to repubs? Or are we only comparing Dems against themselves? Like with the economic failure currently gripping the nation?
I don't know if you knew this but Trump hasn't been in office for over a year now. It's time to move forward and stop rehashing the past unless you just can't let your TDS go.
Do you want to talk about the past or do you want to talk about the present and the future? Biden is president now and has been for over a year. I know I keep saying that but you keep bringing up Trump as if it is relevant. How about we focus on how to do better than Trump?
"god please let it be another young, conservative, bible thumping, white guy."
sounds like an unpopular position. as it should be.
Yes, I totally agree. I don't even have an issue if he had said, "I will not be nominating a person that is white." I agree that there needs to be racial diversity on the SCOTUS but it isn't true racial equality to pledge it to 1 ethnic group that is represented when other ethnic groups are not.
we cannot have that with 9 justices.
and even if we did have one justice from every ethnicity, even that one person would not represent everyone in that ethnicity.
what about all of the uncle ruckuses of the world?
wait i guess clarence thomas could represent uncle ruckus, but not many of the rest of the african american community.
Yeah but the sky is blue!
See, I too can argue points that you aren't trying to make like what you are doing to me. You are trying to deflect from the fact that this administration promised racial equity but didn't bother giving under represented ethnic groups a chance at a seat on the SCOTUS. That is not racial equity.
Please link us to an Administration or candidate or POTUS Biden statement promising “racial equity.” In the absence of such, your argument is garbage.
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: We have a real chance to deliver real equity across the board to everyone - Black, white, Latino, Asian American.
BIDEN: Good jobs, good schools, affordable housing, clean air, clean water.
I'm not sure what your problem is with this. I mean, he's saying he wants to help lift up minorities. He is doing that with this nomination. But your "either he lifts them all up in this single specific scenario or he lifts none of them up" is a bit of a head scratcher.
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: "We have a real chance to deliver real equity across
the board to everyone - Black, white, Latino, Asian American."...... Except when it comes to SCOTUS nominations.
Did I say lift them all up in this single scenario? No. You are putting words in my mouth like others are here to deflect the fact that Biden limited his "racial equity" to only 1 ethnic group when some groups have no representation at all when it comes to his SCOTUS nomination.
he is limited to the one space that is currently open. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I'm trying to understand why it seems you'd rather him do nothing if he can't do everything.
"god please let it be another young, conservative, bible thumping, white guy."
sounds like an unpopular position. as it should be.
Yes, I totally agree. I don't even have an issue if he had said, "I will not be nominating a person that is white." I agree that there needs to be racial diversity on the SCOTUS but it isn't true racial equality to pledge it to 1 ethnic group that is represented when other ethnic groups are not.
we cannot have that with 9 justices.
and even if we did have one justice from every ethnicity, even that one person would not represent everyone in that ethnicity.
what about all of the uncle ruckuses of the world?
wait i guess clarence thomas could represent uncle ruckus, but not many of the rest of the african american community.
Yeah but the sky is blue!
See, I too can argue points that you aren't trying to make like what you are doing to me. You are trying to deflect from the fact that this administration promised racial equity but didn't bother giving under represented ethnic groups a chance at a seat on the SCOTUS. That is not racial equity.
Please link us to an Administration or candidate or POTUS Biden statement promising “racial equity.” In the absence of such, your argument is garbage.
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: We have a real chance to deliver real equity across the board to everyone - Black, white, Latino, Asian American.
BIDEN: Good jobs, good schools, affordable housing, clean air, clean water.
I'm not sure what your problem is with this. I mean, he's saying he wants to help lift up minorities. He is doing that with this nomination. But your "either he lifts them all up in this single specific scenario or he lifts none of them up" is a bit of a head scratcher.
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: "We have a real chance to deliver real equity across
the board to everyone - Black, white, Latino, Asian American."...... Except when it comes to SCOTUS nominations.
Did I say lift them all up in this single scenario? No. You are putting words in my mouth like others are here to deflect the fact that Biden limited his "racial equity" to only 1 ethnic group when some groups have no representation at all when it comes to his SCOTUS nomination.
he is limited to the one space that is currently open. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I'm trying to understand why it seems you'd rather him do nothing if he can't do everything.
I did not say I'd rather him do nothing.
Why couldn't he had just promised that he was going to nominate a person from an ethnic group? That wouldn't be "nothing". I keep the saying the same things over and over again and no one is directly responding to what I'm saying. They are putting words in my mouth or bringing up irrelevant issues or just bringing up Trump.
I'll repeat myself with different words here. You are correct when you say he is limited to one space that is currently open. Why limit his nominations to one ethnic group like he did? That isn't racial equity.
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: "We have a real chance to deliver real equity across
the board to everyone - Black, white, Latino, Asian American."
He never gave white(which I'm actually OK with), Latinos or Asian Americans a chance. That is not racial equity. Not giving white people a chance at all is not racial equity but seeing how they are over represented, that must be corrected and it is.
I have no issues with his nomination being African American. They are underrepresented but other ethnic groups are not represented at all.
Nominating an African American is still progress for racial equity but at face value, this was not done in a way that was racially equitable "across the board to everyone".
"god please let it be another young, conservative, bible thumping, white guy."
sounds like an unpopular position. as it should be.
Yes, I totally agree. I don't even have an issue if he had said, "I will not be nominating a person that is white." I agree that there needs to be racial diversity on the SCOTUS but it isn't true racial equality to pledge it to 1 ethnic group that is represented when other ethnic groups are not.
we cannot have that with 9 justices.
and even if we did have one justice from every ethnicity, even that one person would not represent everyone in that ethnicity.
what about all of the uncle ruckuses of the world?
wait i guess clarence thomas could represent uncle ruckus, but not many of the rest of the african american community.
Yeah but the sky is blue!
See, I too can argue points that you aren't trying to make like what you are doing to me. You are trying to deflect from the fact that this administration promised racial equity but didn't bother giving under represented ethnic groups a chance at a seat on the SCOTUS. That is not racial equity.
Please link us to an Administration or candidate or POTUS Biden statement promising “racial equity.” In the absence of such, your argument is garbage.
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: We have a real chance to deliver real equity across the board to everyone - Black, white, Latino, Asian American.
BIDEN: Good jobs, good schools, affordable housing, clean air, clean water.
I'm not sure what your problem is with this. I mean, he's saying he wants to help lift up minorities. He is doing that with this nomination. But your "either he lifts them all up in this single specific scenario or he lifts none of them up" is a bit of a head scratcher.
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: "We have a real chance to deliver real equity across
the board to everyone - Black, white, Latino, Asian American."...... Except when it comes to SCOTUS nominations.
Did I say lift them all up in this single scenario? No. You are putting words in my mouth like others are here to deflect the fact that Biden limited his "racial equity" to only 1 ethnic group when some groups have no representation at all when it comes to his SCOTUS nomination.
he is limited to the one space that is currently open. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I'm trying to understand why it seems you'd rather him do nothing if he can't do everything.
I did not say I'd rather him do nothing.
Why couldn't he had just promised that he was going to nominate a person from an ethnic group? That wouldn't be "nothing". I keep the saying the same things over and over again and no one is directly responding to what I'm saying. They are putting words in my mouth or bringing up irrelevant issues or just bringing up Trump.
I'll repeat myself with different words here. You are correct when you say he is limited to one space that is currently open. Why limit his nominations to one ethnic group like he did? That isn't racial equity.
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: "We have a real chance to deliver real equity across
the board to everyone - Black, white, Latino, Asian American."
He never gave white(which I'm actually OK with), Latinos or Asian Americans a chance. That is not racial equity. Not giving white people a chance at all is not racial equity but seeing how they are over represented, that must be corrected and it is.
I have no issues with his nomination being African American. They are underrepresented but other ethnic groups are not represented at all.
Nominating an African American is still progress for racial equity but at face value, this was not done in a way that was racially equitable "across the board to everyone".
k, I wrote out a long post but now I think I know what you're getting at. I was getting confused by you saying "nominations" plural, when there's one seat. Are you saying you would have rathered him announce the next seat would be "of a minority group", making the public think he could choose mexican, black, asian, etc?
I'm pretty sure those discussions actually took place. behind closed doors, and announcing that would have just been more pandering that his critics keep deriding him for. he didn't just decide "black woman" on a whim all on his own. So making the public think he was choosing from any other minority group would have been unfair to the other ones hoping, and could be disastrous politically. This isn't a pageant or an election. I think your expectation is a little over the top and would have made it a circus.
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
And what was that about Dems not being concerned with “racial equity,” again? Particularly, when compared to repubs? Or are we only comparing Dems against themselves? Like with the economic failure currently gripping the nation?
I don't know if you knew this but Trump hasn't been in office for over a year now. It's time to move forward and stop rehashing the past unless you just can't let your TDS go.
Do you want to talk about the past or do you want to talk about the present and the future? Biden is president now and has been for over a year. I know I keep saying that but you keep bringing up Trump as if it is relevant. How about we focus on how to do better than Trump?
In the absence of such, your argument is garbage.
President Biden currently has one SC position to fill. He’s vowed to nominate a Black woman. POOTWH had three opportunities to appoint or nominate one of the other underrepresented minorities to the SCOTUS. You said Dems don’t care about “racial equity. And yet, repubs going back to Carter seem to care even less. Yet you only hold Dems accountable or care. Let’s see what happens in the next 7 years of President Biden’s current and second term. Maybe you’ll get more “racial equity” but at the cost, I’m sure of, MAGA. What a garbage argument.
I don’t care about the past 4 years, all that matters is now, dammit.
They do it cause they are politicians and they pander.
but does anyone disagree that for any of these jobs it would just be better to shut the fuck up and nominate whomever you think would be best for the job?
I mean we’d end up in a better place as a society…but those politicians would lose some stupid votes from fucking idiots that buy into their political bullshit.
- He specifically said merit will come first. There are more than enough black females who are exceptionally qualified in the States to hold this role - He gave his word to James Clyburn during the election. Campaign trail promises are rarely kept, but this one was an instrumental endorsement for Biden that was likely necessary for his victory. I appreciate that he's honouring his word - There are very serious legal protections for both African-Americans and females being threatened. Numerous metrics (hate crimes, economic injustice, incarceration practices, etc) show inequalities targeting the black community, and the singular issue of abortion warrants a female nominee - I find it hard to believe that a visible minority who's been to law school and made it to the point of being a supreme court justice nominee - will not possess the decency to empathize for all, regardless of race - Republicans are desperately trying to curtail voting rights, putting an outsized importance on Democratic wins at any cost (so long as the politicking is done with decency - like appointing a Black female judge to the SC). Given the outsized impact the black community has on Democratic elections and the real threat to democracy, this will be a good boost of momentum for the DNC
I'm fine with any one of these arguments on their own. Once stacked, yes, I would nominate a black woman today if I was Biden and only had one choice.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
"god please let it be another young, conservative, bible thumping, white guy."
sounds like an unpopular position. as it should be.
Yes, I totally agree. I don't even have an issue if he had said, "I will not be nominating a person that is white." I agree that there needs to be racial diversity on the SCOTUS but it isn't true racial equality to pledge it to 1 ethnic group that is represented when other ethnic groups are not.
we cannot have that with 9 justices.
and even if we did have one justice from every ethnicity, even that one person would not represent everyone in that ethnicity.
what about all of the uncle ruckuses of the world?
wait i guess clarence thomas could represent uncle ruckus, but not many of the rest of the african american community.
Yeah but the sky is blue!
See, I too can argue points that you aren't trying to make like what you are doing to me. You are trying to deflect from the fact that this administration promised racial equity but didn't bother giving under represented ethnic groups a chance at a seat on the SCOTUS. That is not racial equity.
why are you so concerned about racial equality all of the sudden?
you were posting here a year ago. where were you with this message during the coney-barrett nomination?
i am sorry but it is difficult for me to believe your sincerity about this this time around.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"god please let it be another young, conservative, bible thumping, white guy."
sounds like an unpopular position. as it should be.
Yes, I totally agree. I don't even have an issue if he had said, "I will not be nominating a person that is white." I agree that there needs to be racial diversity on the SCOTUS but it isn't true racial equality to pledge it to 1 ethnic group that is represented when other ethnic groups are not.
we cannot have that with 9 justices.
and even if we did have one justice from every ethnicity, even that one person would not represent everyone in that ethnicity.
what about all of the uncle ruckuses of the world?
wait i guess clarence thomas could represent uncle ruckus, but not many of the rest of the african american community.
Yeah but the sky is blue!
See, I too can argue points that you aren't trying to make like what you are doing to me. You are trying to deflect from the fact that this administration promised racial equity but didn't bother giving under represented ethnic groups a chance at a seat on the SCOTUS. That is not racial equity.
why are you so concerned about racial equality all of the sudden?
you were posting here a year ago. where were you with this message during the coney-barrett nomination?
i am sorry but it is difficult for me to believe your sincerity about this this time around.
If it walks like a troll and it talks like a troll...
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
"god please let it be another young, conservative, bible thumping, white guy."
sounds like an unpopular position. as it should be.
Yes, I totally agree. I don't even have an issue if he had said, "I will not be nominating a person that is white." I agree that there needs to be racial diversity on the SCOTUS but it isn't true racial equality to pledge it to 1 ethnic group that is represented when other ethnic groups are not.
we cannot have that with 9 justices.
and even if we did have one justice from every ethnicity, even that one person would not represent everyone in that ethnicity.
what about all of the uncle ruckuses of the world?
wait i guess clarence thomas could represent uncle ruckus, but not many of the rest of the african american community.
Yeah but the sky is blue!
See, I too can argue points that you aren't trying to make like what you are doing to me. You are trying to deflect from the fact that this administration promised racial equity but didn't bother giving under represented ethnic groups a chance at a seat on the SCOTUS. That is not racial equity.
why are you so concerned about racial equality all of the sudden?
you were posting here a year ago. where were you with this message during the coney-barrett nomination?
i am sorry but it is difficult for me to believe your sincerity about this this time around.
If it walks like a troll and it talks like a troll...
"A little more than three-quarters of Americans think Biden should
consider everyone and only 23 percent say he should automatically follow
through on his pledge to nominate the first Black woman to the Supreme
Court. Although Democrats are more supportive of Biden following through
on his pledge, 54 percent still say Biden should consider all possible
nominees."
"god please let it be another young, conservative, bible thumping, white guy."
sounds like an unpopular position. as it should be.
Yes, I totally agree. I don't even have an issue if he had said, "I will not be nominating a person that is white." I agree that there needs to be racial diversity on the SCOTUS but it isn't true racial equality to pledge it to 1 ethnic group that is represented when other ethnic groups are not.
we cannot have that with 9 justices.
and even if we did have one justice from every ethnicity, even that one person would not represent everyone in that ethnicity.
what about all of the uncle ruckuses of the world?
wait i guess clarence thomas could represent uncle ruckus, but not many of the rest of the african american community.
Yeah but the sky is blue!
See, I too can argue points that you aren't trying to make like what you are doing to me. You are trying to deflect from the fact that this administration promised racial equity but didn't bother giving under represented ethnic groups a chance at a seat on the SCOTUS. That is not racial equity.
why are you so concerned about racial equality all of the sudden?
you were posting here a year ago. where were you with this message during the coney-barrett nomination?
i am sorry but it is difficult for me to believe your sincerity about this this time around.
Trump did not promise the position to 1 race. That's the difference. Had Trump done that, I wouldn't have agreed with him either.
"god please let it be another young, conservative, bible thumping, white guy."
sounds like an unpopular position. as it should be.
Yes, I totally agree. I don't even have an issue if he had said, "I will not be nominating a person that is white." I agree that there needs to be racial diversity on the SCOTUS but it isn't true racial equality to pledge it to 1 ethnic group that is represented when other ethnic groups are not.
we cannot have that with 9 justices.
and even if we did have one justice from every ethnicity, even that one person would not represent everyone in that ethnicity.
what about all of the uncle ruckuses of the world?
wait i guess clarence thomas could represent uncle ruckus, but not many of the rest of the african american community.
Yeah but the sky is blue!
See, I too can argue points that you aren't trying to make like what you are doing to me. You are trying to deflect from the fact that this administration promised racial equity but didn't bother giving under represented ethnic groups a chance at a seat on the SCOTUS. That is not racial equity.
why are you so concerned about racial equality all of the sudden?
you were posting here a year ago. where were you with this message during the coney-barrett nomination?
i am sorry but it is difficult for me to believe your sincerity about this this time around.
Trump did not promise the position to 1 race. That's the difference. Had Trump done that, I wouldn't have agreed with him either.
Yes, but your silence on his 3 white appointees and non-stop grievances about a specific race/gender being named by Biden to the court speaks volumes about what you care about, or don't care about.
"god please let it be another young, conservative, bible thumping, white guy."
sounds like an unpopular position. as it should be.
Yes, I totally agree. I don't even have an issue if he had said, "I will not be nominating a person that is white." I agree that there needs to be racial diversity on the SCOTUS but it isn't true racial equality to pledge it to 1 ethnic group that is represented when other ethnic groups are not.
we cannot have that with 9 justices.
and even if we did have one justice from every ethnicity, even that one person would not represent everyone in that ethnicity.
what about all of the uncle ruckuses of the world?
wait i guess clarence thomas could represent uncle ruckus, but not many of the rest of the african american community.
Yeah but the sky is blue!
See, I too can argue points that you aren't trying to make like what you are doing to me. You are trying to deflect from the fact that this administration promised racial equity but didn't bother giving under represented ethnic groups a chance at a seat on the SCOTUS. That is not racial equity.
why are you so concerned about racial equality all of the sudden?
you were posting here a year ago. where were you with this message during the coney-barrett nomination?
i am sorry but it is difficult for me to believe your sincerity about this this time around.
Trump did not promise the position to 1 race. That's the difference. Had Trump done that, I wouldn't have agreed with him either.
Yes, but your silence on his 3 white appointees and non-stop grievances about a specific race/gender being named by Biden to the court speaks volumes about what you care about, or don't care about.
What the fuck ever. You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. How about address the other 76% of Americans or 54% of Democrats feel the same way I do? Are you going to say the same thing about their "silence" as well?
"god please let it be another young, conservative, bible thumping, white guy."
sounds like an unpopular position. as it should be.
Yes, I totally agree. I don't even have an issue if he had said, "I will not be nominating a person that is white." I agree that there needs to be racial diversity on the SCOTUS but it isn't true racial equality to pledge it to 1 ethnic group that is represented when other ethnic groups are not.
we cannot have that with 9 justices.
and even if we did have one justice from every ethnicity, even that one person would not represent everyone in that ethnicity.
what about all of the uncle ruckuses of the world?
wait i guess clarence thomas could represent uncle ruckus, but not many of the rest of the african american community.
Yeah but the sky is blue!
See, I too can argue points that you aren't trying to make like what you are doing to me. You are trying to deflect from the fact that this administration promised racial equity but didn't bother giving under represented ethnic groups a chance at a seat on the SCOTUS. That is not racial equity.
why are you so concerned about racial equality all of the sudden?
you were posting here a year ago. where were you with this message during the coney-barrett nomination?
i am sorry but it is difficult for me to believe your sincerity about this this time around.
Trump did not promise the position to 1 race. That's the difference. Had Trump done that, I wouldn't have agreed with him either.
Yes, but your silence on his 3 white appointees and non-stop grievances about a specific race/gender being named by Biden to the court speaks volumes about what you care about, or don't care about.
"Senator Biden opposed and then filibustered the nomination of Brown to the federal bench in 2003 and 2005."
Your silence on Biden denying this African American woman to the SCOTUS speaks volumes on what you care about, or don't care about. See how that works?
Just remember kids, 'If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black'.
"god please let it be another young, conservative, bible thumping, white guy."
sounds like an unpopular position. as it should be.
Yes, I totally agree. I don't even have an issue if he had said, "I will not be nominating a person that is white." I agree that there needs to be racial diversity on the SCOTUS but it isn't true racial equality to pledge it to 1 ethnic group that is represented when other ethnic groups are not.
we cannot have that with 9 justices.
and even if we did have one justice from every ethnicity, even that one person would not represent everyone in that ethnicity.
what about all of the uncle ruckuses of the world?
wait i guess clarence thomas could represent uncle ruckus, but not many of the rest of the african american community.
Yeah but the sky is blue!
See, I too can argue points that you aren't trying to make like what you are doing to me. You are trying to deflect from the fact that this administration promised racial equity but didn't bother giving under represented ethnic groups a chance at a seat on the SCOTUS. That is not racial equity.
why are you so concerned about racial equality all of the sudden?
you were posting here a year ago. where were you with this message during the coney-barrett nomination?
i am sorry but it is difficult for me to believe your sincerity about this this time around.
Trump did not promise the position to 1 race. That's the difference. Had Trump done that, I wouldn't have agreed with him either.
Yes, but your silence on his 3 white appointees and non-stop grievances about a specific race/gender being named by Biden to the court speaks volumes about what you care about, or don't care about.
What the fuck ever. You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. How about address the other 76% of Americans or 54% of Democrats feel the same way I do? Are you going to say the same thing about their "silence" as well?
Yes, I will. Racism is very alive and well in 'Murica. Among both parties. No one ever said the repubs had a lock on it. Do you have a link to the polling? I'd be interested in the age demographics and breakdown.
Don't know enough about polling, the importance of sample size and controlling for bias but I wouldn't read too much into the poll being cited. Ipsos gets a B- rating by 538 but ABC News/Washington Post gets an A+. I couldn't find an "ABC News/Ipsos" rating.
This ABC News/Ipsos poll was conducted January 28-29, 2022 by Ipsos using the probability-based KnowledgePanel®. This poll is based on a nationally representative probability sample of 510 adults age 18 or older.
"god please let it be another young, conservative, bible thumping, white guy."
sounds like an unpopular position. as it should be.
Yes, I totally agree. I don't even have an issue if he had said, "I will not be nominating a person that is white." I agree that there needs to be racial diversity on the SCOTUS but it isn't true racial equality to pledge it to 1 ethnic group that is represented when other ethnic groups are not.
we cannot have that with 9 justices.
and even if we did have one justice from every ethnicity, even that one person would not represent everyone in that ethnicity.
what about all of the uncle ruckuses of the world?
wait i guess clarence thomas could represent uncle ruckus, but not many of the rest of the african american community.
Yeah but the sky is blue!
See, I too can argue points that you aren't trying to make like what you are doing to me. You are trying to deflect from the fact that this administration promised racial equity but didn't bother giving under represented ethnic groups a chance at a seat on the SCOTUS. That is not racial equity.
why are you so concerned about racial equality all of the sudden?
you were posting here a year ago. where were you with this message during the coney-barrett nomination?
i am sorry but it is difficult for me to believe your sincerity about this this time around.
Trump did not promise the position to 1 race. That's the difference. Had Trump done that, I wouldn't have agreed with him either.
Yes, but your silence on his 3 white appointees and non-stop grievances about a specific race/gender being named by Biden to the court speaks volumes about what you care about, or don't care about.
"Senator Biden opposed and then filibustered the nomination of Brown to the federal bench in 2003 and 2005."
Your silence on Biden denying this African American woman to the SCOTUS speaks volumes on what you care about, or don't care about. See how that works?
Just remember kids, 'If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black'.
Whataboutism at its finest folks. So you are trying to call me out for a vote Biden made as a senator back during the Riot Act era? I don't think this article proves what you think it does, but ok. I was a mid-20's asshole in my own right then, so what? Can we get back to today or at least the current societal culture and norms. Why are you calling out something that already happened? I'm not team Biden. I know that's hard to believe since so many Trump supporters think he's their mascot. I voted for Biden because he isn't a complete piece of shit, but that doesn't mean I'm not critical of him. The guy isn't a great president by any means, but he's above the low bar we had. I'm hoping for better in '24.
"god please let it be another young, conservative, bible thumping, white guy."
sounds like an unpopular position. as it should be.
Yes, I totally agree. I don't even have an issue if he had said, "I will not be nominating a person that is white." I agree that there needs to be racial diversity on the SCOTUS but it isn't true racial equality to pledge it to 1 ethnic group that is represented when other ethnic groups are not.
we cannot have that with 9 justices.
and even if we did have one justice from every ethnicity, even that one person would not represent everyone in that ethnicity.
what about all of the uncle ruckuses of the world?
wait i guess clarence thomas could represent uncle ruckus, but not many of the rest of the african american community.
Yeah but the sky is blue!
See, I too can argue points that you aren't trying to make like what you are doing to me. You are trying to deflect from the fact that this administration promised racial equity but didn't bother giving under represented ethnic groups a chance at a seat on the SCOTUS. That is not racial equity.
why are you so concerned about racial equality all of the sudden?
you were posting here a year ago. where were you with this message during the coney-barrett nomination?
i am sorry but it is difficult for me to believe your sincerity about this this time around.
Trump did not promise the position to 1 race. That's the difference. Had Trump done that, I wouldn't have agreed with him either.
So to be clear, you are okay with promising to nominate a woman, just not a minority. Do I have that right?
"god please let it be another young, conservative, bible thumping, white guy."
sounds like an unpopular position. as it should be.
Yes, I totally agree. I don't even have an issue if he had said, "I will not be nominating a person that is white." I agree that there needs to be racial diversity on the SCOTUS but it isn't true racial equality to pledge it to 1 ethnic group that is represented when other ethnic groups are not.
we cannot have that with 9 justices.
and even if we did have one justice from every ethnicity, even that one person would not represent everyone in that ethnicity.
what about all of the uncle ruckuses of the world?
wait i guess clarence thomas could represent uncle ruckus, but not many of the rest of the african american community.
Yeah but the sky is blue!
See, I too can argue points that you aren't trying to make like what you are doing to me. You are trying to deflect from the fact that this administration promised racial equity but didn't bother giving under represented ethnic groups a chance at a seat on the SCOTUS. That is not racial equity.
why are you so concerned about racial equality all of the sudden?
you were posting here a year ago. where were you with this message during the coney-barrett nomination?
i am sorry but it is difficult for me to believe your sincerity about this this time around.
Trump did not promise the position to 1 race. That's the difference. Had Trump done that, I wouldn't have agreed with him either.
Yes, but your silence on his 3 white appointees and non-stop grievances about a specific race/gender being named by Biden to the court speaks volumes about what you care about, or don't care about.
"Senator Biden opposed and then filibustered the nomination of Brown to the federal bench in 2003 and 2005."
Your silence on Biden denying this African American woman to the SCOTUS speaks volumes on what you care about, or don't care about. See how that works?
Just remember kids, 'If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black'.
Because maybe Senator Biden disagreed with her judicial philosophy and lack of qualifications and not the color of her skin? Seems she was a recess appointment to boot and Senator Obama spoke out against her judicial philosophy on the senate floor and 41 other senators agreed with Barack and Joe. But sure, its same-same.
In November 1994, Wilson appointed Brown to the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District.[citation needed] Her appointment was rated "not qualified" by the State Bar of California Commission on Judicial Nominees due to her lack of judicial experience.[4]
In May 1996, Governor Pete Wilson appointed Brown as Associate Justice to the California Supreme Court. This appointment was also rated "not qualified" for lack of experience. However, Brown was praised in the JNE Commission evaluation for her intelligence and accomplishments. Brown was the first "not qualified" appointment to the California Supreme Court.[5][6]
In Hi-Voltage Wire-Works, Inc. v. City of San Jose (2000), Brown wrote overturning a program of racial set-asides adopted by the city of San Jose.[7] The opinion upheld an amendment to the California Constitution which banned discrimination against or preferential treatment for any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, or contracting.
In another case, Brown dissented from an opinion striking down a parental consent law for abortions.[citation needed]
In 2000, she authored the opinion in Kasler v. Lockyer, upholding the right of the State of California to ban semi-automatic firearms, and of the Attorney General of California to add to the list of prohibited weapons. Her opinion in that case clearly explained that the decision was not an endorsement of the policy, but rather recognition of the power of the state.[citation needed]
Brown was the lone dissenter to contend that a provision in the California Constitution requires drug offenders be given treatment instead of jail time.[citation needed]
On June 8, freshman Senator Barack Obama strongly opposed her nomination in a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate, characterizing her judicial activism as social darwinism.[4] He said:
Justice Scalia says that, generally speaking, the legislature has the power to make laws and the judiciary should only interpret the laws that are made or are explicitly in the Constitution. That is not Justice Brown's philosophy. It is simply intellectually dishonest and logically incoherent to suggest that somehow the Constitution recognizes an unlimited right to do what you want with your private property and yet does not recognize a right to privacy that would forbid the Government from intruding in your bedroom. Yet that seems to be the manner in which Justice Brown would interpret our most cherished document.[4]
Despite such opposition, Brown's nomination to the Court of Appeals was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on June 8, 2005 by a vote of 56–43.[8][9] She received her commission on June 10.[3] Brown was the second judge nominated to the D.C. Circuit by Bush and confirmed by the Senate.[citation needed] She began hearing federal cases on September 8, 2005.[citation needed]
"god please let it be another young, conservative, bible thumping, white guy."
sounds like an unpopular position. as it should be.
Yes, I totally agree. I don't even have an issue if he had said, "I will not be nominating a person that is white." I agree that there needs to be racial diversity on the SCOTUS but it isn't true racial equality to pledge it to 1 ethnic group that is represented when other ethnic groups are not.
we cannot have that with 9 justices.
and even if we did have one justice from every ethnicity, even that one person would not represent everyone in that ethnicity.
what about all of the uncle ruckuses of the world?
wait i guess clarence thomas could represent uncle ruckus, but not many of the rest of the african american community.
Yeah but the sky is blue!
See, I too can argue points that you aren't trying to make like what you are doing to me. You are trying to deflect from the fact that this administration promised racial equity but didn't bother giving under represented ethnic groups a chance at a seat on the SCOTUS. That is not racial equity.
why are you so concerned about racial equality all of the sudden?
you were posting here a year ago. where were you with this message during the coney-barrett nomination?
i am sorry but it is difficult for me to believe your sincerity about this this time around.
Trump did not promise the position to 1 race. That's the difference. Had Trump done that, I wouldn't have agreed with him either.
Yes, but your silence on his 3 white appointees and non-stop grievances about a specific race/gender being named by Biden to the court speaks volumes about what you care about, or don't care about.
What the fuck ever. You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. How about address the other 76% of Americans or 54% of Democrats feel the same way I do? Are you going to say the same thing about their "silence" as well?
Uh, if any one them didn't have a problem with 3 white Christians being appointed during Trump, yeah, I have a problem with them as well, but that wasn't the question they were asked or whether they had an issue with the last 3 appointees. You can be upset about all of them, none of them or some of them. I understand the fact that some people wanted Biden not to say the quiet part out loud, but he did. He specifically named the race and gender he intended to put on the bench based on the qualifications. I guess if Trump spoke the quiet part out loud (aka I want 3 bible bangers who will possibly overturn Roe v. Wade and at least 1 partisan beer swilling frat boy) that wouldn't have been a good look so he pretended the position was open for all qualified candidates. Bullshit. I thought the Trump humpers loved to tout his "No More Bullshit" mentality, but that's hogwash.
"god please let it be another young, conservative, bible thumping, white guy."
sounds like an unpopular position. as it should be.
Yes, I totally agree. I don't even have an issue if he had said, "I will not be nominating a person that is white." I agree that there needs to be racial diversity on the SCOTUS but it isn't true racial equality to pledge it to 1 ethnic group that is represented when other ethnic groups are not.
we cannot have that with 9 justices.
and even if we did have one justice from every ethnicity, even that one person would not represent everyone in that ethnicity.
what about all of the uncle ruckuses of the world?
wait i guess clarence thomas could represent uncle ruckus, but not many of the rest of the african american community.
Yeah but the sky is blue!
See, I too can argue points that you aren't trying to make like what you are doing to me. You are trying to deflect from the fact that this administration promised racial equity but didn't bother giving under represented ethnic groups a chance at a seat on the SCOTUS. That is not racial equity.
why are you so concerned about racial equality all of the sudden?
you were posting here a year ago. where were you with this message during the coney-barrett nomination?
i am sorry but it is difficult for me to believe your sincerity about this this time around.
Trump did not promise the position to 1 race. That's the difference. Had Trump done that, I wouldn't have agreed with him either.
Yes, but your silence on his 3 white appointees and non-stop grievances about a specific race/gender being named by Biden to the court speaks volumes about what you care about, or don't care about.
"Senator Biden opposed and then filibustered the nomination of Brown to the federal bench in 2003 and 2005."
Your silence on Biden denying this African American woman to the SCOTUS speaks volumes on what you care about, or don't care about. See how that works?
Just remember kids, 'If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black'.
Whataboutism at its finest folks. So you are trying to call me out for a vote Biden made as a senator back during the Riot Act era? I don't think this article proves what you think it does, but ok. I was a mid-20's asshole in my own right then, so what? Can we get back to today or at least the current societal culture and norms. Why are you calling out something that already happened? I'm not team Biden. I know that's hard to believe since so many Trump supporters think he's their mascot. I voted for Biden because he isn't a complete piece of shit, but that doesn't mean I'm not critical of him. The guy isn't a great president by any means, but he's above the low bar we had. I'm hoping for better in '24.
Particularly coming from a poster who derided me for mentioning POOTWH in the same breath as President Biden. Biden has been POTUS for a year now, leave POOTWH out of it, etc.................And here we are referring to a vote from almost 17 years ago as evidence of what exactly, I'm not sure.
Comments
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/13/how-trump-compares-with-other-recent-presidents-in-appointing-federal-judges/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
www.headstonesband.com
but does anyone disagree that for any of these jobs it would just be better to shut the fuck up and nominate whomever you think would be best for the job?
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: We have a real chance to deliver real equity across the board to everyone - Black, white, Latino, Asian American.
BIDEN: Good jobs, good schools, affordable housing, clean air, clean water.
I'm not sure what your problem is with this. I mean, he's saying he wants to help lift up minorities. He is doing that with this nomination. But your "either he lifts them all up in this single specific scenario or he lifts none of them up" is a bit of a head scratcher.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
I'm pretty sure those discussions actually took place. behind closed doors, and announcing that would have just been more pandering that his critics keep deriding him for. he didn't just decide "black woman" on a whim all on his own. So making the public think he was choosing from any other minority group would have been unfair to the other ones hoping, and could be disastrous politically. This isn't a pageant or an election. I think your expectation is a little over the top and would have made it a circus.
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
I don’t care about the past 4 years, all that matters is now, dammit.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
- He gave his word to James Clyburn during the election. Campaign trail promises are rarely kept, but this one was an instrumental endorsement for Biden that was likely necessary for his victory. I appreciate that he's honouring his word
- There are very serious legal protections for both African-Americans and females being threatened. Numerous metrics (hate crimes, economic injustice, incarceration practices, etc) show inequalities targeting the black community, and the singular issue of abortion warrants a female nominee
- I find it hard to believe that a visible minority who's been to law school and made it to the point of being a supreme court justice nominee - will not possess the decency to empathize for all, regardless of race
- Republicans are desperately trying to curtail voting rights, putting an outsized importance on Democratic wins at any cost (so long as the politicking is done with decency - like appointing a Black female judge to the SC). Given the outsized impact the black community has on Democratic elections and the real threat to democracy, this will be a good boost of momentum for the DNC
I'm fine with any one of these arguments on their own. Once stacked, yes, I would nominate a black woman today if I was Biden and only had one choice.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
you were posting here a year ago. where were you with this message during the coney-barrett nomination?
i am sorry but it is difficult for me to believe your sincerity about this this time around.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
This ABC News/Ipsos poll was conducted January 28-29, 2022 by Ipsos using the probability-based KnowledgePanel®. This poll is based on a nationally representative probability sample of 510 adults age 18 or older.
President Biden continues to lose ground with the American public on a range of issues | Ipsos
Pollster Ratings | FiveThirtyEight
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
In November 1994, Wilson appointed Brown to the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District.[citation needed] Her appointment was rated "not qualified" by the State Bar of California Commission on Judicial Nominees due to her lack of judicial experience.[4]
In May 1996, Governor Pete Wilson appointed Brown as Associate Justice to the California Supreme Court. This appointment was also rated "not qualified" for lack of experience. However, Brown was praised in the JNE Commission evaluation for her intelligence and accomplishments. Brown was the first "not qualified" appointment to the California Supreme Court.[5][6]
Tenure[edit]
In Hi-Voltage Wire-Works, Inc. v. City of San Jose (2000), Brown wrote overturning a program of racial set-asides adopted by the city of San Jose.[7] The opinion upheld an amendment to the California Constitution which banned discrimination against or preferential treatment for any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, or contracting.
Brown also wrote the majority opinion in Varian v. Delfino, an important First Amendment case involving the interpretation of California's SLAPP statute.[citation needed]
In another case, Brown dissented from an opinion striking down a parental consent law for abortions.[citation needed]
In 2000, she authored the opinion in Kasler v. Lockyer, upholding the right of the State of California to ban semi-automatic firearms, and of the Attorney General of California to add to the list of prohibited weapons. Her opinion in that case clearly explained that the decision was not an endorsement of the policy, but rather recognition of the power of the state.[citation needed]
Brown was the lone dissenter to contend that a provision in the California Constitution requires drug offenders be given treatment instead of jail time.[citation needed]
On June 8, freshman Senator Barack Obama strongly opposed her nomination in a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate, characterizing her judicial activism as social darwinism.[4] He said:
Despite such opposition, Brown's nomination to the Court of Appeals was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on June 8, 2005 by a vote of 56–43.[8][9] She received her commission on June 10.[3] Brown was the second judge nominated to the D.C. Circuit by Bush and confirmed by the Senate.[citation needed] She began hearing federal cases on September 8, 2005.[citation needed]
Janice Rogers Brown - Wikipedia
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©