Ketanji Brown Jackson nominated to be first Black woman to sit on Supreme Court

12357

Comments

  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 43,522
    honestly, what LEGIT reasons do R's have to not confirm her? 

    Probably the same reason 48 Senators voted against confirming Amy Coney Barrett. She was nominated by the opposing party's president. 
    at first I was annoyed at the response being the usual "well the other side...", but you're actually kind of right. I mean, people decrying ACB for not committing to upholding Roe v Wade, yet saying that KBJ has every right to abstain from answering questions about hypothetical future rulings is pretty hypocritical. 
    A conservative replacing a liberal will obviously not get democrat votes just the same as a liberal replacing a conservative will not get any republican votes. It's as simple as that. This, on the other hand, is a judge who will not alter the make up of the court in any way shape or form.

    Then you throw in the hypocrisy of Mcconnell rushing ACB through in a matter of weeks before the election four years after not even giving Garland a hearing 9 MONTHS or so before the election and.....well, yeah, this ain't remotely the same as ACB,
    chinese-happy.jpg
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 7,559
    honestly, what LEGIT reasons do R's have to not confirm her? 

    Probably the same reason 48 Senators voted against confirming Amy Coney Barrett. She was nominated by the opposing party's president. 
    at first I was annoyed at the response being the usual "well the other side...", but you're actually kind of right. I mean, people decrying ACB for not committing to upholding Roe v Wade, yet saying that KBJ has every right to abstain from answering questions about hypothetical future rulings is pretty hypocritical. 
    I think it’s also true. And the they will justify why they should or shouldn’t vote to confirm. But this is probably the new norm. 
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 43,522
    Plus--if a President's party does not control the senate, he or she, will be forced to put up a more moderate justice because they will need bipartisan support regardless.

    So we'll never see 70-90 votes to confirm anymore, but we will have to see some bipartisan support depending on the situation.
    chinese-happy.jpg
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 33,211
    honestly, what LEGIT reasons do R's have to not confirm her? 

    Probably the same reason 48 Senators voted against confirming Amy Coney Barrett. She was nominated by the opposing party's president. 
    at first I was annoyed at the response being the usual "well the other side...", but you're actually kind of right. I mean, people decrying ACB for not committing to upholding Roe v Wade, yet saying that KBJ has every right to abstain from answering questions about hypothetical future rulings is pretty hypocritical. 
    A conservative replacing a liberal will obviously not get democrat votes just the same as a liberal replacing a conservative will not get any republican votes. It's as simple as that. This, on the other hand, is a judge who will not alter the make up of the court in any way shape or form.

    Then you throw in the hypocrisy of Mcconnell rushing ACB through in a matter of weeks before the election four years after not even giving Garland a hearing 9 MONTHS or so before the election and.....well, yeah, this ain't remotely the same as ACB,
    I understand what I'm about to say falls under a "perfect world scenario" but it's hilarious to me that we call this court impartial and also expect them to rule as such then get all bent out of shape when someone not from "our team" gets confirmed and we even fucking keep score. 6-3! 6-3! the end times are afoot! 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 43,522
    edited March 30
    honestly, what LEGIT reasons do R's have to not confirm her? 

    Probably the same reason 48 Senators voted against confirming Amy Coney Barrett. She was nominated by the opposing party's president. 
    at first I was annoyed at the response being the usual "well the other side...", but you're actually kind of right. I mean, people decrying ACB for not committing to upholding Roe v Wade, yet saying that KBJ has every right to abstain from answering questions about hypothetical future rulings is pretty hypocritical. 
    A conservative replacing a liberal will obviously not get democrat votes just the same as a liberal replacing a conservative will not get any republican votes. It's as simple as that. This, on the other hand, is a judge who will not alter the make up of the court in any way shape or form.

    Then you throw in the hypocrisy of Mcconnell rushing ACB through in a matter of weeks before the election four years after not even giving Garland a hearing 9 MONTHS or so before the election and.....well, yeah, this ain't remotely the same as ACB,
    I understand what I'm about to say falls under a "perfect world scenario" but it's hilarious to me that we call this court impartial and also expect them to rule as such then get all bent out of shape when someone not from "our team" gets confirmed and we even fucking keep score. 6-3! 6-3! the end times are afoot! 
    It has always been like this. Of course it has been made a thousand times worse by what the Republicans did in 2016, however. 
    Post edited by The Juggler on
    chinese-happy.jpg
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 33,211
    honestly, what LEGIT reasons do R's have to not confirm her? 

    Probably the same reason 48 Senators voted against confirming Amy Coney Barrett. She was nominated by the opposing party's president. 
    at first I was annoyed at the response being the usual "well the other side...", but you're actually kind of right. I mean, people decrying ACB for not committing to upholding Roe v Wade, yet saying that KBJ has every right to abstain from answering questions about hypothetical future rulings is pretty hypocritical. 
    A conservative replacing a liberal will obviously not get democrat votes just the same as a liberal replacing a conservative will not get any republican votes. It's as simple as that. This, on the other hand, is a judge who will not alter the make up of the court in any way shape or form.

    Then you throw in the hypocrisy of Mcconnell rushing ACB through in a matter of weeks before the election four years after not even giving Garland a hearing 9 MONTHS or so before the election and.....well, yeah, this ain't remotely the same as ACB,
    I understand what I'm about to say falls under a "perfect world scenario" but it's hilarious to me that we call this court impartial and also expect them to rule as such then get all bent out of shape when someone not from "our team" gets confirmed and we even fucking keep score. 6-3! 6-3! the end times are afoot! 
    It has always been like this.
    doesn't make it any less nonsensical. I have, for example, no fucking clue the political makeup of canada's supreme court. I actually couldn't even name one. lol
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 33,211

    the supreme claus of canada
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 43,522
    edited March 30
    honestly, what LEGIT reasons do R's have to not confirm her? 

    Probably the same reason 48 Senators voted against confirming Amy Coney Barrett. She was nominated by the opposing party's president. 
    at first I was annoyed at the response being the usual "well the other side...", but you're actually kind of right. I mean, people decrying ACB for not committing to upholding Roe v Wade, yet saying that KBJ has every right to abstain from answering questions about hypothetical future rulings is pretty hypocritical. 
    A conservative replacing a liberal will obviously not get democrat votes just the same as a liberal replacing a conservative will not get any republican votes. It's as simple as that. This, on the other hand, is a judge who will not alter the make up of the court in any way shape or form.

    Then you throw in the hypocrisy of Mcconnell rushing ACB through in a matter of weeks before the election four years after not even giving Garland a hearing 9 MONTHS or so before the election and.....well, yeah, this ain't remotely the same as ACB,
    I understand what I'm about to say falls under a "perfect world scenario" but it's hilarious to me that we call this court impartial and also expect them to rule as such then get all bent out of shape when someone not from "our team" gets confirmed and we even fucking keep score. 6-3! 6-3! the end times are afoot! 
    It has always been like this.
    doesn't make it any less nonsensical. I have, for example, no fucking clue the political makeup of canada's supreme court. I actually couldn't even name one. lol
    How does it not make sense? If you are a Republican and your party controls the senate....why would you not nominate anyone other than someone, who you think, supports your views on the constitution? Same thing the other way around. It makes total sense. 

    And if your party does not control the senate, then you are forced to nominate someone more moderate because you will need votes from the other side of the aisle to confirm. 

    This is the way things are supposed to work and have right up until Mitch McConnell did not even grant Merrick Garland a hearing in 2016....essentially hijacking the Supreme Court and further dividing our country. 
    Post edited by The Juggler on
    chinese-happy.jpg
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 43,522

    the supreme claus of canada
    I'd rock that robe.
    chinese-happy.jpg
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 33,211
    honestly, what LEGIT reasons do R's have to not confirm her? 

    Probably the same reason 48 Senators voted against confirming Amy Coney Barrett. She was nominated by the opposing party's president. 
    at first I was annoyed at the response being the usual "well the other side...", but you're actually kind of right. I mean, people decrying ACB for not committing to upholding Roe v Wade, yet saying that KBJ has every right to abstain from answering questions about hypothetical future rulings is pretty hypocritical. 
    A conservative replacing a liberal will obviously not get democrat votes just the same as a liberal replacing a conservative will not get any republican votes. It's as simple as that. This, on the other hand, is a judge who will not alter the make up of the court in any way shape or form.

    Then you throw in the hypocrisy of Mcconnell rushing ACB through in a matter of weeks before the election four years after not even giving Garland a hearing 9 MONTHS or so before the election and.....well, yeah, this ain't remotely the same as ACB,
    I understand what I'm about to say falls under a "perfect world scenario" but it's hilarious to me that we call this court impartial and also expect them to rule as such then get all bent out of shape when someone not from "our team" gets confirmed and we even fucking keep score. 6-3! 6-3! the end times are afoot! 
    It has always been like this.
    doesn't make it any less nonsensical. I have, for example, no fucking clue the political makeup of canada's supreme court. I actually couldn't even name one. lol
    How does it not make sense? If you are a Republican and your party controls the senate....why would you not nominate anyone other than someone, who you think, supports your views on the constitution? Same thing the other way around. It makes total sense. 

    And if your party does not control the senate, then you are forced to nominate someone more moderate because you will need votes from the other side of the aisle to confirm. 

    This is the way things are supposed to work and have right up until Mitch McConnell did not even grant Merrick Garland a hearing in 2016....essentially hijacking the Supreme Court and further dividing our country. 
    I mean it doesn't make sense in principle. justice isn't supposed to be political or partisan. interpreting the law shouldn't come down to your own personally held beliefs, but we all know that, in my cases, that's exactly how it's done. of course, all humans are fallible, but at that height, objectivity is paramount. the fact that it's expected that SCJ's would or should rule with "their team" is absurd to anyone else in the world. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 43,522
    edited March 30
    honestly, what LEGIT reasons do R's have to not confirm her? 

    Probably the same reason 48 Senators voted against confirming Amy Coney Barrett. She was nominated by the opposing party's president. 
    at first I was annoyed at the response being the usual "well the other side...", but you're actually kind of right. I mean, people decrying ACB for not committing to upholding Roe v Wade, yet saying that KBJ has every right to abstain from answering questions about hypothetical future rulings is pretty hypocritical. 
    A conservative replacing a liberal will obviously not get democrat votes just the same as a liberal replacing a conservative will not get any republican votes. It's as simple as that. This, on the other hand, is a judge who will not alter the make up of the court in any way shape or form.

    Then you throw in the hypocrisy of Mcconnell rushing ACB through in a matter of weeks before the election four years after not even giving Garland a hearing 9 MONTHS or so before the election and.....well, yeah, this ain't remotely the same as ACB,
    I understand what I'm about to say falls under a "perfect world scenario" but it's hilarious to me that we call this court impartial and also expect them to rule as such then get all bent out of shape when someone not from "our team" gets confirmed and we even fucking keep score. 6-3! 6-3! the end times are afoot! 
    It has always been like this.
    doesn't make it any less nonsensical. I have, for example, no fucking clue the political makeup of canada's supreme court. I actually couldn't even name one. lol
    How does it not make sense? If you are a Republican and your party controls the senate....why would you not nominate anyone other than someone, who you think, supports your views on the constitution? Same thing the other way around. It makes total sense. 

    And if your party does not control the senate, then you are forced to nominate someone more moderate because you will need votes from the other side of the aisle to confirm. 

    This is the way things are supposed to work and have right up until Mitch McConnell did not even grant Merrick Garland a hearing in 2016....essentially hijacking the Supreme Court and further dividing our country. 
    I mean it doesn't make sense in principle. justice isn't supposed to be political or partisan. interpreting the law shouldn't come down to your own personally held beliefs, but we all know that, in my cases, that's exactly how it's done. of course, all humans are fallible, but at that height, objectivity is paramount. the fact that it's expected that SCJ's would or should rule with "their team" is absurd to anyone else in the world. 
    It should come down to your own interpretation of the constitution and people interpret laws differently. So, in that respect, if you are someone who thinks Roe V Wade is settled law and you don't think the government should be getting involved in such a personal choice, I'd think you'd want to nominate someone who shares those beliefs.

    I don't have any problems with allowing a President to nominate whoever he/she feels comfortable nominating. I do think these justices should have term limits and it's probably worth looking at expanding the amount of them as well.

    I also feel disgusted thinking about how Mcconnel hijacked a seat for a bullshit reason and that there's nothing the other side can do about it. How the Democrats did not use that as a rallying cry in 2016 is political malpractice. 
    Post edited by The Juggler on
    chinese-happy.jpg
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 33,211
    Yes, but interpretation of law shouldn't involve your own personally held beliefs. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 43,522
    Yes, but interpretation of law shouldn't involve your own personally held beliefs. 
    Yeah so asking someone to define female is a stupid and pointless question. lol. We agree. 
    chinese-happy.jpg
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 33,211
    Yes, but interpretation of law shouldn't involve your own personally held beliefs. 
    Yeah so asking someone to define female is a stupid and pointless question. lol. We agree. 
    100%
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 32,023
    Surprise, surprise, Lindsey Flimsy Flip Flop Faloozy never fails to entertain.

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/31/politics/lindsey-graham-ketanji-brown-jackson/index.html
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 26,692
    no suprise by the committee vote....


    Senate panel deadlocks on Jackson; confirmation on track
    By MARY CLARE JALONICK and KEVIN FREKING
    13 mins ago

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate Judiciary Committee deadlocked, 11-11, Monday on whether to send Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination to the Senate floor. But President Joe Biden’s nominee was still on track to be confirmed this week as the first Black woman on the high court.

    The committee’s tie vote was expected. There is an even party split on the panel, and all of the Republicans are opposing Jackson's nomination to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer. But it was still a blow to Democrats who had hoped for robust bipartisan support. It was the first time the committee has deadlocked on a Supreme Court nomination in three decades.

    In order to move forward, Democrats planned a vote to “discharge” Jackson’s nomination from committee Monday evening and then a series of procedural steps in coming days to wind it through the 50-50 Senate. With the support of at least one Republican, Maine Sen. Susan Collins, Jackson is on a glidepath toward confirmation by the end of the week.

    “Judge Jackson will bring extraordinary qualifications, deep experience and intellect, and a rigorous judicial record to the Supreme Court,” Biden tweeted Monday. “She deserves to be confirmed as the next justice.”

    After more than 30 hours of hearings and interrogation from Republicans over her record, Jackson is on the brink of making history as the third Black justice and only the sixth woman in the court’s more than 200-year history. Democrats cite her deep experience in her nine years on the federal bench and the chance for her to become the first former public defender on the court.

    The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said at Monday’s meeting that Jackson has “the highest level of skill, integrity, civility and grace.”

    “This committee’s action today in nothing less than making history,” Durbin said. “I’m honored to be a part of it. I will strongly and proudly support Judge Jackson’s nomination.”

    The committee’s top Republican, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, said he was opposing Jackson’s nomination because “she and I have fundamental, different views on the role of judges and the role that they should play in our system of government.”

    Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins says she'll vote to confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, giving Democrats at least one GOP vote and all but assuring Jackson will become the first Black woman on the Supreme Court. (March 30)

    The committee hadn’t deadlocked since 1991, when Biden was chairman and a motion to send the nomination of current Justice Clarence Thomas to the floor with a “favorable” recommendation failed on a 7-7 vote. The committee then voted to send the nomination to the floor without a recommendation, meaning it could still be brought up for a vote.

    Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat on the committee, said last week that a panel tie vote on Jackson would be “a truly unfortunate signal of the continued descent into dysfunction of our confirmation process,”

    So far, Democrats know they will have at least one GOP vote in the full Senate — Collins, who announced last week that she would support the nominee. Collins said that though they may not always agree, Jackson “possesses the experience, qualifications and integrity to serve as an associate justice on the Supreme Court.”

    It’s unclear whether any other Republicans will join her. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky set the tone for the party last week when he said he “cannot and will not” support Jackson, citing GOP concerns raised in the hearing about her sentencing record and her backing from liberal advocacy groups.

    Republicans on the Judiciary panel continued their push Monday to paint Jackson as soft on crime, defending their repeated questions about her sentencing on sex crimes.

    “Questions are not attacks,” said Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, one of several GOP senators on the panel who hammered the point in the hearings two weeks ago.

    Jackson pushed back on the GOP narrative, declaring that “nothing could be further from the truth.” Democrats said she was in line with other judges in her decisions. And on Monday they criticized their GOP counterparts' questioning.

    “You could try and create a straw man here, but it does not hold,” said New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker.

    The questioning was filled with “absurdities of disrespect,” said Booker, who also is Black, and he said he will “rejoice” when she is confirmed.

    Derrick Johnson, president and chief executive officer of the NAACP, expressed disappointment with the tie, even as he noted that Jackson had cleared an important hurdle. He said “history will be watching" during the full Senate vote later this week.

    “It’s a stain on the committee that this vote was not unanimous but instead was a tied vote along party lines," Johnson said.

    Collins and Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina were the only three to vote for Jackson when the Senate confirmed her as an appeals court judge last year. Graham said Thursday he won’t support her this time around; Murkowski said she was still deciding.

    continues.....


    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    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
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 43,522
    Hey look at that, we have three reasonable Republicans! Wooo!
    chinese-happy.jpg
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 38,310
    Goddamn Gooffing Google!!!  Has the vote happened yet?  Has she been confirmed?
    "I believe in the mystery, and I don't want to take it any further than that. Maybe what I mean by that is love."
    -John Densmore











  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 20,214
    honestly, what LEGIT reasons do R's have to not confirm her? 

    Probably the same reason 48 Senators voted against confirming Amy Coney Barrett. She was nominated by the opposing party's president. 
    No this is different than that. Barrett was a staunch conservative replacing a staunch liberal and her confirmation was rushed through in a matter of weeks before Trump lost the election.

    This is a liberal replacing another liberal 3 years outside of the next presidential election. These are the types of confirmations that typically garner more bipartisan support. 
    also the fact that barrett had never tried a case...
    There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 26,692
    Hey look at that, we have three reasonable Republicans! Wooo!

    last year.....
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    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
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 20,214
    well senator blunt from my backasswords state is a no. can't say i was not 99% sure he was a no, but here we are.
    There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 26,692
    brianlux said:
    Goddamn Gooffing Google!!!  Has the vote happened yet?  Has she been confirmed?

    this was a committee vote. she should be confirmed by weeks end.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    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
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 38,310
    mickeyrat said:
    brianlux said:
    Goddamn Gooffing Google!!!  Has the vote happened yet?  Has she been confirmed?

    this was a committee vote. she should be confirmed by weeks end.
    Thanks!
    I sure hope so.
    "I believe in the mystery, and I don't want to take it any further than that. Maybe what I mean by that is love."
    -John Densmore











  • tbergstbergs Posts: 8,764
    mickeyrat said:
    Hey look at that, we have three reasonable Republicans! Wooo!

    last year.....
    And this years; Collins, Murkowski and Romney.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 26,692
    tbergs said:
    mickeyrat said:
    Hey look at that, we have three reasonable Republicans! Wooo!

    last year.....
    And this years; Collins, Murkowski and Romney.

    confirmed beyond collins?
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    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
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 38,310
    mickeyrat said:
    tbergs said:
    mickeyrat said:
    Hey look at that, we have three reasonable Republicans! Wooo!

    last year.....
    And this years; Collins, Murkowski and Romney.

    confirmed beyond collins?

    According to this, it seems like it:
    Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney said Monday they will join Sen. Susan Collins in favor of confirming Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the United States Supreme Court, all but assuring that she will become the first Black woman to serve on the high court.


    "I believe in the mystery, and I don't want to take it any further than that. Maybe what I mean by that is love."
    -John Densmore











  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 5,172
    brianlux said:
    mickeyrat said:
    tbergs said:
    mickeyrat said:
    Hey look at that, we have three reasonable Republicans! Wooo!

    last year.....
    And this years; Collins, Murkowski and Romney.

    confirmed beyond collins?

    According to this, it seems like it:
    Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney said Monday they will join Sen. Susan Collins in favor of confirming Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the United States Supreme Court, all but assuring that she will become the first Black woman to serve on the high court.



    Because the committee vote was tied, they needed a full senate procedural vote to advance, so yes, we know there are three reasonable republicans on this vote. And then they even passed ten billion for Covid. What a senate!
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 33,211
    MTG just tweeted that those three are "pro pedophile" for voting to confirm KBJ. she needs to be expelled. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 26,692
    MTG just tweeted that those three are "pro pedophile" for voting to confirm KBJ. she needs to be expelled. 

    sure hope shes willing to go after all the other judges who handed down similar sentences, starting with the  republican nominated judges. as well as the gop senators who voted for them.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    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
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 9,892
    MTG just tweeted that those three are "pro pedophile" for voting to confirm KBJ. she needs to be expelled. 
    Calling out politicians who support KBJ and anyone who supports President Joe Biden as a pedophile or being "pro pedophile" is the new dog whistle. 
    Just like these classics ...

    Hunters laptop
    Her emails
    Benghazi 
    Death Panels
    CRT
    Caravans
    MS-13
    Antifa
    BLM
    Etc...

Sign In or Register to comment.