# Breyer resigning, Biden to nominate USSC justice.  (Poll)



## Natural Citizen

I'm assuming that Biden will jump at the opportunity to appoint someone based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.

Additionally, he's more likely to pick a female judge, again, in the interest of social justice rather than qualification.

In other words, a black female by default, for no other reason than the optics of it.

Would the group tend to agree with me about that?


----------



## kyzr

Now all we need is for Manchin and Sinema to keep crazy Leftists off the USSC.

Wonder who Biden will nominate?  Probably a black woman.

I don't think Condi Rice or Candace Owens are in the running?

Biden couldn't publish any names because the Leftist he would nominate would get eviscerated...these names have been assumed to be in the running.  Got any others to consider?
Ketanji Brown Jackson  (DC circuit)
Leondra Kruger (CA SC)








						Jackson Confirmed to D.C. Circuit, First Biden Appellate Judge
					

Ketanji Brown Jackson was confirmed with bipartisan support on Monday to the powerful D.C. Circuit, becoming President Joe Biden’s first appellate appointment.




					news.bloomberglaw.com
				











						Leondra Kruger - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Note: Biden's pledge to only consider black females could jeopardize his pick.  
The USSC has rules about discrimination.


----------



## task0778

Wouldn't surprise me to see our 1st tranny justice.  But yeah, Biden will nominate a progressive liberal similar to Kagan and Sotomayor.

BTW, I haven't heard or seen a word about Breyer retiring.  Link?

Added:  never mind, I just saw a link in anther thread.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

I'll wager Biden will nominate a black female









						Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire, giving Biden a chance to nominate a replacement
					

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring, NBC News reported, giving President Joe Biden a crucial opportunity to replace the liberal justice.




					www.cnbc.com


----------



## jbrownson0831

Natural Citizen said:


> I'm assuming that Biden will jump at the opportunity to appoint someone based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.
> 
> Additionally, he's more likely to pick a female judge, again, in the interest of social justice rather than qualification.
> 
> In other words, a black female by default, for no other reason than the optics of it.
> 
> Would the group tend to agree with me about that?


Sure, whomever the worst possible candidate for support of the US laws, thats who Poopeypants will shove out there.


----------



## Votto

Probably pick a Left wing stooge who should live at least another 100 years or so





That is the point of him stepping down.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

He will nominste a sullen angry black woman, Barack Obama.

Breyer saw that he was really going to get snuffed along with his whole family and took the message seriously.


----------



## Natural Citizen

Kamala Harris was effectively a token appointment.

Clearly nobody liked her, and she dropped out of the nomination process early.

And look at her approval rating. Gosh. She's certainly unqualified, to say the least.

I think we're likely in for the same sort of scenario.

Biden has hinted previously that if given the opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Justice that he'd pick a black female by default.

Sadly, President Biden's focus on race is inherently racist.  To assess an Individual primarily on the basis that they are a member of a racial group rather than as an Individual only encourages racism.


----------



## bodecea

Natural Citizen said:


> I'm assuming that Biden will jump at the opportunity to appoint someone based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.
> 
> Additionally, he's more likely to pick a female judge, again, in the interest of social justice rather than qualification.
> 
> In other words, a black female by default, for no other reason than the optics of it.
> 
> Would the group tend to agree with me about that?


Of course, I'm quite sure you believe any black female is unqualified....automatically.


----------



## Votto

That is sooooo yesterday!

I say it is a black lesbian transphobic pan sexual.


----------



## toobfreak

Natural Citizen said:


> I'm assuming that Biden will jump at the opportunity to appoint someone based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.
> 
> Additionally, he's more likely to pick a female judge, again, in the interest of social justice rather than qualification.
> 
> In other words, a black female by default, for no other reason than the optics of it.
> 
> Would the group tend to agree with me about that?



Black, female, transsexual.


----------



## bodecea

jbrownson0831 said:


> Sure, whomever the worst possible candidate for support of the US laws, thats who Poopeypants will shove out there.


Cultists automatically believing that a black female is "the worst possible candidate".   No racism and misogyny here, folks.


----------



## bodecea

toobfreak said:


> Black, female, transsexual.


Couldn't possibly be qualified, right?


----------



## toobfreak

jbrownson0831 said:


> Sure, whomever the worst possible candidate for support of the US laws, thats who Poopeypants will shove out there.



Just think how slighted Merrick Garland must feel!  Out of the running now!  Or is he?


----------



## mudwhistle

Regardless.....he'll nominate the last person you'd want on the bench. 
Probably Hillary in black-face.


----------



## Votto

Natural Citizen said:


> I'm assuming that Biden will jump at the opportunity to appoint someone based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.
> 
> Additionally, he's more likely to pick a female judge, again, in the interest of social justice rather than qualification.
> 
> In other words, a black female by default, for no other reason than the optics of it.
> 
> Would the group tend to agree with me about that?


You would guess wrong

Nominating them has NOTHING to do with the color of their skin.  For example, they would NEVER put Candace Owen in there who is a black female.

No, the democrats will probably put an Uncle Tom who is a black female who is dedicated to keeping the slaves on the plantation for the democrat party.


----------



## kyzr

Votto said:


> That is sooooo yesterday!
> 
> I say it is a black lesbian transphobic pan sexual.


Yep, probably in the running.  ooops, too late.








						Black Trans Woman Dominique Lucious, 26, is the 14th Victim of Transphobic Homicide
					

On Thursday, April 8, 2021, a 26-year-old Black trans woman named Dominique Lucious was murdered in Springfield, Missouri. From KY3 television (deadnaming at original article); [She] was fatally sh…




					www.pghlesbian.com


----------



## Votto

mudwhistle said:


> Regardless.....he'll nominate the last person you'd want on the bench.
> Probably Hillary in black-face.


Agreed

Whatever Diaper Joe decides, it will be the most catastrophic decision anyone could possibly make.

He is like clock work.


----------



## Natural Citizen

bodecea said:


> Of course, I'm quite sure you believe any black female is unqualified....automatically.



Well, no. Not at all. In fact, my posting history is rather consistent. So, respectfully speaking, that smut simply won't stick if you try to throw it my way.

I'm just going by previous dialogue on the topic echoed by the President himself.


----------



## JimH52

Breyer to retire from Supreme Court
					

Justice Stephen Breyer is planning to retire from the Supreme Court, according to multiple reports, ending a nearly three-decade career on the bench and clearing the way for Democrats to seat …




					thehill.com
				




This is called "strategic retirement."  Biden will get at least one Justice nomination.


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

Supreme Court Justice Breyer to retire: reports
					

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring at the end of the current term, reports said Wednesday. The retirement by the 83-year-old justice gives...




					www.marketwatch.com
				




guess so


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

The most effeminate girly man ever to serve


----------



## rightwinger

No matter who it is
Mitch will try to block it


----------



## bendog

Well, Kennedy set the precedent.  And McConnell was successful in replacing Ginsburg with an anti-abortion proponent.


----------



## theHawk

Dems need a younger, more radical commie in there.


----------



## bendog

rightwinger said:


> No matter who it is
> Mitch will try to block it


Not gonna happen.  No fillibuster for this, and the dems only need 51, and they won't need Harris.


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

theHawk said:


> Dems need a younger, more radical commie in there.


Biden said only an angry black bitch if elected


----------



## armadei

More evidence that they think they're getting smoked in the midterms....


----------



## Polishprince

Whoever it is,  I wonder if the Republicans are prepared with witnesses to pull out at the last minute to assassinate their character with unproven and unprovable accusations?


----------



## theHawk

Hang on Sloopy said:


> Biden said only an angry black bitch if elected


Clearly the credentials are skin color, and genitalia and pronouns.


----------



## Not a Monkeys Uncle

SassyIrishLass said:


> I'll wager Biden will nominate a black female
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire, giving Biden a chance to nominate a replacement
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring, NBC News reported, giving President Joe Biden a crucial opportunity to replace the liberal justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com



A fag or a tranny


----------



## bodecea

SassyIrishLass said:


> I'll wager Biden will nominate a black female
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire, giving Biden a chance to nominate a replacement
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring, NBC News reported, giving President Joe Biden a crucial opportunity to replace the liberal justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com


And I bet you believe with all your "heart" that no black female could be qualified.


----------



## armadei

rightwinger said:


> No matter who it is
> Mitch will try to block it



Good. And I hope right wingers storm a Senate office building in protest of the nominee. And harass Senators wherever they see them. And scream, rant, rave at the SCOTUS doors. And find a bunch of fugly old women to pay off for 40 year old sexual assault allegations.


----------



## theHawk

Will he nominate Kamala to get her out of the White House?  Jill hates her.  They all hate each other.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

bodecea said:


> And I bet you believe with all your "heart" that no black female could be qualified.



Did I say that? No I didn't, now go troll elsewhere, fatass


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

theHawk said:


> Clearly the credentials are skin color, and genitalia and pronouns.


Will the Veg have enough time. This has to be a slam dunk candidate in a split

Hopefully he names Stacey Abrams


----------



## The Original Tree

SassyIrishLass said:


> I'll wager Biden will nominate a black female
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire, giving Biden a chance to nominate a replacement
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring, NBC News reported, giving President Joe Biden a crucial opportunity to replace the liberal justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com


*She, It, Shim will be a Transsexual Linebacker from Liberal U, and be a Whacktovist Judge who cares nothing about The Constitution or Facts for that matter.  I think they want to get this one in before the 2022 ass whipping they got coming.

Justice Rocky




*


----------



## Natural Citizen

task0778 said:


> BTW, I haven't heard or seen a word about Breyer retiring.  Link?
> 
> Added:  never mind, I just saw a link in anther thread.



That thread will go to sht quick. I'll give it twenty minutes and any semblance of relevant dialogue will be shot.

And hopefully they won't merge this thread with that one.

This one is meant purely as deeper, philosophical discussion with regard to the terms of controversy in selecting Justices historically versus selecting them based solely on superficial physical characteristics and in the interest of promoting collectivist thinking.

As you know, or should know, the role of the federal government is to protect Individual liberty. Not to placate group claims. Rights don't come as groups. Rights come as individuals. And therein lies the relevance in separating this discussion from what will surely become of the other topical content regarding Breyer's retirement and the primary role of Justices on the Supreme Court.


----------



## Faun

SassyIrishLass said:


> I'll wager Biden will nominate a black female
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire, giving Biden a chance to nominate a replacement
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring, NBC News reported, giving President Joe Biden a crucial opportunity to replace the liberal justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com


I hope he nominates Hillary Clinton.


----------



## eagle7-31

SassyIrishLass said:


> I'll wager Biden will nominate a black female
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire, giving Biden a chance to nominate a replacement
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring, NBC News reported, giving President Joe Biden a crucial opportunity to replace the liberal justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com


I thought this might happen. If the GOP takes the senate in Nov 2022 the dems would want to fill any vacancy before that. If Biden nominates a liberal who is not an antifia whack job or something like that he will get the nomination thru without too much sweat. But if he goes looney left there will be a fight.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Faun said:


> I hope he nominates Hillary Clinton.



Why not Mooch Obama?


----------



## Polishprince

Its an election year, according to the Biden Rule, shouldn't any appointment be held off until the next year?    That's what the libs said back in 2020, or are they backing away from this now?


----------



## eagle7-31

rightwinger said:


> No matter who it is
> Mitch will try to block it


Just like Schumer would do if there was a GOP President and dem senate.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

bendog said:


> Not gonna happen.  No fillibuster for this, and the dems only need 51, and they won't need Harris.


So, you think Manchin and Sinema will rubber-stamp Biden's pick?  Where does the 51st vote come in?


----------



## The Original Tree

*If Biden wants to be re-elected, and The Dems don't want to be shellacked in 2022 he should nominate Condoleza Rice or Tulsi Gabbard. *


----------



## bodecea

It's so telling.....all the racists, the misogynsts, the homophobes jump in on this thread.


----------



## bendog

eagle7-31 said:


> I thought this might happen. If the GOP takes the senate in Nov 2022 the dems would want to fill any vacancy before that. If Biden nominates a liberal who is not an antifia whack job or something like that he will get the nomination thru without too much sweat. But if he goes looney left there will be a fight.


Well Biden doesn't need any gop votes for this.  But I don't see guys like Casey or Manchin going much left of Sotomayor


----------



## bodecea

The Original Tree said:


> *If Biden wants to be re-elected, and The Dems don't want to be shellacked in 2022 he should nominate Condoleza Rice. *


Now now....your racist, misogynist buds have just eliminated her, Comrade.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Polishprince said:


> Its an election year, according to the Biden Rule, shouldn't any appointment be held off until the next year?    That's what the libs said back in 2020, or are they backing away from this now?


That was for presidential elections.  That doesn't happen until 2024.


----------



## The Original Tree

bodecea said:


> *Now now....your racist, misogynist buds have just eliminated her, Comrade.*


*Tulsi Gabbard since you apparently hate smart capable black women.*


----------



## SassyIrishLass

bendog said:


> Well Biden doesn't need any gop votes for this.  But I don't see guys like Casey or Manchin going much left of Sotomayor



There aren't many farther left than Sotomayor


----------



## armadei

bodecea said:


> It's so telling.....all the racists, the misogynsts, the homophobes jump in on this thread.



Your words are powerless.


----------



## eagle7-31

bendog said:


> Well Biden doesn't need any gop votes for this.  But I don't see guys like Casey or Manchin going much left of Sotomayor


If the nominee is a run of mill liberal you are most likely correct. However Biden is on the low end of the political poll right now and  cannot afford too much of a knock down drag out fight with a far left loon of a nominee.


----------



## Flash

The Democrat dipshits must be scared to death of losing the Senate in the midterms.

I bet they will nominate somebody just as stupid, idiotic and doesn't know a damn thing about the law or the Constitution as the two dimwit yokels nominated by The Worthless Negro.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

SassyIrishLass said:


> I'll wager Biden will nominate a blackwas  female
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire, giving Biden a chance to nominate a replacement
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring, NBC News reported, giving President Joe Biden a crucial opportunity to replace the liberal justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com


That was his promise.


----------



## The Original Tree

bendog said:


> Well Biden doesn't need any gop votes for this.  But I don't see guys like Casey or Manchin going much left of Sotomayor


*You can't get any dumber or more dishonest than SotoMyWhore.  If they put in any one like her, you can kiss your retirement and this economy goodbye.  Lawlessness and Social Justice will prevail and America will become a cesspool of crime and mayhem.*


----------



## The Original Tree

Tipsycatlover said:


> That was his promise.


*But what if She Ain't Black unless Joe Says So?*


----------



## g5000

SassyIrishLass said:


> I'll wager Biden will nominate a black female


Gee, that was a really tough prediction to make.









						Biden pledged to put a black woman on the Supreme Court. Here's what he might have to do.
					

There are few black women serving on the federal judiciary, and none younger than age 67 in appeals courts, the usual stepping stone to the high court.




					www.nbcnews.com


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Tipsycatlover said:


> He will nominste a sullen angry black woman


Well, we already have a sullen, angry black man on the court. This will even things out


----------



## Polishprince

If BIden is looking for capable black  women, how about Diamond and Silk?     He can reach across the aisle like he always said was a good idea.


----------



## Gabe Lackmann

Can you imagine the Communist radical the Alzheimer Administration is going to put up for nomination?


----------



## Harry Dresden

no matter who it is....this should not be a life long job....


----------



## DigitalDrifter

This would be the perfect way for old Joe to get rid of the liability known as Kumala Harris!


----------



## Otis Mayfield

Bidens pick for new Supreme Court Justice, "Sonny Moon."


----------



## JGalt

mudwhistle said:


> Regardless.....he'll nominate the last person you'd want on the bench.
> Probably Hillary in black-face.



She ain't no ways tired...


----------



## ColonelAngus

Now we will see leftist hypocrisy on full display.

This shit cracks me up.

Whomever Biden nominates surely was a serial rapist in college.


----------



## bravoactual

JimH52 said:


> Breyer to retire from Supreme Court
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is planning to retire from the Supreme Court, according to multiple reports, ending a nearly three-decade career on the bench and clearing the way for Democrats to seat …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thehill.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is called "strategic retirement."  Biden will get at least one Justice nomination.



According to the New York Times, Mr. Biden will appoint an African-American Woman....watch the Subversive Fascist Fifth Columnist Cons howl.


----------



## McRib

I was thinking yesterday how stupid it was for Ginsburg to stay there as long as she did. Glad that Breyer is not making the same mistake, even though he still has three years left. 83 is old enough.


----------



## JGalt

Let's see:

1. Gotta be black - Check

2. Gotta be female - Check

3. Gotta be someone who serves no other purpose - Check

4. Gotta be someone Poopy Pants Biden sorta likes - Check

5. Gotta be someone who eschew the leftist party line - Check

6. Gotta be someone who was a scum-sucking lawyer - Check

Who would that be? Why none other than Kamala "Kneepads" Harris. So Hillary would be thrown into the Vice Presidency and bide her time until the old pedo kicks the bucket.

I just called it. Can you imagine that stupid bitch Kamala Harris sitting on the bench of the SC? 


And I own Page 3.


----------



## Claudette

SassyIrishLass 
Yup. Just read it on my phone. Glad I looked to see if anyone else caught it. Wonder how hard Bidung will have to be to get his nominee onto the SC. You can bet the Reps won't be backing anyone he chooses. We sure don't need another make up the law as you go liberal idiot on the SC.


----------



## The Original Tree

g5000 said:


> Gee, that was a really tough prediction to make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biden pledged to put a black woman on the Supreme Court. Here's what he might have to do.
> 
> 
> There are few black women serving on the federal judiciary, and none younger than age 67 in appeals courts, the usual stepping stone to the high court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nbcnews.com


*But did you know she is actually going to be a White Liberal who identifies as Black, but also is Transgender, and will dress as a man?*


----------



## The Original Tree

JGalt said:


> Let's see:
> 
> 1. Gotta be black - Check
> 
> 2. Gotta be female - Check
> 
> 3. Gotta be someone who serves no other purpose - Check
> 
> 4. Gotta be someone Poopy Pants Biden sorta likes - Check
> 
> 5. Gotta be someone who eschew the leftist party line - Check
> 
> 6. Gotta be someone who was a scum-sucking lawyer - Check
> 
> Who would that be? Why none other that Kamala "Kneepads" Harris. So Hillary would be thrown into the Vice Presidency and bide her time until the old pedo kicks the bucket.
> 
> I just called it. Can you imagine that stupid bitch Kamala Harris sitting on the bench of the SC?


*Good call.  Do you think it is too late for Hillary to go transgender and then identify as a man?*


----------



## ConserveGuy

The lefties on twitter are thinking they won the super bowl or something. It's just switching one judge for the other.. but of course they want to corruptly pack the court adding more judges. The Sleepy joe needs a distraction while we go through his depression right now.


----------



## ConserveGuy

Faun said:


> I hope he nominates Hillary Clinton.


Yeah nominate her to really piss off the African Americans


----------



## ConserveGuy

rightwinger said:


> No matter who it is
> Mitch will try to block it


Just like every dumb ass democrat did for qualified judges President Trump appointed.


----------



## Faun

ConserveGuy said:


> Yeah nominate her to really piss off the African Americans


LOL

Yeah, that'll get them to vote Republican.


----------



## ConserveGuy

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> Yeah, that'll get them to vote Republican.


The unhinged lefties on twitter are already expecting this judge to be black. Also threatening they will riot for not getting their way. I'm a love it so much if this judge appointed isn't what they were expecting.


----------



## bodecea

JGalt said:


> Let's see:
> 
> 1. Gotta be black - Check
> 
> 2. Gotta be female - Check
> 
> 3. Gotta be someone who serves no other purpose - Check
> 
> 4. Gotta be someone Poopy Pants Biden sorta likes - Check
> 
> 5. Gotta be someone who eschew the leftist party line - Check
> 
> 6. Gotta be someone who was a scum-sucking lawyer - Check
> 
> Who would that be? Why none other than Kamala "Kneepads" Harris. So Hillary would be thrown into the Vice Presidency and bide her time until the old pedo kicks the bucket.
> 
> I just called it. Can you imagine that stupid bitch Kamala Harris sitting on the bench of the SC?
> 
> 
> And I own Page 3.


Amazing how you believe that any of those are automatically not qualified.


----------



## JGalt

The Original Tree said:


> *Good call.  Do you think it is too late for Hillary to go transgender and then identify as a man?*



Why not? If Michelle Obama can go trans and identify as a woman, anything is possible.


----------



## Lesh

eagle7-31 said:


> I thought this might happen. If the GOP takes the senate in Nov 2022 the dems would want to fill any vacancy before that. If Biden nominates a liberal who is not an antifia whack job or something like that he will get the nomination thru without too much sweat. But if he goes looney left there will be a fight.


From who?


----------



## 22lcidw

bendog said:


> Well, Kennedy set the precedent.  And McConnell was successful in replacing Ginsburg with an anti-abortion proponent.


No matter how long it takes, no nation can have people living on the edge leading it for a long amount of time. We started from the top. And the fall from there takes longer. Our nuclear family unit has taken a beat down with the impoverished growing in numbers and violence on the rise. The downside to social justice.


----------



## JGalt

22lcidw said:


> No matter how long it takes, no nation can have people living on the edge leading it for a long amount of time. We started from the top. And the fall from there takes longer. Our nuclear family unit has taken a beat down with the impoverished growing in numbers and violence on the rise. The downside to social justice.



Everything woke turns to shit.


----------



## Lesh

I think a Garland nomination would be ironically funny but Biden will undoubtedly choose someone younger.

Whoever it is will be well qualified and Republicans will lose their shit


----------



## rightwinger

I hope he nominates Hunter Biden

He would make a great Supreme Court Justice


----------



## OKTexas

bodecea said:


> And I bet you believe with all your "heart" that no black female could be qualified.




If there is, they won't get the nod. With commies it's always ideology over qualifications.

.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Why hasn't anyone mentioned Obama?

He can easily identify as a woman since has as always been gay.


----------



## JWBooth

SassyIrishLass said:


> I'll wager Biden will nominate a black female
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire, giving Biden a chance to nominate a replacement
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring, NBC News reported, giving President Joe Biden a crucial opportunity to replace the liberal justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com


Given the collection of sideshow freaks that have made up Bidet’s appointments so far, this ought to be interesting.


----------



## Lesh

rightwinger said:


> I hope he nominates Hunter Biden
> 
> He would make a great Supreme Court Justice


Actually he wouldn't but it would be funny as shit


----------



## Lesh

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Why hasn't anyone mentioned Obama?
> 
> He can easily identify as a woman since has as always been gay.


Actually that's an amazing idea...and he's no gayer than you


----------



## JGalt

JWBooth said:


> Given the collection of sideshow freaks that have made up Bidet’s appointments so far, this ought to be interesting.



The first openly Marxist Supreme Court Justice?


----------



## JimH52

Since Moscow Mitch stole two USSC picks, Biden is entitled to one and maybe more nominations.  You know, if Clarence disagrees with his loony wife, no telling what she might do....


----------



## hadit

rightwinger said:


> No matter who it is
> Mitch will try to block it


Do you think he'll drum up some fictitious charges from decades ago that no one can corroborate, then have a bunch of insurrectionists swarm Capitol Hill to block the vote? Because that would be so original.


----------



## JWBooth

Kameltoe, it gets that problem out of the admistration


----------



## The Original Tree

*Whomever BiDumb nominates they are sure to have a history of being a 15 year old Drug King Pin in charge of a Massive Prostitution Ring.*


----------



## Fang

SassyIrishLass said:


> I'll wager Biden will nominate a black female
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire, giving Biden a chance to nominate a replacement
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring, NBC News reported, giving President Joe Biden a crucial opportunity to replace the liberal justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com



I was thinking a trans person. But then again they consider Justice Thomas an uncle tom so perhaps it will be another black. Whites, Asians and Hispanics immediately disqualified due to their skin color. It's like were living in 1950.


----------



## bendog

Polishprince said:


> Its an election year, according to the Biden Rule, shouldn't any appointment be held off until the next year?    That's what the libs said back in 2020, or are they backing away from this now?


History is not your strength.  LOL


----------



## Meathead

rightwinger said:


> No matter who it is
> Mitch will try to block it


Unfortunately there is too much time for Mitch to block it unless Brandon comes up with some nappy-headed dyke skank that the few sane Senate Dems find objectionable.


----------



## Otis Mayfield

Whoever it is, they should be in their 20s.

And the Republicans can't block it. Just like the Democrats couldn't block trump's appointments.


----------



## The Original Tree

*I think the fruit loop that went after Kavanaugh stole her story from

"RISKY BUSINESS"

We should do the same, only from another movie or show.  How about "Breaking Bad?"*


----------



## AZrailwhale

Otis Mayfield said:


> Whoever it is, they should be in their 20s.
> 
> And the Republicans can't block it. Just like the Democrats couldn't block trump's appointments.


That's true as long as every single Democratic Senator votes for the nominee and Harris breaks the tie.  One defection and it's all over.  If Biden is smart (fat chance) he will nominate a real moderate that both parties can accept rather than a liberal firebrand.


----------



## The Original Tree

Otis Mayfield said:


> Whoever it is, they should be in their 20s.
> 
> And the Republicans can't block it. Just like the Democrats couldn't block trump's appointments.


*No.  They should be a 15 year old Drug King Pin who is running a Major Prostitution Ring that was hidden from the entire school, administration and law enforcement for years.*


----------



## BluesLegend

JOE MANCHIN!!


----------



## The Original Tree

AZrailwhale said:


> That's true as long as every single Democratic Senator votes for the nominee and Harris breaks the tie.  One defection and it's all over.  If Biden is smart (fat chance) he will nominate a real moderate that both parties can accept rather than a liberal firebrand.


*So Adam Schiff?*


----------



## TemplarKormac

SassyIrishLass said:


> I'll wager Biden will nominate a black female
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire, giving Biden a chance to nominate a replacement
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring, NBC News reported, giving President Joe Biden a crucial opportunity to replace the liberal justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com


Not really on my radar given that whoever is confirmed won't change the composition of the court whatsoever. It's a foregone conclusion that whoever Biden nominates will get confirmed by tiebreaker in the Senate.

To be honest, it's not really news either.


----------



## Otis Mayfield

Meet Supreme Court Justice, "Sonny Moon."


----------



## TemplarKormac

BluesLegend said:


> JOE MANCHIN!!


(snickers)


----------



## Papageorgio

SassyIrishLass said:


> I'll wager Biden will nominate a black female
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire, giving Biden a chance to nominate a replacement
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring, NBC News reported, giving President Joe Biden a crucial opportunity to replace the liberal justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com


It seems he was much smarter than RBG, she really sold out her liberal friends in the end.


----------



## 22lcidw

Otis Mayfield said:


> Whoever it is, they should be in their 20s.
> 
> And the Republicans can't block it. Just like the Democrats couldn't block trump's appointments.


My issue with Republican nominees it is like rolling the dice on their judgements. With Progs you know what you are going to get. Anyway, as our nation declines, people will lose more and more faith with their government.


----------



## The Original Tree

*Joe Biden just did a press release showing who the nominee will be.*


----------



## jwoodie

SassyIrishLass said:


> I'll wager Biden will nominate a black female
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire, giving Biden a chance to nominate a replacement
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring, NBC News reported, giving President Joe Biden a crucial opportunity to replace the liberal justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com


Great way to get rid of Harris?


----------



## Not a Monkeys Uncle

JGalt said:


> The first openly Marxist Supreme Court Justice?


He'll nominate a half black half Asian transgender albino Muslim


----------



## NoNukes

SassyIrishLass said:


> I'll wager Biden will nominate a black female
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire, giving Biden a chance to nominate a replacement
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring, NBC News reported, giving President Joe Biden a crucial opportunity to replace the liberal justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com


Heaven forbid. In a a White Country? You are such a racist and do not even try to cover it.


----------



## NoNukes

Polishprince said:


> Its an election year, according to the Biden Rule, shouldn't any appointment be held off until the next year?    That's what the libs said back in 2020, or are they backing away from this now?


Because fair is fair. Are you really this stupid?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

SassyIrishLass said:


> I'll wager Biden will nominate a black female
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire, giving Biden a chance to nominate a replacement
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring, NBC News reported, giving President Joe Biden a crucial opportunity to replace the liberal justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com


So, we're just replacing one fucking commie shit with another.  No big deal.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

NoNukes said:


> Heaven forbid. In a a White Country? You are such a racist and do not even try to cover it.


NOTHING about his statement is "racist" you whiney little ass-hurt twat.

In fact, the very point is that Joe WILL nominate a black female for NO OTHER REASON than her blackness and pussy.

God, I fucking hate people like you.  I want TEXIT to be rid of your filthy ass.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

NoNukes said:


> Because fair is fair. Are you really this stupid?



Nothing in my comment is racist but keep digging


----------



## marvin martian

SassyIrishLass said:


> I'll wager Biden will nominate a black female
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire, giving Biden a chance to nominate a replacement
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring, NBC News reported, giving President Joe Biden a crucial opportunity to replace the liberal justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com



Or, even better for the DemoKKKrats:


----------



## martybegan

bodecea said:


> And I bet you believe with all your "heart" that no black female could be qualified.



There is a difference between selected for being something, and being something while qualified for selection.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> NOTHING about his statement is "racist" you whiney little ass-hurt twat.
> 
> In fact, the very point is that Joe WILL nominate a black female for NO OTHER REASON than her blackness and pussy.
> 
> God, I fucking hate people like you.  I want TEXIT to be rid of your filthy ass.



They're programmed to scream racist


----------



## martybegan

bodecea said:


> It's so telling.....all the racists, the misogynsts, the homophobes jump in on this thread.



How is limiting your short list of picks to one specific race/sex NOT racist or sexist?


----------



## struth

SassyIrishLass said:


> I'll wager Biden will nominate a black female
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire, giving Biden a chance to nominate a replacement
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring, NBC News reported, giving President Joe Biden a crucial opportunity to replace the liberal justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com


good time to retire.  obviously he realize xiden or a dem is gonna win in 2024 and they will lose the senate next year.


----------



## martybegan

Lesh said:


> I think a Garland nomination would be ironically funny but Biden will undoubtedly choose someone younger.
> 
> Whoever it is will be well qualified and Republicans will lose their shit



The last 3 were well qualified, and you didn't care, you attacked them mercilessly


----------



## jwoodie

Breyer's decision is strictly political.  As usual for Democrat-appointed judges.


----------



## Lesh

martybegan said:


> The last 3 were well qualified, and you didn't care, you attacked them mercilessly


So you're planning on losing your shit no matter how well qualified.

Like I said


----------



## martybegan

Lesh said:


> So you're planning on losing your shit no matter how well qualified.
> 
> Like I said



No, I plan on milking the fact that he picked what he wanted before he picks who he wants first, then I am going to PRAY the Republicans scour her personal and public life for anything they can use in the hearings. 

Good for the gander, good for the goose.

What I am not going to bitch about is the Dems using the process available to them, in a partisan way, as is their right as controlling the Senate and the White House.


----------



## NoNukes

SassyIrishLass said:


> Nothing in my comment is racist but keep digging


I was not even replying to you here, which begs the question,  are you really this stupid.


----------



## Esdraelon

rightwinger said:


> No matter who it is
> Mitch will try to block it


I doubt that.  Why even go through the motions?  Simple majority put 3 somewhat conservative justices there by Trump.  It's Biden's choice and he'll get his justice appointed.  Now, if you mean this nominee will have to answer questions, then yeah, that shouldn't be an obstacle though.  Do you think she shouldn't even have to answer questions?


----------



## NoNukes

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> NOTHING about his statement is "racist" you whiney little ass-hurt twat.
> 
> In fact, the very point is that Joe WILL nominate a black female for NO OTHER REASON than her blackness and pussy.
> 
> God, I fucking hate people like you.  I want TEXIT to be rid of your filthy ass.


God, are you an ignorant racist. There are plenty of qualified Black females.


----------



## TNHarley

whoever it is, you can bet your ass he will nominate a political activist.


----------



## percysunshine

Moonglow !


----------



## SassyIrishLass

NoNukes said:


> I was not even replying to you here, which begs the question,  are you really this stupid.



You replied directly to my comment...are YOU really this stupid?


----------



## MinTrut

Polishprince said:


> Its an election year, according to the Biden Rule, shouldn't any appointment be held off until the next year?    That's what the libs said back in 2020, or are they backing away from this now?


^ Thread win.


----------



## Lesh

Polishprince said:


> Its an election year, according to the Biden Rule, shouldn't any appointment be held off until the next year?    That's what the libs said back in 2020, or are they backing away from this now?


Yea well McConnell trashed that bullshit argument a long time ago


----------



## Lesh

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> So, you think Manchin and Sinema will rubber-stamp Biden's pick?  Where does the 51st vote come in?


If they vote with Republicans THERE...they might as well just change party


----------



## BS Filter

It doesn't matter the gender or skin color.  We all know the nominee has to be a marxist.  The gender and skin color is just to satisfy political correctness.


----------



## Lesh

BS Filter said:


> It doesn't matter the gender or skin color.  We all know the nominee has to be a marxist.  The gender and skin color is just to satisfy political correctness.


Yea...marxist...right.

You people aren't batshit crazy...nahhh


----------



## The Original Tree

Lesh said:


> Yea...marxist...right.
> 
> You people aren't batshit crazy...nahhh


*You are the one who eats The Biden Bat Soup, Bat Boy.*


----------



## Lesh

The Original Tree said:


> *You are the one who eats The Biden Bat Soup, Bat Boy.*


Keep posting lunatic.

Really let folks know what it means to be a Republican these days


----------



## The Original Tree

Lesh said:


> Yea...marxist...right.
> 
> You people aren't batshit crazy...nahhh


*If the Left could resurrect a Black-Hispanic-Cross Dressing-Transgender Hitler to fill Oscar Myer's seat, they would sacrifice their goat lovers to Satan to get that done.

You know they would.



*


----------



## TNHarley

NoNukes said:


> I was not even replying to you here, which begs the question,  are you really this stupid.


You hit reply under her comment, and then replied.
Do you know how this place works?


----------



## The Original Tree

Lesh said:


> Keep posting lunatic.
> 
> Really let folks know what it means to be a Republican these days


*I'm Happy, and you Are Gay, so Go Away and Make me Happier!

WEEEEEEEE!

Justice Oscar Meyer's Replacement!



*


----------



## Lesh

"Tree" is really preoccupied with "the gay".

Maybe there's something he wants to tell us?

A "closet condition"?


----------



## The Original Tree

Lesh said:


> "Tree" is really preoccupied with "the gay".
> 
> Maybe there's something he wants to tell us?
> 
> A "closet condition"?


*Just making a prediction that the only logical replacement to Justice Oscar Meyer is Gay Hitler.  Gay Hitler checks all the boxes for DemNazis, especially if we can get him to claim he is transgender.  He certainly is morally, ethically and physically dead so that's the first check off the list.  If the cock holster fits, wear it, but don't bitch about it snowflake.



*


----------



## marvin martian

SassyIrishLass said:


> I'll wager Biden will nominate a black female
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire, giving Biden a chance to nominate a replacement
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring, NBC News reported, giving President Joe Biden a crucial opportunity to replace the liberal justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com



Clearly, Breyer has NO confidence in Biden (or any Democrat) getting elected in 2024.


----------



## marvin martian

Lesh said:


> "Tree" is really preoccupied with "the gay".
> 
> Maybe there's something he wants to tell us?
> 
> A "closet condition"?



Why do you fascists always assume calling someone gay is an insult. Do you really hate gays that much?


----------



## XponentialChaos

Smart.

It‘a going to be a while before we see a President’s nominee pushed through a Senate that’s controlled by the opposite party.


----------



## Couchpotato

He will most certainly nominate a black woman, which if she's the "most" (in quotes because most is a subjective term) qualified, great.   If we are putting her on the court because of the amount of melanin in her skin and the fact that she has a vagina, that's stupid.


----------



## BS Filter

Lesh said:


> Yea...marxist...right.
> 
> You people aren't batshit crazy...nahhh


You people are stupid pawns and useful idiots.


----------



## NoNukes

SassyIrishLass said:


> You replied directly to my comment...are YOU really this stupid?


Look at the posts Stupid American Ass.


----------



## gipper

SassyIrishLass said:


> I'll wager Biden will nominate a black female
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire, giving Biden a chance to nominate a replacement
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring, NBC News reported, giving President Joe Biden a crucial opportunity to replace the liberal justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com


Joe should name Kamala to the SC. Gets her out of the way as VP. Then name Ears as VP. Ds everywhere would celebrate.


----------



## Polishprince

SassyIrishLass said:


> I'll wager Biden will nominate a black female
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire, giving Biden a chance to nominate a replacement
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring, NBC News reported, giving President Joe Biden a crucial opportunity to replace the liberal justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com




The libs have been whining for 5 years that Merrick Garland had his Supreme seat robbed from him.

That line of thought will be proven to be a lie if Brandon doesn't offer the seat to Garland.

After all, if someone has something "stolen" from them, should it be returned?


----------



## NoNukes

TNHarley said:


> You hit reply under her comment, and then replied.
> Do you know how this place works?


Just go back on the posts and see what she was replying to. It is not that complicated


----------



## Burgermeister

I am in with the Harris bet for nominee. Solves half of the ridiculous incompetence problem of the current Democrat presidential ticket and she will fit right in with the other female dunces on the court. Biden won't be able to run again, so the Dems can pick the ticket they want.


----------



## TNHarley

NoNukes said:


> Just go back on the posts and see what she was replying to. It is not that complicated


You quoted the OP, idiot


----------



## NoNukes

TNHarley said:


> You quoted the OP, idiot


Yes, she is an idiot. And so are you. Just go back and see what she was replying to. It is not complicated


----------



## Polishprince

Lesh said:


> Yea well McConnell trashed that bullshit argument a long time ago



The libs whined to high heaven about McConnell.

You'd think they would want to do things the right way- isn't it a matter of principle?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

NoNukes said:


> Yes, she is an idiot. And so are you. Just go back and see what she was replying to. It is not complicated



Lol it's my thread, you replied to the opening post, moron


----------



## blackhawk

It’s one liberal leaning Justice being replaced by another.


----------



## TNHarley

NoNukes said:


> Yes, she is an idiot. And so are you. Just go back and see what she was replying to. It is not complicated


Good grief


----------



## mudwhistle

kyzr said:


> Now all we need is for Manchin and Sinema to keep crazy Leftists off the USSC.
> 
> Wonder who Biden will nominate?  Probably a black woman.
> 
> I don't think Condi Rice or Candace Owens are in the running?
> 
> Biden couldn't publish any names because the Leftist he would nominate would get eviscerated...these names have been assumed to be in the running.  Got any others to consider?
> Ketanji Brown Jackson  (DC circuit)
> Leondra Kruger (CA SC)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackson Confirmed to D.C. Circuit, First Biden Appellate Judge
> 
> 
> Ketanji Brown Jackson was confirmed with bipartisan support on Monday to the powerful D.C. Circuit, becoming President Joe Biden’s first appellate appointment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.bloomberglaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leondra Kruger - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note: Biden's pledge to only consider black females could jeopardize his pick.
> The USSC has rules about discrimination.


I think we should treat whomever he nominates no worse than they treated Justice Kavanaugh.
Look back 35 years in her history and falsely accuse her of sexual-assault.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

gipper said:


> Joe should name Kamala to the SC. Gets her out of the way as VP. Then name Ears as VP. Ds everywhere would celebrate.


"Ears" ? If you mean Obama, you are even more stupid than I thought. The VP has to be eligible to be president.


----------



## Lastamender

JimH52 said:


> Breyer to retire from Supreme Court
> 
> 
> Justice Stephen Breyer is planning to retire from the Supreme Court, according to multiple reports, ending a nearly three-decade career on the bench and clearing the way for Democrats to seat …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thehill.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is called "strategic retirement."  Biden will get at least one Justice nomination.


The strategy to destroy America.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> The libs have been whining for 5 years that Merrick Garland had his Supreme seat robbed from him.
> 
> That line of thought will be proven to be a lie if Brandon doesn't offer the seat to Garland.
> 
> After all, if someone has something "stolen" from them, should it be returned?


Do you know that Garland wants it?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Lastamender said:


> The strategy to destroy America.


You're confused. That is Trump's stragy


----------



## Leo123

Polishprince said:


> The libs have been whining for 5 years that Merrick Garland had his Supreme seat robbed from him.
> 
> That line of thought will be proven to be a lie if Brandon doesn't offer the seat to Garland.
> 
> After all, if someone has something "stolen" from them, should it be returned?


Merrick is the wrong color and is not female so he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell.  Joey is a racist who plays with skin color.


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Do you know that Garland wants it?



Obama apparently thought he did.   Or was he just fingered as a fake nominee that agreed to play in a charade?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> Obama apparently thought he did.   Or was he just fingered as a fake nominee that agreed to play in a charade?


He wanted it then. Maybe he wants it now. Maybee not . You don't know. Maybe he wants it but he understands the need to diversify the court. There is much that you do not know but that never stops you from spouting off as though you do know.


----------



## Mac-7

kyzr said:


> Yep, probably in the running.  ooops, too late.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black Trans Woman Dominique Lucious, 26, is the 14th Victim of Transphobic Homicide
> 
> 
> On Thursday, April 8, 2021, a 26-year-old Black trans woman named Dominique Lucious was murdered in Springfield, Missouri. From KY3 television (deadnaming at original article); [She] was fatally sh…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.pghlesbian.com


So, that person, who may be a man posing as a woman or a woman pretending to be a man, I’m never clear which, was a BLACK and TRANS?

which makes this two for the price of one

hum


----------



## WEATHER53

If the nominee goes not wish for experimental skin pricking then what?


----------



## eagle7-31

rightwinger said:


> I hope he nominates Hunter Biden
> 
> He would make a great Supreme Court Justice


I hope he would dumb enough to  do that.


----------



## B. Kidd

Too bad for Joey that MSNBC's Joy Reid is not a lawyer.
She only has a BA degree.
Joey needs to check the woodpiles for a nomination.


----------



## gipper

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> "Ears" ? If you mean Obama, you are even more stupid than I thought. The VP has to be eligible to be president.


Lol. Just an idea which I thought you’d like.


----------



## gipper

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> "Ears" ? If you mean Obama, you are even more stupid than I thought. The VP has to be eligible to be president.


How about this?  Ears and Joe divorce their wives and gay marry each other. Then Ears is First Lady and run the country. Bill Maher likes this.


----------



## NoNukes

SassyIrishLass said:


> Lol it's my thread, you replied to the opening post, moron


Just go back and see what you were replying to. It was something I said to Polish Prince, not what I said to you.


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> He wanted it then. Maybe he wants it now. Maybee not . You don't know. Maybe he wants it but he understands the need to diversify the court. There is much that you do not know but that never stops you from spouting off as though you do know.




The court is already "diversified".   One black guy, one wise Latina, 2 Jews.    Only a single WASP in the whole organization.    

If you want "diversification", more than one justice who is not an Ivy Leaguer would be nice.

Plenty of tremendous schools in the Southlands of America, time to make the court look like America.

Some justices with degrees from Liberty, Oral Roberts, Bob Jones, or other regular schools would be nice.


----------



## skews13

kyzr said:


> Now all we need is for Manchin and Sinema to keep crazy Leftists off the USSC.
> 
> Wonder who Biden will nominate?  Probably a black woman.
> 
> I don't think Condi Rice or Candace Owens are in the running?
> 
> Biden couldn't publish any names because the Leftist he would nominate would get eviscerated...these names have been assumed to be in the running.  Got any others to consider?
> Ketanji Brown Jackson  (DC circuit)
> Leondra Kruger (CA SC)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackson Confirmed to D.C. Circuit, First Biden Appellate Judge
> 
> 
> Ketanji Brown Jackson was confirmed with bipartisan support on Monday to the powerful D.C. Circuit, becoming President Joe Biden’s first appellate appointment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.bloomberglaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leondra Kruger - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note: Biden's pledge to only consider black females could jeopardize his pick.
> The USSC has rules about discrimination.






kyzr said:


> Now all we need is for Manchin and Sinema to keep crazy Leftists off the USSC.
> 
> Wonder who Biden will nominate?  Probably a black woman.
> 
> I don't think Condi Rice or Candace Owens are in the running?
> 
> Biden couldn't publish any names because the Leftist he would nominate would get eviscerated...these names have been assumed to be in the running.  Got any others to consider?
> Ketanji Brown Jackson  (DC circuit)
> Leondra Kruger (CA SC)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackson Confirmed to D.C. Circuit, First Biden Appellate Judge
> 
> 
> Ketanji Brown Jackson was confirmed with bipartisan support on Monday to the powerful D.C. Circuit, becoming President Joe Biden’s first appellate appointment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.bloomberglaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leondra Kruger - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note: Biden's pledge to only consider black females could jeopardize his pick.
> The USSC has rules about discrimination.





kyzr said:


> Now all we need is for Manchin and Sinema to keep crazy Leftists off the USSC.
> 
> Wonder who Biden will nominate?  Probably a black woman.
> 
> I don't think Condi Rice or Candace Owens are in the running?
> 
> Biden couldn't publish any names because the Leftist he would nominate would get eviscerated...these names have been assumed to be in the running.  Got any others to consider?
> Ketanji Brown Jackson  (DC circuit)
> Leondra Kruger (CA SC)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackson Confirmed to D.C. Circuit, First Biden Appellate Judge
> 
> 
> Ketanji Brown Jackson was confirmed with bipartisan support on Monday to the powerful D.C. Circuit, becoming President Joe Biden’s first appellate appointment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.bloomberglaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leondra Kruger - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note: Biden's pledge to only consider black females could jeopardize his pick.
> The USSC has rules about discrimination.


----------



## B. Kidd

So besides inflated speaking tour prices, what other plums was Breyer offered to resign in plenty of time before the mid-terms?
He had to get plenty of offers that he couldn't refuse!!


----------



## SassyIrishLass

NoNukes said:


> Just go back and see what you were replying to. It was something I said to Polish Prince, not what I said to you.



Cripes, you quoted the opening post, the OP, me....give it a rest, ya fcked up


----------



## Votto

rightwinger said:


> No matter who it is
> Mitch will try to block it


He better.

All we need is Manchin.................................


----------



## rightwinger

B. Kidd said:


> So besides inflated speaking tour prices, what other plums was Breyer offered to resign in plenty of time before the mid-terms?
> He had to get plenty of offers that he couldn't refuse!!


I think he saw what the court has turned in to and does not want to make it worse. RBG showed what happens when you stick around too long


----------



## Leo123

Breyer was probably hounded out of the SC by the far left.   They didn't even wait for Breyer to announce it himself.   It won't help Biden and his dismal policies that have ruined our economy, our lives and our children's lives.


----------



## alang1216

kyzr said:


> Now all we need is for Manchin and Sinema to keep crazy Leftists off the USSC.
> 
> Wonder who Biden will nominate?  Probably a black woman.
> 
> I don't think Condi Rice or Candace Owens are in the running?
> 
> Biden couldn't publish any names because the Leftist he would nominate would get eviscerated...these names have been assumed to be in the running.  Got any others to consider?
> Ketanji Brown Jackson  (DC circuit)
> Leondra Kruger (CA SC)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackson Confirmed to D.C. Circuit, First Biden Appellate Judge
> 
> 
> Ketanji Brown Jackson was confirmed with bipartisan support on Monday to the powerful D.C. Circuit, becoming President Joe Biden’s first appellate appointment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.bloomberglaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leondra Kruger - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note: Biden's pledge to only consider black females could jeopardize his pick.
> The USSC has rules about discrimination.


Don't count on Manchin or Sinema since the filibuster is not in play, thanks to Reid.  I think Biden should nominate a 25-year-old, Black, female, law student who marched with the BLM protestors.  She could be on the SCOTUS into the next century.  Now that would be a legacy for the Dems and serve the GOP right.


----------



## beautress

armadei said:


> Good. And I hope right wingers storm a Senate office building in protest of the nominee. And harass Senators wherever they see them. And scream, rant, rave at the SCOTUS doors. And find a bunch of fugly old women to pay off for 40 year old sexual assault allegations.


I don't think that is going to happen, dear, unless a known criminal is nominated to administer justice on the Supreme Court level.


----------



## Polishprince

alang1216 said:


> Don't count on Manchin or Sinema since the filibuster is not in play, thanks to Reid.  I think Biden should nominate a 25-year-old, Black, female, law student who marched with the BLM protestors.  She could be on the SCOTUS into the next century.  Now that would be a legacy for the Dems and serve the GOP right.



The D's would still need all of the Democrats to stay in line to get this incompetent boob confirmed.   We haven't even had a chance to review the nominee's High School Yearbook yet, or talk to the party guests at the keggers they attended in school.

A little big early to talk about confirmation , isn't it?

Manchin, or other key senators should be protested when dining with their families to try and push them to think for themselves and vote "nay'.


----------



## Leo123

beautress said:


> I don't think that is going to happen, dear, unless a known criminal is nominated to administer justice on the Supreme Court level.


I wouldn't count out the Democrats nominating a criminal.


----------



## alang1216

Polishprince said:


> try and push them to think for themselves and vote "nay'.


You mean like the way you think for yourself?  You don't even know the nominee and you're against them.


----------



## skews13

rightwinger said:


> I think he saw what the court has turned in to and does not want to make it worse. RBG showed what happens when you stick around tooubc





rightwinger said:


> I think he saw what the court has turned in to and does not want to make it worse. RBG showed what happens when you stick around too long


You become a legend in your own mind.


----------



## Polishprince

alang1216 said:


> You mean like the way you think for yourself?  You don't even know the nominee and you're against them.




You don't know who the nominee is either, haven't even seen their high school yearbooks yet- much less had the chance to subpoena those who signed it and listen to what they have to say.

And you are already in favor of their confirmation.


----------



## alang1216

Polishprince said:


> You don't know who the nominee is either, haven't even seen their high school yearbooks yet- much less had the chance to subpoena those who signed it and listen to what they have to say.
> 
> And you are already in favor of their confirmation.


Please...  I was not serious that Biden should nominate a 25-year-old, Black, female, law student who marched with the BLM protestors and would not be in  favor of her confirmation.  Anyone else gets nominated, I'll keep an open mind.  Will you?


----------



## B. Kidd

alang1216 said:


> Please...  I was not serious that Biden should nominate a 25-year-old, Black, female, law student who marched with the BLM protestors and would not be in  favor of her confirmation.  Anyone else gets nominated, I'll keep an open mind.  Will you?



No way!
I half expect a Soros select nominee and he'll have to pull out his big checkbook to grease both sides of the aisle.


----------



## Seymour Flops

If Biden's handlers are smart, they will nominate Kamala Harris.


----------



## B. Kidd

Seymour Flops said:


> If Biden's handlers are smart, they will nominate Kamala Harris.



I could see Soros getting behind this cocksucker!


----------



## Seymour Flops

B. Kidd said:


> I could see Soros getting behind this cocksucker!


Yep.

Not sure he would be interested in being in front of her, but I'm sure Kamala  would be game.


----------



## 52ndStreet

Natural Citizen said:


> Kamala Harris was effectively a token appointment.
> 
> Clearly nobody liked her, and she dropped out of the nomination process early.
> 
> And look at her approval rating. Gosh. She's certainly unqualified, to say the least.
> 
> I think we're likely in for the same sort of scenario.
> 
> Biden has hinted previously that if given the opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Justice that he'd pick a black female by default.
> 
> Sadly, President Biden's focus on race is inherently racist.  To assess an Individual primarily on the basis that they are a member of a racial group rather than as an Individual only encourages racism.


I would have to agree. To say from the get go, that he is going to pick a black female, with out checking Judicial qualifications of other candidates from other races or sexes is not logical or scientific, in terms of putting the most qualified person on the Supreme Court. What kind of President would say that?.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> The court is already "diversified".   One black guy, one wise Latina, 2 Jews.    Only a single WASP in the whole organization.
> 
> If you want "diversification", more than one justice who is not an Ivy Leaguer would be nice.
> 
> Plenty of tremendous schools in the Southlands of America, time to make the court look like America.
> 
> Some justices with degrees from Liberty, Oral Roberts, Bob Jones, or other regular schools would be nice.


Bullshit! There is no African  American women on the court and never has been. He is, in fact trying to make the court look like America

Justices from Liberty, Oral Roberts, Bob Jones,? Are you fucking shiitting me?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

gipper said:


> How about this?  Ears and Joe divorce their wives and gay marry each other. Then Ears is First Lady and run the country. Bill Maher likes this.


Please stop making a damned fool of yourself


----------



## beautress

Leo123 said:


> I wouldn't count out the Democrats nominating a criminal.


You're right, because Democrat Kingpins tend to place in office someone lesser than themselves, and someone they can control with Hillary's FBI File library.   
Besides, Biden will place in there whoever Hillary, Maxine, and Nancy agree to place there. And they've already agreed on prejudice against white males not getting the assignment even if they have out-of-the-park understanding of the law. There is nothing worse than novelty that replaces equianamy, even if I like the idea of a black woman earning the position by dedication to the law and to the constitution of the people of the United States of America.


----------



## Leo123

beautress said:


> You're right, because Democrat Kingpins tend to place in office someone lesser than themselves, and someone they can control with Hillary's FBI File library.
> Besides, Biden will place in there whoever Hillary, Maxine, and Nancy agree to place there. And they've already agreed on prejudice against white males not getting the assignment even if they have out-of-the-park understanding of the law. There is nothing worse than novelty that replaces equianamy, even if I like the idea of a black woman earning the position by dedication to the law and to the constitution of the people of the United States of America.


Appointment by race is a bad thing as we see with Sonia Sotomayor's false covid claims.   She's pretty ignorant about current events that she may be ruling on but heck.......She's a Latina!!!


----------



## gipper

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Please stop making a damned fool of yourself


Lol


----------



## gipper

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Please stop making a damned fool of yourself


What did I tell you?


Could be credible’: Speculation ramps up that Harris could be Biden’s Supreme Court pick​‘Could be credible’: Speculation ramps up that Harris could be Biden’s Supreme Court pick


----------



## Esdraelon

Natural Citizen said:


> I'm assuming that Biden will jump at the opportunity to appoint someone based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.
> 
> Additionally, he's more likely to pick a female judge, again, in the interest of social justice rather than qualification.
> 
> In other words, a black female by default, for no other reason than the optics of it.
> 
> Would the group tend to agree with me about that?


He could save the country a lot of future turmoil by appointing Abrams from Georgia.  Interesting factoid - a SCOTUS Justice doesn't even have to be a lawyer.


----------



## Esdraelon

Natural Citizen said:


> Sadly, President Biden's focus on race is inherently racist.


While I agree with this, surely you know by now that Democrats, due to their total control of legacy media, CANNOT be racist.    That old fool can simply pick whoever he is told to pick and I seriously doubt that Manchin, Sinema, or any other Dem will stand in his way.  I don't really care, frankly.  If those two had not stood their ground on the filibuster, IMO, America would be on a slippery slope down to civil conflict.


----------



## Winco

SassyIrishLass said:


> I'll wager Biden will nominate a black female


And if Biden nominate Jackson, would you consider it an adequate choice?
Or, is she automatically determined bad, IYO.









						Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson eyed as potential replacement to Justice Stephen Breyer
					

With the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, one name keeps rising to the top of the list of potential replacements.




					abcnews.go.com


----------



## Michael1985

Natural Citizen said:


> I'm assuming that Biden will jump at the opportunity to appoint someone based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.
> 
> Additionally, he's more likely to pick a female judge, again, in the interest of social justice rather than qualification.
> 
> In other words, a black female by default, for no other reason than the optics of it.
> 
> Would the group tend to agree with me about that?



It is possible, but I don't think he should come out and say it. Trump was equally wrong for pompously boasting that the replacement for Bader Ginsburg would be a woman. Nothing is more offputting than needlessly announcing ahead of time that a wide swathe of the judiciary need not apply.


----------



## Esdraelon

bodecea said:


> Cultists automatically believing that a black female is "the worst possible candidate".   No racism and misogyny here, folks.


Call it whatever you like, Cletus.  Looking around at the examples the Left have chosen - like Stacy (collard green eatin' bitch) Abrams, makes it safe to assume that actual qualifications or professionalism aren't high on the list.

  SCOTUS has become a bastion of Leftist political hacks.  I can't even recall the last time a Democrat-appointed Justice has sided with the conservative viewpoint.  Can you?  OTOH, Roberts has done so almost as regularly as he has voted with the conservative wing.  Kavanaugh is nearly as bad.  That court was given lifetime appointments so that it could remain insulated from politics but the Dems have corrupted it as much as everything else they touch.


----------



## Delldude

Hang on Sloopy said:


> Biden said only an angry black bitch if elected


Mike Obama?


----------



## Delldude

SassyIrishLass said:


> Why not Mooch Obama?


Michael


----------



## Delldude

rightwinger said:


> I hope he nominates Hunter Biden
> 
> He would make a great Supreme Court Justice


Dope will be leaglized


----------



## Esdraelon

Winco said:


> And if Biden nominate Jackson, would you consider it an adequate choice?
> Or, is she automatically determined bad, IYO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson eyed as potential replacement to Justice Stephen Breyer
> 
> 
> With the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, one name keeps rising to the top of the list of potential replacements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abcnews.go.com


As president and in light of the Democrats having control of the government, he gets the nominee he chooses.  That's just how it works.  Her qualifications are actually secondary to that.  As I said before, he could nominate Stacy Abrams and he should get approval based on recent precedent.   One thing I'm certain of is that whoever gets the seat will never vote against Democrat party priorities.


----------



## Esdraelon

Delldude said:


> Michael


OI!  Some respect!  That's "Big Mike", to you!


----------



## Moonglow

Like it matters who gets nominated since the status quo will continue.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Winco said:


> And if Biden nominate Jackson, would you consider it an adequate choice?
> Or, is she automatically determined bad, IYO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson eyed as potential replacement to Justice Stephen Breyer
> 
> 
> With the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, one name keeps rising to the top of the list of potential replacements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abcnews.go.com



Evidently she's big on religious freedom. I don't know much about her really


----------



## monkrules

Natural Citizen said:


> Kamala Harris was effectively a token appointment.
> 
> Clearly nobody liked her, and she dropped out of the nomination process early.
> 
> And look at her approval rating. Gosh. She's certainly unqualified, to say the least.
> 
> I think we're likely in for the same sort of scenario.
> 
> Biden has hinted previously that if given the opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Justice that he'd pick a black female by default.
> 
> Sadly, President Biden's focus on race is inherently racist.  To assess an Individual primarily on the basis that they are a member of a racial group rather than as an Individual only encourages racism.


Biden has turned out to be a complete joke, as prez.

He and the dems are in bed with BLM scumbags. He'll surely pander to blacks by nominating a black woman. If Worthless Joe gets her onto the court, blacks will make up 22% of the seats (though they are 13% of our population).

Pandering Joe's explanation will be, "We don't need no steenking qualifications !"

I'm an Indie. If this fuckhead nominates another black to the USSC, I'll vote straight Republican in '22 and '24. We have to get these brainless dems out of Congress and the White house.

Appointments should be based on qualifications NOT race.

FUCK Biden.

The asshole already brought along a VP (Kamelface) based on nothing more than her race. And she's a walking, talking, disaster.


----------



## badger2

Tipsycatlover said:


> He will nominste a sullen angry black woman, Barack Obama.
> 
> Breyer saw that he was really going to get snuffed along with his whole family and took the message seriously.


Barack Obama is an Arab, not a blak. You were duped.


----------



## badger2

SassyIrishLass said:


> Evidently she's big on religious freedom. I don't know much about her really


No, freedom from religion not of religion, which is as arrogant a presupposition as JoeXi trafficking genuflectors across the Mexican border, the little whore.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

badger2 said:


> No, freedom from religion not of religion, which is as arrogant a presupposition as JoeXi trafficking genuflectors across the Mexican border, the little whore.



Idk, sounds like she supports religious liberty...

Under questioning, she also characterized religious liberty as a foundational tenet of the U.S. government and said the Supreme Court has made clear that the government cannot infringe on religious rights.


----------



## Delldude

I'd watch my donkey if I was Breyer.


----------



## basquebromance




----------



## toobfreak

Natural Citizen said:


> Will Joe Biden's first pick for USSC justice be approved by the Senate?​



I expect that the dickwads in the GOP will race to bend over backwards to approve anyone Joe picks, the worse she is the faster, out to prove to the world that they are still the good compliant lapdogs of yesteryear and not evil, unfit Trump rabble.


----------



## toobfreak

Delldude said:


> I'd watch my donkey if I was Breyer.



Man, she really puts the toe of her shoe all the way in there!


----------



## Stann

Natural Citizen said:


> I'm assuming that Biden will jump at the opportunity to appoint someone based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.
> 
> Additionally, he's more likely to pick a female judge, again, in the interest of social justice rather than qualification.
> 
> In other words, a black female by default, for no other reason than the optics of it.
> 
> Would the group tend to agree with me about that?


And I'm sure he will nominate someone of color with the correct character and standing to deserve the honor. If you think it's about optics you might be right the Supreme Court should be reflect the America it represents. All nominees are extremely qualified.


----------



## gipper

Stann said:


> And I'm sure he will nominate someone of color with the correct character and standing to deserve the honor. If you think it's about optics you might be right the Supreme Court should be reflect the America it represents. All nominees are extremely qualified.


I doubt Kamala is qualified for the SC, but moving her out if the VP spot and putting someone qualified to be potus as VP, could be what’s about to occur.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Natural Citizen said:


> I'm assuming that Biden will jump at the opportunity to appoint someone based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.
> 
> Additionally, he's more likely to pick a female judge, again, in the interest of social justice rather than qualification.
> 
> In other words, a black female by default, for no other reason than the optics of it.
> 
> Would the group tend to agree with me about that?


A few dem Senators are up for reelection and will likely vote against Michelle or Kamala as Barack's pick


----------



## Stann

bendog said:


> Not gonna happen.  No fillibuster for this, and the dems only need 51, and they won't need Harris.


Hopefully there are some sane republicans left who will vote for any qualified prospect despite party affiliation.


----------



## Stann

gipper said:


> I doubt Kamala is qualified for the SC, but moving her out if the VP spot and putting someone qualified to be potus as VP, could be what’s about to occur.


Not going to happen.


----------



## Death Angel

Natural Citizen said:


> I'm assuming that Biden will jump at the opportunity to appoint someone based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.
> 
> Additionally, he's more likely to pick a female judge, again, in the interest of social justice rather than qualification.
> 
> In other words, a black female by default, for no other reason than the optics of it.
> 
> Would the group tend to agree with me about that?


He already said he plans to nomimate a  black woman.

I wouldn't expect any less of any pandering Democrat


----------



## Stann

Death Angel said:


> He already said he plans to nomimate a  black woman.
> 
> I wouldn't expect any less of any pandering Democrat


Correct, Biden tries to be true to his word, it's nice to have a present that doesn't just think about himself.


----------



## gipper

Stann said:


> Not going to happen.


Why?


----------



## Stann

gipper said:


> Why?


It's down to four pics and she's not one of them. Besides she's already in a good position to serve the country well.


----------



## gipper

Stann said:


> It's down to four pics and she's not one of them. Besides she's already in a good position to serve the country well.


But she isn’t serving the country well. She’s totally incompetent. Good reasons to put her in the court. 
Could be credible’: Speculation ramps up that Harris could be Biden’s Supreme Court pick​‘Could be credible’: Speculation ramps up that Harris could be Biden’s Supreme Court pick


----------



## Stann

gipper said:


> But she isn’t serving the country well. She’s totally incompetent. Good reasons to put her in the court.
> Could be credible’: Speculation ramps up that Harris could be Biden’s Supreme Court pick​‘Could be credible’: Speculation ramps up that Harris could be Biden’s Supreme Court pick


That is your opinion.


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> That is your opinion.


As I've already said, she's doing great. The Community for Black Creativity and News - Blavity>5-major-accomplishments-from-Karmala-Harris-in-her-first-year-as-Vice-President


----------



## gipper

Stann said:


> That is your opinion.


Backed up by a well written article in a major news outlet. You got nothing but your uninformed biased opinion.


----------



## DGS49

To be completely honest, there are thousands of lawyers and judges and justices in the U.S. who would be completely competent justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.  Few of the cases require any sophisticated knowledge of the law, and never forget, they get their choice of the top legal scholars in the country coming out of the top schools, to be their clerks.

Even an idiot like Sotomayor ("a wise Latina") has only rarely made an ass of herself, and never in her published opinions, which are written by others.

So if President Biden wants to preemptively disqualify 94% of the eligible lawyers and limit his choices to Black women, he can certainly produce one who will not make an ass of HIM (for nominating her).

But this whole thing SHOULD be an embarrassment to the Chief Justice, who frequently asserts in public that the Court is NOT a political body, as it unfolds as a completely and utterly political Kabuki Dance in the Senate before confirmation.

And note one thing as this plays out:  It is only DEMOCRATS who slander candidates from the Other Side and vote _en masse_ to refuse their confirmation.  Many Republicans will vote to confirm Biden's nominee, assuming she is arguably qualified, even though they will abhor said nominee's politics and judicial philosophy.  Republicans in the Senate have a real problem with *integrity*, a problem that does not afflict the other side.


----------



## Otis Mayfield

Natural Citizen said:


> I'm assuming that Biden will jump at the opportunity to appoint someone based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.
> 
> Additionally, he's more likely to pick a female judge, again, in the interest of social justice rather than qualification.
> 
> In other words, a black female by default, for no other reason than the optics of it.
> 
> Would the group tend to agree with me about that?




Yes, the rules have changed, and Joe's pick will become Supreme Court Justice nonmatter who they are or how much the Republicans object.

It's how trump was able to appoint 3 justices the Democrats didn't like.


----------



## Stann

gipper said:


> Backed up by a well written article in a major news outlet. You got nothing but your uninformed biased opinion.


Politico just shot down your article, they called you and anybody else who believes that garbage science fiction fans. It's not going to happen. Politics, Policy, Political News- POLITICO>congress


----------



## Stann

gipper said:


> Backed up by a well written article in a major news outlet. You got nothing but your uninformed biased opinion.


You say you're an independent /anarchist you got the last part right, you are not contributing to society in any positive manner.


----------



## gipper

Stann said:


> You say you're an independent /anarchist you got the last part right, you are not contributing to society in any positive manner.


I win. You made it about me. Lol


----------



## Stann

gipper said:


> I win. You made it about me. Lol


You don't get it if you think this is about winning you are a joke good luck with that.


----------



## gipper

Stann said:


> You don't get it if you think this is about winning you are a joke good luck with that.


I WIN!!!  YIPPEE!!!


----------



## Lastamender

bodecea said:


> Of course, I'm quite sure you believe any black female is unqualified....automatically.


He never said that asshole. Race baiting is about all you got.


----------



## basquebromance

then and now!


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## two_iron

SCROTUS will be instructed to nominate the most divisive, large-assed black female they can find. 

Boxes need to be checked - BLM, check, life is fucking cheap, check, I hate YT, check, white people are born with white supremacy, check, I was born with a dick, optional but preferred, 6 sigmas to the left of most Americans, check, communist, check....

and of course - passed the BAR exam, who gives a shit, (that keeps Kumala in the running).

The interview: Scream "SKUUUUUS me mutha fucker???!!!" like someone just took the last bag of BBQ chips out of your shopping cart.

Let the shit show begin. Amuse me.


----------



## Delldude

Where in the constitution and civil rights law, does it say, for any job, you can select one sex, race, etc over any other?


----------



## MarathonMike

bodecea said:


> Of course, I'm quite sure you believe any black female is unqualified....automatically.


Yes I'm sure you do believe that. It keeps your world very simple.


----------



## MarathonMike

It's a given that Biden's pick will be a Black female. Fine. If she is Woke BLM activist, not fine.


----------



## Delldude

MarathonMike said:


> It's a given that Biden's pick will be a Black female. Fine. If she is Woke BLM activist, not fine.


He's stepping into an impeachable Cotus violation.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Asians, whites, jews and pacific Islanders need not apply.  We have certainly come full circle  ,haven't we, folks?

When I was a kid in the 60s, discriminating against people because of their race and ethnicity was (rightly) considered racist. Nowadays, it's what utter morons need to do to avoid being called one.


----------



## woodwork201

I'm pages behind so I won't go back to see if these points  have been made, especially by someone on the right, like me.

1.  Elections have consequences.  Biden gets to choose and the Democratic Senate will approve his choice - or rather the confirmation of the person Biden is told to nominate.

2.  I hope with all my heart that he appoints Kamala Harris.  She won't be any further to the left, any less radical, than if he'd appointed an actual black woman.  Getting her in the Court takes her out of the succession chain for the presidency should Biden get taken out or simply fall over dead.

3.  Nominating Harris would continue the Democrat's pretend love for black people while they elected Barack Obama, a white man, and Kamala Harris, an Indian woman, and pretended they were black.


----------



## woodwork201

Dogmaphobe said:


> Asians, whites, jews and pacific Islanders need not apply.  We have certainly come full circle  ,haven't we, folks?
> 
> When I was a kid in the 60s, discriminating against people because of their race and ethnicity was (rightly) considered racist. Nowadays, it's what utter morons need to do to avoid being called one.


Thank you!  Everyone keeps talking about whites need not apply but they forget that Latinos, Latinas, LatinXs, Native Americans, and many others of color have been excluded from consideration.  Biden is the most racist president in the history of the US.


----------



## theHawk

We have a winner!
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## IM2

Natural Citizen said:


> I'm assuming that Biden will jump at the opportunity to appoint someone based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.
> 
> Additionally, he's more likely to pick a female judge, again, in the interest of social justice rather than qualification.
> 
> In other words, a black female by default, for no other reason than the optics of it.
> 
> Would the group tend to agree with me about that?


Just like trump picked all white judges.


----------



## IM2

woodwork201 said:


> Thank you!  Everyone keeps talking about whites need not apply but they forget that Latinos, Latinas, LatinXs, Native Americans, and many others of color have been excluded from consideration.  Biden is the most racist president in the history of the US.


There is a latina on the supreme court. Biden is no racist.


----------



## IM2

theHawk said:


> We have a winner!
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> View attachment 593668


She has no college degree, much less a law degree.


----------



## IM2

Natural Citizen said:


> Well, no. Not at all. In fact, my posting history is rather consistent. So, respectfully speaking, that smut simply won't stick if you try to throw it my way.
> 
> I'm just going by previous dialogue on the topic echoed by the President himself.


If you're arguing as you apparently are bodecea is correct.


----------



## IM2

And here we go with the racism. After all, there is no such thing as a qualified black, even as all the women named have more qualifications than Coney-Barrett.


----------



## Rye Catcher

Natural Citizen said:


> I'm assuming that Biden will jump at the opportunity to appoint someone based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.
> 
> Additionally, he's more likely to pick a female judge, again, in the interest of social justice rather than qualification.
> 
> In other words, a black female by default, for no other reason than the optics of it.
> 
> Would the group tend to agree with me about that?


STATEMENT:  "I'm assuming that Biden will jump at the opportunity to appoint someone based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character."

RESPONSE:  You are assuming President Joe Biden isn't much different than trump.  Your hidden agenda is you will reject a woman and a women of color as if women and blacks are inferior to you.  trump's picks were based on who told him to nominate, and those who are aware of the Federalist Society understand what has been politicized for decades.









						The incredible influence of the Federalist Society, explained
					

Amanda Hollis-Brusky explains how a student group came to control GOP court nominations.




					www.vox.com


----------



## woodwork201

IM2 said:


> There is a latina on the supreme court. Biden is no racist.


There's also a black man on the Court.  But what does that have to do with Biden being a racist?


----------



## woodwork201

IM2 said:


> And here we go with the racism. After all, there is no such thing as a qualified black, even as all the women named have more qualifications than Coney-Barrett.


No, we're not the racists.  Most of us believe there are qualified people who are black and don't believe at all that black people can only get on the Court, or any other position of success, only for their skin color.


----------



## IM2

woodwork201 said:


> There's also a black man on the Court.  But what does that have to do with Biden being a racist?


Ask the person who said Biden is a racist. Clarence Thomas has brown skin but he has consistently taken anti black positions. That's why you like him.


----------



## IM2

woodwork201 said:


> No, we're not the racists.  Most of us believe there are qualified people who are black and don't believe at all that black people can only get on the Court, or any other position of success, only for their skin color.


You are a racist because you have ignored 245 years of whites getting on the Court, or any other position of success, only because of their skin color.


----------



## Esdraelon

Delldude said:


> I'd watch my donkey if I was Breyer.


Is that scene from "Other People's Money"?


----------



## Penelope

Natural Citizen said:


> I'm assuming that Biden will jump at the opportunity to appoint someone based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.
> 
> Additionally, he's more likely to pick a female judge, again, in the interest of social justice rather than qualification.
> 
> In other words, a black female by default, for no other reason than the optics of it.
> 
> Would the group tend to agree with me about that?











						Reagan's White House made sure the president stuck by his promise to name a woman to the Supreme Court — they knew the politics would help too
					

"It would be a good political move," one top advisor wrote to Reagan, urging him to deliver on his promise to nominate a woman to the highest court.




					www.businessinsider.com
				




Are you angry he's due to pick a black woman??


----------



## Blues Man

This Justice pick will do nothing to change the make up of the court so it really doesn't matter that much.

It's just a swap of one liberal for another


----------



## Penelope

IM2 said:


> Ask the person who said Biden is a racist. Clarence Thomas has brown skin but he has consistently taken anti black positions. That's why you like him.


His wife comes to mind.


----------



## IM2

Penelope said:


> His wife comes to mind.


Exactly.


----------



## BlackSand

Natural Citizen said:


> I'm assuming that Biden will jump at the opportunity to appoint someone based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.
> 
> Additionally, he's more likely to pick a female judge, again, in the interest of social justice rather than qualification.
> 
> In other words, a black female by default, for no other reason than the optics of it.
> 
> Would the group tend to agree with me about that?


.

As President ... President Biden has every opportunity to select the nominee.

I voted "yes" in the poll because there is no need for the GOP to waste political capital on simple garbage.
It's Justice Breyer being replaced, and who the President picks won't necessarily change the make-up of the court.

The only comment I would have about his open desire to specifically state he is only looking for an African American woman to fill the spot ...
Is something that would get him sued for a violation of the EEOA if he was running a business.

Speaks volumes towards what Progressives think about the Constitution, or the protections in it, to start with.

.​


----------



## Gracie

IM2 said:


> Ask the person who said Biden is a racist. *Clarence Thomas has brown skin but he has consistently taken anti black positions.* That's why you like him.


And that is why you hate him.


----------



## Foolardi

Well if this don't beat all.Guess whose on Biden's
  Black Female ONLY Scotus list.It's Stacey Abrams
  sister.
Leslie Abrams Gardner 
Who was appointed in 2014 by Obama to
    United States District Court for the Middle
    District of Georgia.


----------



## BlackSand

Foolardi said:


> Well if this don't beat all.Guess whose on Biden's
> Black Female ONLY Scotus list.It's Stacey Abrams
> sister.
> Leslie Abrams Gardner
> Who was appointed in 2014 by Obama to
> United States District Court for the Middle
> District of Georgia.


.

That's the candy for the Press and the Political Pundits to drool over.
This is from ABC News:

_"Early discussions about a successor are focusing on U.S. Circuit Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, U.S. District Judge J. Michelle Childs and California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger, according to four people familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss White House deliberations. Jackson and Kruger have long been seen as possible nominees."

._​


----------



## Foolardi

Foolardi said:


> Well if this don't beat all.Guess whose on Biden's
> Black Female ONLY Scotus list.It's Stacey Abrams
> sister.
> Leslie Abrams Gardner
> Who was appointed in 2014 by Obama to
> United States District Court for the Middle
> District of Georgia.


  Keep in mind during her 2014 Nomination was
   reported Out of Committee by a Voice vote.
   Then Harry Reid { Senate Majority Leader } filed for
  cloture on her nomination.
   Begging the question.What does this Woman stand for.
   Why was she given { awarded } preferential treatment 
    regarding her 2014 Nomination.


----------



## Foolardi

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> That's the candy for the Press and the Political Pundits to drool over.
> This is from ABC News:
> 
> _"Early discussions about a successor are focusing on U.S. Circuit Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, U.S. District Judge J. Michelle Childs and California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger, according to four people familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss White House deliberations. Jackson and Kruger have long been seen as possible nominees."
> 
> ._​


  I don't Tink sbama named her and Reid bent over
  backwards so she wouldn't get researched too closely.


----------



## braalian

If it’s a liberal judge retiring to be replaced by another liberal judge, it’s not really a gain or loss for either side. Doesn’t seem like a big deal to me.


----------



## BlackSand

Foolardi said:


> I don't Tink sbama named her and Reid bent over
> backwards so she wouldn't get researched too closely.


.

It doesn't really matter ... The only reason US District Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner's name was thrown into the wash as a possible pick ...
Is because she is Stacy Abrams' sister ... And Stacy Abrams is simply best known for not getting elected as Governor of Georgia.

Seriously people ... Think for yourselves,
and don't run around following the bouncing ball the Press, Progressives or Establishment GOP throw out for you to fetch.

.​


----------



## Natural Citizen

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> As President ... President Biden has every opportunity to select the nominee.
> 
> I voted "yes" in the poll because there is no need for the GOP to waste political capital on simple garbage.
> 
> 
> .​



I didn't create the poll.

Nor did I start the thread.

Nor is the thread title in any way my words.

For some stupid reason, completely irrelevant topical content in one thread often gets carelessly lumped together with other topical content in a different thread.

Unfortunately, we're at the mercy of the level of give a crap of our overlords and their interest or abilty to reason and differentiate between varying topical content and to place it into proper, separate perspective.


----------



## Rye Catcher

woodwork201 said:


> No, we're not the racists.  Most of us believe there are qualified people who are black and don't believe at all that black people can only get on the Court, or any other position of success, only for their skin color.


*Your opinion is totally biased and not with any significance, let alone facts, that the President Biden is a racist.  Your hidden agenda is clear, your comment, "Most of us believe there are qualified people who are black" is in the field of trump's racism in his statements:*

_Donald Trump kicked off his presidential bid more than a year ago with harsh words for Mexico. “They are not our friend, believe me,” he said, before disparaging Mexican immigrants: “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

In the months since, he has repeatedly promised to build a wall along the Mexican border and get Mexico to pay for it. He is now scheduled to meet with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto on Wednesday, hours before a speech that will aim to clarify his position on immigration, which appeared to soften in remarks he made last week._


----------



## BlackSand

Natural Citizen said:


> I didn't create the poll.
> 
> Nor did I start the thread.
> 
> Nor is the thread title in any way my words.
> 
> For some stupid reason, completyely irrelevant topical content in one thread often gets carelessly lumped together with other topical content in a different thread.
> 
> Unfortunately, we're at the mercy of the level of give a crap of our overlords and their interest or abilty to reason and differentiate between varying topical contentand to place into proper, separate perspective.


.

That's cool and I can say that I chose to answer in this thread
because it wasn't the same as a bunch of other threads at the moment.

And ... Because I thought it would be necessary to discuss how foolish it would be for the GOP to skip off down the "Rabbit Hole".
Nothing much will change in any case ... The Press and Pundits would have a heyday, but to one result.
If they can get the GOP to go "full-bore obstructionist" prior to the 2022 elections, it will only help the Progressives with their base.

The GOP wants their base to think they are fighting for them, but to what ends?
The GOP Establishment players have stayed in power as long as they have, by simply doing nothing.

.​


----------



## Natural Citizen

Penelope said:


> Are you angry he's due to pick a black woman??



I've no interest in debating this kind of low-level smut, winger.

The whole reason I had a thread in the philosophy sub-forum was to avoid it.


----------



## Rye Catcher

Blues Man said:


> This Justice pick will do nothing to change the make up of the court so it really doesn't matter that much.
> 
> It's just a swap of one liberal for another


Sadly this is true.  The far right, anti democratic elitists have an agenda that began decades ago, using the current wedge issues to promulgate their main goal chipping away when abortions were made legal, albeit with some restrictions.

At the same time they began to pack both the Courts and School Boards: The former aided by the Federalist Society to dominate conservatives and pack the Federal Courts; Local Republican leaders in cities and towns working to pack the School Boards to allow praying in the Public Schools.

What some may wonder, and what is the main goal of the Republican Party.  It was to work to be in the Majority in the Senate, the H. of Rep., The Supreme Court and the White House.

What would be if the elite minority had this legal ability?  Long term poverty, a greater income inequality and more protests in the streets.


----------



## Rye Catcher

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> That's cool and I can say that I chose to answer in this thread
> because it wasn't the same as a bunch of other threads at the moment.
> 
> And ... Because I thought it would be necessary to discuss how foolish it would be for the GOP to skip off down the "Rabbit Hole".
> Nothing much will change in any case ... The Press and Pundits would have a heyday, but to one result.
> If they can get the GOP to go "full-bore obstructionist" prior to the 2022 elections, it will only help the Progressives with their base.
> 
> The GOP wants their base to think they are fighting for them, but to what ends?
> The GOP Establishment players have stayed in power as long as they have, by simply doing nothing.
> 
> .​


STATEMENT:  "The GOP Establishment players have stayed in power as long as they have, by simply doing nothing."

RESPONES:  They do something, filling their wallets on the backs of the Middle Class and Working Poor.


----------



## BlackSand

Rye Catcher said:


> RESPONES:  They do something, filling their wallets on the backs of the Middle Class and Working Poor.


.

Like all the asshats on Capitol Hill for that matter ... Of course, you could do a lot to stop that mess.

Start by stopping the foolish idea that you should look any further away than your own State
and stop granting people the privilege and power to milk you dry by looking towards the Federal Government.

The Supreme Court is there should the laws a state passes be unconstitutional.

.​


----------



## Anathema

Yes they will be. They probably shouldn’t be, but I believe there are 2 or 3 Republicans who will defer to precedent and vote for the nominee.


----------



## Delldude

woodwork201 said:


> I'm pages behind so I won't go back to see if these points  have been made, especially by someone on the right, like me.
> 
> 1.  Elections have consequences.  Biden gets to choose and the Democratic Senate will approve his choice - or rather the confirmation of the person Biden is told to nominate.
> 
> 2.  I hope with all my heart that he appoints Kamala Harris.  She won't be any further to the left, any less radical, than if he'd appointed an actual black woman.  Getting her in the Court takes her out of the succession chain for the presidency should Biden get taken out or simply fall over dead.
> 
> 3.  Nominating Harris would continue the Democrat's pretend love for black people while they elected Barack Obama, a white man, and Kamala Harris, an Indian woman, and pretended they were black.


Where does the Civil Righta Act of 65 and the Constitution weigh in on his 'pick'?


----------



## theHawk

IM2 said:


> And here we go with the racism. After all, there is no such thing as a qualified black, even as all the women named have more qualifications than Coney-Barrett.


I’m old enough to remember a certain Senator being vehemently opposed to a black man being nominated to the Supreme Court....


----------



## Rye Catcher

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> Like all the asshats on Capitol Hill for that matter ... Of course, you could do a lot to stop that mess.
> 
> Start by stopping the foolish idea that you should look any further away than your own State
> and stop granting people the privilege and power to milk you dry by looking towards the Federal Government.
> 
> The Supreme Court is there should the laws a state passes be unconstitutional.
> 
> .​


STATEMENT:  "Like all the asshats on Capitol Hill for that matter ... Of course, you could do a lot to stop that mess."

RESPONSE:  Who is you?  Donate more dollars to a Senator or Member of the House of Rep.?  To answer is this:  I vote, and I write on Social Media, including here and elsewhere.


----------



## BlackSand

Rye Catcher said:


> RESPONSE:  Who is you?  Donate more dollars to a Senator or Member of the House of Rep.?  To answer is this:  I vote, and I write on Social Media, including here and elsewhere.


.

Donating money to your Representative in the House wouldn't even apply to my comment unless you are talking about your State Legislature.
Everything else you asked about, would only concern you, and whether or not you are successful with any of it.

I don't care what you do in your state ... Your failures don't keep me awake at night.
"You" is you and whatever you can accomplish ... I don't even have to agree with "You".

The Supreme Court can handle anything a state might come up with that is unconstitutional.

.​


----------



## basquebromance

Breyer's bro is also a judge. check it out


----------



## Rye Catcher

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> Donating money to your Representative in the House wouldn't even apply to my comment unless you are talking about your State Legislature.
> Everything else you asked about, would only concern you, and whether or not you are successful with any of it.
> 
> I don't care what you do in your state ... Your failures don't keep me awake at night.
> "You" is you and whatever you can accomplish ... I don't even have to agree with "You".
> 
> The Supreme Court can handle anything a state might come up with that is unconstitutional.
> 
> .​


STATEMENT:  "The Supreme Court can handle anything a state might come up with that is unconstitutional."

RESPONSE:  LOL, Sure they can, once it was 5-4, and now that McConnell packed the court, it has becomes 6-3; six conservatives and three liberals.

Don't pretend that the Federalist Society didn't have it's foot into the number of conservatives, not because dumb Donald was an honest and judicial individual. 



.​


----------



## basquebromance

Colbert asks Breyer about putting cameras in courts


----------



## Turtlesoup

Natural Citizen said:


> I'm assuming that Biden will jump at the opportunity to appoint someone based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.
> 
> Additionally, he's more likely to pick a female judge, again, in the interest of social justice rather than qualification.
> 
> In other words, a black female by default, for no other reason than the optics of it.
> 
> Would the group tend to agree with me about that?


Biden is hoping by promising BLACK women that he would put in a BLACK female SC justice that they will help him cheat 2022-------don't think congress is going to vote against them fearing that they will be targeted for voter fraud to steal their elections as well.


----------



## monkrules

Turtlesoup said:


> Biden is hoping by promising BLACK women that he would put in a BLACK female SC justice that they will help him cheat 2022-------don't think congress is going to vote against them fearing that they will be targeted for voter fraud to steal their elections as well.


I've seen several blacks on TV talking about Biden putting another black on the Supreme Court. They're so happy they're pissing all over themselves. They don't care that she'll be nothing more than another fucking Affirmative Action TOKEN.

And, of course, there was no concern about our new TOKEN justice's "qualifications" (or lack thereof).

Well, we shouldn't worry too much. It's just the most important court in America. Who cares if the incompetent, Biden, loads it with Affirmative Action clowns.


----------



## BlackSand

Rye Catcher said:


> STATEMENT:  "The Supreme Court can handle anything a state might come up with that is unconstitutional."
> 
> RESPONSE:  LOL, Sure they can, once it was 5-4, and now that McConnell packed the court, it has becomes 6-3; six conservatives and three liberals.
> 
> Don't pretend that the Federalist Society didn't have it's foot into the number of conservatives, not because dumb Donald was an honest and judicial individual.
> ​


.

*The composition of the Supreme Court does not change the words in the Constitution.*

Perhaps I am giving you more credit than you deserve, because if you didn't screw stuff up at the state level,
you wouldn't even have to go up to the Supreme Court.

You just fully embrace a system if abject failure and then bitch and argue about what is wrong with it.


.​


----------



## Rye Catcher

theHawk said:


> I’m old enough to remember a certain Senator being vehemently opposed to a black man being nominated to the Supreme Court....
> 
> View attachment 593986


It wasn't the color of this guy, it was his two-fold:  Sexual Harassment and a rigid conservative.


----------



## Rye Catcher

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> *The composition of the Supreme Court does not change the words in the Constitution.*
> 
> Perhaps I am giving you more credit than you deserve, because if you didn't screw stuff up at the state level,
> you wouldn't even have to go up to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You just fully embrace a system if abject failure and then bitch and argue about what is wrong with it.
> 
> 
> .​


Have you taken a University Course on ConLaw?  The wording in the Constitution can be interpreted and is thus ambiguous.  The fact that Marbury v. Madison is not a power within the words written in the full text of COTU and yet is a power being used for two plus centuries.





Portrait by John Vanderlyn
James Madison
My bad. I should have put this up on Friday, for Constitution Day.

What was the original intent of the single most influential framer of the Constitution about how much power the federal government should have, and what was his original intent about whether future generations should be bound by the original intent of the framers?

We can’t really know. But we can learn a lot by reading “The Quartet,” by historian Joseph Ellis, or by attending a talk Ellis will give about the book next week at the University of Minnesota.

Ellis will speak about the book on Sept. 28, at the University of Minnesota’s annual “Paul and Joan Nagel Lecture.” (The Nagels, now deceased, were friends of mine and I will attend, as a tribute to them but also, in this case, to hear Ellis, because reading “The Quartet” has given me a fresh reason to think through the myth that binds us.)

“The Myth That Binds Us” refers, self-importantly, I fear, to  my own small book on Constitutional history written originally as series of articles for the Strib in 1987 for the bicentennial of the Constitutional Convention. But the title also tries to convey two of the key arguments of that long-ago project. First, that a great deal of what we think we know about the Constitution is more myth than reality. Second that the Constitution functions as a bible for our 229-year-old system of government. It “binds us,” kind of like the way a holy book binds a religious denomination, because it is believed to hold the answers to all our questions and the solutions to all our problems. Like a bible, if you believe in it, you can find in the Constitution answers to what troubles you, or believe that you have found them.

But if you bring a skeptical, logical mind to the search, you will find something else, as James Madison did (according to Ellis’ book).

Disappointed with draft Constitution​Madison, who is known as the Father of the Constitution, was disappointed with the draft produced at the Constitutional Convention. He had wanted a much stronger national government, relative to the states. Specifically, he thought it was vital that the federal government be empowered to veto state laws. Madison left the Constitutional Convention feeling like something of a failure, because he had failed to get that power into the draft Constitution that was sent out to the states for ratification.

And then he had a rethink, and felt much better. He realized, and wrote in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, that the document had enough flexibility in it to allow for a much more powerful federal government than anyone could imagine at the time, or so argues Ellis in “The Quartet.”

Ellis identifies four men (hence “The Quartet”) who did more than anyone else to get the Constitution written and ratified, by hook and by crook, in a country that saw itself as much more a loose federation of states than a unified nation.

The four are George Washington (who chaired the Constitutional Convention and whose prestige from the War for Independence was essential to getting it ratified), Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. (Madison, Hamilton and Jay were the three pseudonymous authors of the “Federalist Papers,” a series of essays published in New York during the campaign for ratification. All members of the quartet, except Jay, were delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. Jay became first secretary of state (on an acting basis) under the newly formed federal government created by the Constitution, and then became the first chief justice of the brand-new U.S. Supreme Court that was also created by the Constitution.

To back up a step to the starting point of Ellis’ book, he argues that in coming together to issue the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the representatives of the 13 colonies did not have a vision of turning themselves in to a new independent nation. Rather the 13 colonies, which had relatively little to do with one another before then, saw themselves as a group of “independent states” that were joining together temporarily to overthrow British rule, and would then proceed into the future as 13 free and independent states joined loosely together for purposes of limited cooperation.

Here’s what the Declaration of Independence actually says, suggesting that Ellis was correct about how the states viewed their relationship (and note the lower case in “united” below as they declared themselves to be not a new nation but “Free and Independent States.”)



> We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States.


‘Quartet’ wanted stronger federation​The Articles of Confederation, the governing document during the revolution and the early years following it, created a very weak nation, or maybe not a nation at all, perhaps something more like Europe is now under the European Union. The members of Ellis’ “quartet” all saw a need for a much stronger federation with a much stronger federal government. And they made it happen, although Ellis finds that the kind of federalizing change the Constitution brought probably did not have majority support in the country at the time.

(Ellis also mentions, in passing, one of my favorite bits of skullduggery utilized by the Framers. The Articles of Confederation, ratified by all the states soon after the Declaration of Independence was issued, said that _nothing in the document could be changed without agreement of all the states_. That was the law of the land. And the meeting, which we have come to call the Constitutional Convention and which assembled in Philadelphia in 1787, was expected to recommend a few changes to the document and submit those changes to the states with the understanding that the Articles couldn’t be changed without unanimous 13-way agreement, because that’s what the Articles of Confederation said.

(But “the quartet” succeeded in getting agreement at the convention that, rather than crafting a few changes, a whole new document would be written. And they decided to submit it to the states with the understanding that as soon as nine states ratified, the document would take effect in those states. If three or four states didn’t like it, they couldn’t block its adoption and would have to choose between submitting to the new plan or remaining outside of it as separate nations, surrounded by the United States. Ellison refers to this provision as “technically illegal.”

(It’s a bigger betrayal than that of the pre-existing understanding. Two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, strongly disliked the new Constitution and voted not to ratify it. But both had to take a second vote when it became clear that the newly federalized nation was being formed around them. They still had not ratified when Washington was chosen as the first president and so they had no electoral votes. Rhode Island actually voted the Constitution down the second time as well, but eventually relented. If they had not done so, presumably, Rhode Island would have become a tiny independent nation, outside of, but surrounded by the United States.

(What the Framers of the Constitution pulled off would be roughly equivalent to a group of states today deciding to form a new nation under a new system and deciding that it would take effect as soon as, let’s say, 26 or maybe 30 of the existing 50 states agreed to it, leaving the states that didn’t like it to fend for themselves, notwithstanding the current Constitution which requires three-fourths of all the states, or 38 of the 50, to change anything at all.)

Anyway, just to nail down the one point I started with at the top, Father of the Constitution James Madison left Philadelphia with a feeling of failure, because the national government created by the document seemed too weak to turn the U.S.A. into the colossus he imagined.

Madison’s new revelation​As the campaign over ratification began to take shape, Ellis writes, Madison had a new revelation that made him feel much better. As the opposition to ratification began to emerge, almost entirely from folks who feared federal power, he realized that if he had succeeded at the convention, if the draft had included the kind of explicit power for the national government over the states that Madison preferred, it would not have been ratified even in the nine states necessary. (The vote to ratify was very close in the two biggest states, New York and Virginia, and it was impossible to imagine the project working without those two.)

Madison came to believe that the draft created roughly the strongest federal government that could possibly have been ratified and that it created space for a national government to grow stronger and stronger over the course of time, which is of course exactly what has happened.

The federal government has indeed grown steadily stronger and has seized powers that would have been unimaginable to Madison and that would have been deal-killers during the ratification contests if they had been explicitly enumerated.

Nobody, not Madison nor Washington nor the most radical federal power advocate of the framers – Alexander Hamilton — could have imagined a federal government that would one day build the Interstate Highway system, that would collect more taxes than all the states combined by a huge factor, that would create a perpetual standing military of globe-dominating size and capabilities that did not rely much on state militias, that would create massive universal national social welfare programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Aid to Families with Dependent Children.
Language of ‘general welfare’​When the framers included in the list of the powers of Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce and promote the “general welfare,” they surely never dreamt of the level of economic regulation and wealth redistribution programs that would eventually be created.

Small-government conservatives all through U.S. history opposed pretty much all of those things when they were first proposed, not only arguing that they would all be too expensive, would be anti-freedom, but also arguing that such expansion of federal power was not “intended” by the Framers.

And, of course, on that last part, they’re right, or at least have a valid historical argument.

Former Rep. Ron Paul, the sometime Libertarian, sometime Republican and sometime presidential candidate explicitly argued in the 21st century that Social Security and Medicare were  unconstitutional and he has a very good historical/philosophical argument, although the Supreme Court decided in 1937 (Helvering v. Davis, notably in the middle of the Depression) that Social Security was permissible under the “general welfare” clause. The Supremes likewise, on a narrow vote, ruled that the Affordable Care Act was constitutional, although such a plan certainly was nothing the conventioneers of 1787 could have imagined or meant to make possible.

If anyone had told them that the (somewhat questionable) power of the U.S. Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and strike down state laws would someday be used to guarantee the right of same-sex marriage, the Framers would have been mightily surprised. (Although, just to clarify, that ruling relied on language in the 5th and 14th amendments. I believe the authors and ratifiers of those amendments would have been equally surprised at some of the things to which that language gave rise over the centuries.)

Which brings us, finally, to the question of what the Constitution was and is and might yet become, depending to a significant degree on future Supreme Courts.

Many of the things I have mentioned above, that the Framers did not and could not have foreseen, are justified by the belief that the Constitution was not devised as a straitjacket but is an “evolving document” subject to fresh interpretation by every generation. Of course, “literalists” — like the late Antonin Scalia, small-government conservatives and “strict constructionists” — hate that evolving-doctrine stuff, and I understand why and even, to a limited degree, feel their pain.

Assessing prospects for ratification​Which is why I was impressed with Ellis’ conclusion about what Madison realized during the campaign for ratification. At the risk of wearing out my welcome, but in hopes of making the Ellis point about Madison’s big realization, I’ll quote it at some length from “The Quartet.” The first sentence in the excerpt below alludes to Madison “counting delegates,” meaning he was trying to figure out whether the draft Constitution would be accepted by enough of the delegates to the state ratifying conventions in at least nine states:



> At the same time that he was counting delegates in his obsessive Madisonian mode, his thought process, or perhaps his way of thinking about the ratification process, was beginning to change as he read the newspaper essays and editorials from multiple states. It gradually dawned on him that if he had gotten what he wanted at the Philadelphia convention, the prospects for ratification of the Constitution would have been remote in the extreme.





> In a long and quite extraordinary letter to Jefferson — the fullest and clearest exposition of what the Constitutional Convention had achieved that Madison ever wrote — he described the hybrid creation the Constitution had created as part confederation and part nation. The delegates had, willy nilly, managed “to draw a line of demarcation which would give to the General Government every power requisite for general purposes and leave to the states every power which might be most beneficial to them.”





> Left unsaid was that no one knew where that line existed, or what “general purposes” meant. Although it would take Madison several months to develop the full implications of this evolving idea, its outlines were already clear in that letter to Jefferson in late October 1787. The key insight might be called the beauty of ambiguity.
> Madison had, misguidedly he now realized, pushed for an unambiguous resolution of the sovereignty question during the convention. Now it was becoming clear to him that the great achievement of the convention, and of the Constitution as well, was to embrace the inconvenient truth that there was no consensus on the sovereignty question, either in the convention or in the country itself. So what they had created, albeit out of necessity rather than choice, was a political framework that deliberately blurred the sovereignty question.
> Most historians and constitutional scholars over the last 50 years have agreed that Madison’s preconvention preparation constituted an impressively creative moment that effectively set the agenda for the debate in Philadelphia that summer. Few have recognized that Madison’s post-convention thinking constituted a second creative moment of equivalent or greater historical significance. For it produced a political perspective that had short-term consequences for how the Constitution should be comprehended as the defining document of the new, and eventually not so new, American republic.





> In the short run, it meant that the advocates of ratification were defending the blueprint not for a new, wholly consolidated national government but rather for a halfway house that was partially federal and partially confederal. The multiple compromises reached in the Constitutional Convention over where to locate sovereignty accurately reflected the deep divisions in the American populace at large. There was a strong consensus that the state-based system under the Articles had proven ineffectual, but an equally strong apprehension about the political danger posed by any national government that rode roughshod over local, state and regional interests, which were the familiar spaces where the vast majority of Americans lived out their lives.





> As Madison now realized, the Constitution created a federal structure that moved the American republic toward nationhood while retaining an abiding place for local and state allegiances. In that sense, it was a second American Revolution that took the form of an American Evolution, which allowed the citizenry to adapt gradually to its national implications.





> In the long run — and this was probably Madison’s most creative insight — the multiple ambiguities embedded in the Constitution made it an inherently “living” document. For it was designed not to offer clear answers to the sovereignty question (or, for that matter, to the scope of executive or judicial authority) but instead to provide a political arena in which arguments about those contested issues could continue in a deliberative fashion.





> The Constitution was intended less to resolve arguments than to make argument itself the solution. For judicial devotees of “originalism” or “original intent,” this should be a disarming insight, since it made the Constitution the foundation for an ever-shifting political dialogue that, like history itself, was an argument without end.





> Madison’s “original intention”’ was to make all “original intentions” infinitely negotiable in the future.


----------



## BlackSand

Rye Catcher said:


> Have you taken a University Course on ConLaw?  The wording in the Constitution can be interpreted and is thus ambiguous.  The fact that Marbury v. Madison is not a power within the words written in the full text of COTU and yet is a power being used for two plus centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Portrait by John Vanderlyn
> James Madison
> My bad. I should have put this up on Friday, for Constitution Day.
> 
> What was the original intent of the single most influential framer of the Constitution about how much power the federal government should have, and what was his original intent about whether future generations should be bound by the original intent of the framers?
> 
> We can’t really know. But we can learn a lot by reading “The Quartet,” by historian Joseph Ellis, or by attending a talk Ellis will give about the book next week at the University of Minnesota.
> 
> Ellis will speak about the book on Sept. 28, at the University of Minnesota’s annual “Paul and Joan Nagel Lecture.” (The Nagels, now deceased, were friends of mine and I will attend, as a tribute to them but also, in this case, to hear Ellis, because reading “The Quartet” has given me a fresh reason to think through the myth that binds us.)
> 
> “The Myth That Binds Us” refers, self-importantly, I fear, to  my own small book on Constitutional history written originally as series of articles for the Strib in 1987 for the bicentennial of the Constitutional Convention. But the title also tries to convey two of the key arguments of that long-ago project. First, that a great deal of what we think we know about the Constitution is more myth than reality. Second that the Constitution functions as a bible for our 229-year-old system of government. It “binds us,” kind of like the way a holy book binds a religious denomination, because it is believed to hold the answers to all our questions and the solutions to all our problems. Like a bible, if you believe in it, you can find in the Constitution answers to what troubles you, or believe that you have found them.
> 
> But if you bring a skeptical, logical mind to the search, you will find something else, as James Madison did (according to Ellis’ book).
> 
> Disappointed with draft Constitution​Madison, who is known as the Father of the Constitution, was disappointed with the draft produced at the Constitutional Convention. He had wanted a much stronger national government, relative to the states. Specifically, he thought it was vital that the federal government be empowered to veto state laws. Madison left the Constitutional Convention feeling like something of a failure, because he had failed to get that power into the draft Constitution that was sent out to the states for ratification.
> 
> And then he had a rethink, and felt much better. He realized, and wrote in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, that the document had enough flexibility in it to allow for a much more powerful federal government than anyone could imagine at the time, or so argues Ellis in “The Quartet.”
> 
> Ellis identifies four men (hence “The Quartet”) who did more than anyone else to get the Constitution written and ratified, by hook and by crook, in a country that saw itself as much more a loose federation of states than a unified nation.
> 
> ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER ADVERTISEMENT
> 
> 
> 
> The four are George Washington (who chaired the Constitutional Convention and whose prestige from the War for Independence was essential to getting it ratified), Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. (Madison, Hamilton and Jay were the three pseudonymous authors of the “Federalist Papers,” a series of essays published in New York during the campaign for ratification. All members of the quartet, except Jay, were delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. Jay became first secretary of state (on an acting basis) under the newly formed federal government created by the Constitution, and then became the first chief justice of the brand-new U.S. Supreme Court that was also created by the Constitution.
> 
> To back up a step to the starting point of Ellis’ book, he argues that in coming together to issue the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the representatives of the 13 colonies did not have a vision of turning themselves in to a new independent nation. Rather the 13 colonies, which had relatively little to do with one another before then, saw themselves as a group of “independent states” that were joining together temporarily to overthrow British rule, and would then proceed into the future as 13 free and independent states joined loosely together for purposes of limited cooperation.
> 
> Here’s what the Declaration of Independence actually says, suggesting that Ellis was correct about how the states viewed their relationship (and note the lower case in “united” below as they declared themselves to be not a new nation but “Free and Independent States.”)
> 
> 
> ‘Quartet’ wanted stronger federation​The Articles of Confederation, the governing document during the revolution and the early years following it, created a very weak nation, or maybe not a nation at all, perhaps something more like Europe is now under the European Union. The members of Ellis’ “quartet” all saw a need for a much stronger federation with a much stronger federal government. And they made it happen, although Ellis finds that the kind of federalizing change the Constitution brought probably did not have majority support in the country at the time.
> 
> (Ellis also mentions, in passing, one of my favorite bits of skullduggery utilized by the Framers. The Articles of Confederation, ratified by all the states soon after the Declaration of Independence was issued, said that _nothing in the document could be changed without agreement of all the states_. That was the law of the land. And the meeting, which we have come to call the Constitutional Convention and which assembled in Philadelphia in 1787, was expected to recommend a few changes to the document and submit those changes to the states with the understanding that the Articles couldn’t be changed without unanimous 13-way agreement, because that’s what the Articles of Confederation said.
> 
> (But “the quartet” succeeded in getting agreement at the convention that, rather than crafting a few changes, a whole new document would be written. And they decided to submit it to the states with the understanding that as soon as nine states ratified, the document would take effect in those states. If three or four states didn’t like it, they couldn’t block its adoption and would have to choose between submitting to the new plan or remaining outside of it as separate nations, surrounded by the United States. Ellison refers to this provision as “technically illegal.”
> 
> (It’s a bigger betrayal than that of the pre-existing understanding. Two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, strongly disliked the new Constitution and voted not to ratify it. But both had to take a second vote when it became clear that the newly federalized nation was being formed around them. They still had not ratified when Washington was chosen as the first president and so they had no electoral votes. Rhode Island actually voted the Constitution down the second time as well, but eventually relented. If they had not done so, presumably, Rhode Island would have become a tiny independent nation, outside of, but surrounded by the United States.
> 
> (What the Framers of the Constitution pulled off would be roughly equivalent to a group of states today deciding to form a new nation under a new system and deciding that it would take effect as soon as, let’s say, 26 or maybe 30 of the existing 50 states agreed to it, leaving the states that didn’t like it to fend for themselves, notwithstanding the current Constitution which requires three-fourths of all the states, or 38 of the 50, to change anything at all.)
> 
> Anyway, just to nail down the one point I started with at the top, Father of the Constitution James Madison left Philadelphia with a feeling of failure, because the national government created by the document seemed too weak to turn the U.S.A. into the colossus he imagined.
> 
> Madison’s new revelation​As the campaign over ratification began to take shape, Ellis writes, Madison had a new revelation that made him feel much better. As the opposition to ratification began to emerge, almost entirely from folks who feared federal power, he realized that if he had succeeded at the convention, if the draft had included the kind of explicit power for the national government over the states that Madison preferred, it would not have been ratified even in the nine states necessary. (The vote to ratify was very close in the two biggest states, New York and Virginia, and it was impossible to imagine the project working without those two.)
> 
> Madison came to believe that the draft created roughly the strongest federal government that could possibly have been ratified and that it created space for a national government to grow stronger and stronger over the course of time, which is of course exactly what has happened.
> 
> The federal government has indeed grown steadily stronger and has seized powers that would have been unimaginable to Madison and that would have been deal-killers during the ratification contests if they had been explicitly enumerated.
> 
> Nobody, not Madison nor Washington nor the most radical federal power advocate of the framers – Alexander Hamilton — could have imagined a federal government that would one day build the Interstate Highway system, that would collect more taxes than all the states combined by a huge factor, that would create a perpetual standing military of globe-dominating size and capabilities that did not rely much on state militias, that would create massive universal national social welfare programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Aid to Families with Dependent Children.
> 
> Language of ‘general welfare’​When the framers included in the list of the powers of Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce and promote the “general welfare,” they surely never dreamt of the level of economic regulation and wealth redistribution programs that would eventually be created.
> 
> Small-government conservatives all through U.S. history opposed pretty much all of those things when they were first proposed, not only arguing that they would all be too expensive, would be anti-freedom, but also arguing that such expansion of federal power was not “intended” by the Framers.
> 
> And, of course, on that last part, they’re right, or at least have a valid historical argument.
> 
> Former Rep. Ron Paul, the sometime Libertarian, sometime Republican and sometime presidential candidate explicitly argued in the 21st century that Social Security and Medicare were  unconstitutional and he has a very good historical/philosophical argument, although the Supreme Court decided in 1937 (Helvering v. Davis, notably in the middle of the Depression) that Social Security was permissible under the “general welfare” clause. The Supremes likewise, on a narrow vote, ruled that the Affordable Care Act was constitutional, although such a plan certainly was nothing the conventioneers of 1787 could have imagined or meant to make possible.
> 
> If anyone had told them that the (somewhat questionable) power of the U.S. Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and strike down state laws would someday be used to guarantee the right of same-sex marriage, the Framers would have been mightily surprised. (Although, just to clarify, that ruling relied on language in the 5th and 14th amendments. I believe the authors and ratifiers of those amendments would have been equally surprised at some of the things to which that language gave rise over the centuries.)
> 
> Which brings us, finally, to the question of what the Constitution was and is and might yet become, depending to a significant degree on future Supreme Courts.
> 
> Many of the things I have mentioned above, that the Framers did not and could not have foreseen, are justified by the belief that the Constitution was not devised as a straitjacket but is an “evolving document” subject to fresh interpretation by every generation. Of course, “literalists” — like the late Antonin Scalia, small-government conservatives and “strict constructionists” — hate that evolving-doctrine stuff, and I understand why and even, to a limited degree, feel their pain.
> 
> Assessing prospects for ratification​Which is why I was impressed with Ellis’ conclusion about what Madison realized during the campaign for ratification. At the risk of wearing out my welcome, but in hopes of making the Ellis point about Madison’s big realization, I’ll quote it at some length from “The Quartet.” The first sentence in the excerpt below alludes to Madison “counting delegates,” meaning he was trying to figure out whether the draft Constitution would be accepted by enough of the delegates to the state ratifying conventions in at least nine states:


.

People that have trouble understanding the Constitution, 
are people who want it to say or mean something it doesn't ... 

.​


----------



## Rye Catcher

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> People that have trouble understanding the Constitution,
> are people who want it to say or mean something it doesn't ...
> 
> .​


LOL  Read the article:  *Madison’s “original intention”’ was to make all “original intentions” infinitely negotiable in the future.*


----------



## BlackSand

Rye Catcher said:


> LOL  Read the article.


.

I am sorry ... Was my response fucking ambiguous to you?
That would be an excellent example of your convoluted garbage ...  

It's not like I need you to tell me what you don't understand because it doesn't suit your needs.

.​


----------



## watchingfromafar

Natural Citizen said:


> _I'm assuming that Biden will jump at the opportunity to appoint someone based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character._


Looking at an individual based on their color compared to character speaks as though it is one or they other. someone based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character. People who are Caucasian, Indian, or black have far more like character  than not. basic character is universal.
(;-


----------



## Ridgerunner

__





						Democratic Sen. Ben Ray Lujan suffered a stroke, which could complicate Biden's Supreme Court plans
					





					www.msn.com


----------



## froggy

kyzr said:


> Now all we need is for Manchin and Sinema to keep crazy Leftists off the USSC.
> 
> Wonder who Biden will nominate?  Probably a black woman.
> 
> I don't think Condi Rice or Candace Owens are in the running?
> 
> Biden couldn't publish any names because the Leftist he would nominate would get eviscerated...these names have been assumed to be in the running.  Got any others to consider?
> Ketanji Brown Jackson  (DC circuit)
> Leondra Kruger (CA SC)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackson Confirmed to D.C. Circuit, First Biden Appellate Judge
> 
> 
> Ketanji Brown Jackson was confirmed with bipartisan support on Monday to the powerful D.C. Circuit, becoming President Joe Biden’s first appellate appointment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.bloomberglaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leondra Kruger - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note: Biden's pledge to only consider black females could jeopardize his pick.
> The USSC has rules about discrimination.


Obamees wife


----------



## beagle9

Natural Citizen said:


> I'm assuming that Biden will jump at the opportunity to appoint someone based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.
> 
> Additionally, he's more likely to pick a female judge, again, in the interest of social justice rather than qualification.
> 
> In other words, a black female by default, for no other reason than the optics of it.
> 
> Would the group tend to agree with me about that?


He did it with Kamala, so what's changed ?


----------



## woodwork201

IM2 said:


> You are a racist because you have ignored 245 years of whites getting on the Court, or any other position of success, only because of their skin color.


You're the racist because you are supporting the exclusion from consideration for Indian or other Asian Americans, Native Americans, Mexican and other Latin Americans from the court, man or woman.  

The Court was never intended to be representative; that's why they're appointed and not elected.  The very best should be appointed by those who are, supposedly,  smart enough to see past emotion and to search out the best.


----------



## woodwork201

Penelope said:


> Reagan's White House made sure the president stuck by his promise to name a woman to the Supreme Court — they knew the politics would help too
> 
> 
> "It would be a good political move," one top advisor wrote to Reagan, urging him to deliver on his promise to nominate a woman to the highest court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.businessinsider.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you angry he's due to pick a black woman??


You prove the point.  Sandra Day O'Connor is a great example of what happens when the President chooses a justice by sex or race rather than choosing the best for the office.  She was among the worst ever on the Court.


----------



## woodwork201

Penelope said:


> His wife comes to mind.


Wow!  You really are a racist, aren't you?  What an unbelievably racist comment.


----------



## woodwork201

IM2 said:


> Ask the person who said Biden is a racist. Clarence Thomas has brown skin but he has consistently taken anti black positions. That's why you like him.


So you want a Justice who will vote on black issues rather than American issues or constitutional issues?  You really prove your racism with every post you make.

And edit to add:  By your standards, white justices should always vote for white issues.  Is that what you're calling for, racist?


----------



## woodwork201

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> As President ... President Biden has every opportunity to select the nominee.
> 
> I voted "yes" in the poll because there is no need for the GOP to waste political capital on simple garbage.
> It's Justice Breyer being replaced, and who the President picks won't necessarily change the make-up of the court.
> 
> The only comment I would have about his open desire to specifically state he is only looking for an African American woman to fill the spot ...
> Is something that would get him sued for a violation of the EEOA if he was running a business.
> 
> Speaks volumes towards what Progressives think about the Constitution, or the protections in it, to start with.
> 
> .​


Look around the forum.  Do you see anyone else centering their text?  It's too much eye strain to try to read.  If you want to make a point, communicate effectively.  You're not doing that so far.


----------



## woodwork201

Rye Catcher said:


> *Your opinion is totally biased and not with any significance, let alone facts, that the President Biden is a racist.  Your hidden agenda is clear, your comment, "Most of us believe there are qualified people who are black" is in the field of trump's racism in his statements:*
> 
> _Donald Trump kicked off his presidential bid more than a year ago with harsh words for Mexico. “They are not our friend, believe me,” he said, before disparaging Mexican immigrants: “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
> 
> In the months since, he has repeatedly promised to build a wall along the Mexican border and get Mexico to pay for it. He is now scheduled to meet with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto on Wednesday, hours before a speech that will aim to clarify his position on immigration, which appeared to soften in remarks he made last week._



Biden's not racist:









						Biden’s history of racist statements
					

Decades of progress toward school desegregation are at risk as President-elect Joe Biden prepares to enter the White House in January. Biden's disconcerting obsession with race is a matter of public record. Samples: — Barack Obama is "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and...




					www.gopusa.com
				




— Barack Obama is “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”


— “You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.”


— “Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.”


— “Unlike the African American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly different attitudes about different things.”


— “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t Black."



Then there was his mentor, a grand poobah of some sort in the KKK, and his fight against school integration, and talking about integrated schools as racial jungles.

The only reason that those blacks on this forum who claim to support Biden is that Biden is their best chance for keeping existing handouts and extending them up to even possible huge reparation payments.  Blacks who support Biden have sold their soul and freedom for Biden cash and the Democrat plantation.


----------



## woodwork201

Delldude said:


> Where does the Civil Righta Act of 65 and the Constitution weigh in on his 'pick'?


You brought them up, I didn't.  You tell us where they weigh in.


----------



## Penelope

woodwork201 said:


> You prove the point.  Sandra Day O'Connor is a great example of what happens when the President chooses a justice by sex or race rather than choosing the best for the office.  She was among the worst ever on the Court.


what do you mean? Do you mean you shouldn't of voted for reagan or what?


----------



## Penelope

Delldude said:


> Where does the Civil Righta Act of 65 and the Constitution weigh in on his 'pick'?


Easy, they have an AA conservative on the bench, so we may as well have an AA democrat on the bench.


----------



## Penelope

Penelope said:


> what do you mean? Do you mean you shouldn't of voted for reagan or what?


What do you mean about Sandra Day O'Connor??


----------



## Penelope

woodwork201 said:


> You're the racist because you are supporting the exclusion from consideration for Indian or other Asian Americans, Native Americans, Mexican and other Latin Americans from the court, man or woman.
> 
> The Court was never intended to be representative; that's why they're appointed and not elected.  The very best should be appointed by those who are, supposedly,  smart enough to see past emotion and to search out the best.


And that what Biden is doing, picking the best.


----------



## Penelope

woodwork201 said:


> Wow!  You really are a racist, aren't you?  What an unbelievably racist comment.


No just she is in a lot of republican's boards, he should have ethically removed himself.

She gives him all kinds of ideas.


----------



## Rogue AI

Burgermeister said:


> I am in with the Harris bet for nominee. Solves half of the ridiculous incompetence problem of the current Democrat presidential ticket and she will fit right in with the other female dunces on the court. Biden won't be able to run again, so the Dems can pick the ticket they want.


They would lose their tie breaker, a new VP has to be confirmed by both houses. Republicans could hold off any confirmation, we have a line of succession if something happens. Would anyone notice if we didn't have a VP for half a year?


----------



## Penelope

Rogue AI said:


> They would lose their tie breaker, a new VP has to be confirmed by both houses. Republicans could hold off any confirmation, we have a line of succession if something happens. Would anyone notice if we didn't have a VP for half a year?


No they don't.


----------



## BlackSand

woodwork201 said:


> Look around the forum.  Do you see anyone else centering their text?  It's too much eye strain to try to read.  If you want to make a point, communicate effectively.  You're not doing that so far.


.

Please don't sue me for any resulting eye damage it may have caused you.

.​
.


----------



## Rogue AI

Penelope said:


> No they don't.


Yes they do.


----------



## Delldude

woodwork201 said:


> You brought them up, I didn't.  You tell us where they weigh in.


Asked a question to the scholarly members here.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Natural Citizen said:


> I'm assuming that Biden will jump at the opportunity to appoint someone based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.
> 
> Additionally, he's more likely to pick a female judge, again, in the interest of social justice rather than qualification.
> 
> In other words, a black female by default, for no other reason than the optics of it.
> 
> Would the group tend to agree with me about that?


----------



## Delldude

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> Please don't sue me for any resulting eye damage it may have caused you.
> 
> .​
> .


----------



## bravoactual

The only reason the Racist Republican Party is up in arms, having full blown hissy fits over Mr. Biden's promise to appoint an African-American Woman to the Supreme Court.

*In the 232-Year history of the United States Supreme Court, there have been 115-Justices who have served and/or are serving on the court*.

*108 White Men* have been Supreme Justices.

No African-American,No Woman has ever served as Chief Justice.

*5 Women* have served on the Supreme Court. Sandra Day O'Conner, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett.

*2* African-American Men have served on the Supreme Court. Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas.

Which works out to roughly *94%* of Supreme Justices have been White Male.

But *HOT HOLY FUCKINNG SHIT. PRESIDENT BIDEN PROMISED TO APPOINT AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN WOMAN TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT!!!!!!*

The Ronnie God promised to appoint a Woman (Sandra Day O'Connor) and Bush41 appointed an African-American Male (Clarence Thomas) to fill the seat of the late Justice Marshall. *BUT HOT HOLY FUCKING SHIT BIDEN IS GOING TO APPOINT AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN WOMAN....*

Shut the fuck up Cons. You've had the court *232-Years*.   White and Male is NOT the only color or gender for a qualified justice.


----------



## Slade3200

Natural Citizen said:


> I'm assuming that Biden will jump at the opportunity to appoint someone based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.
> 
> Additionally, he's more likely to pick a female judge, again, in the interest of social justice rather than qualification.
> 
> In other words, a black female by default, for no other reason than the optics of it.
> 
> Would the group tend to agree with me about that?


Do you not think a black female can be found that has the character and experience to serve as SCOTUS?


----------



## Peace

task0778 said:


> Wouldn't surprise me to see our 1st tranny justice.  But yeah, Biden will nominate a progressive liberal similar to Kagan and Sotomayor.
> 
> BTW, I haven't heard or seen a word about Breyer retiring.  Link?
> 
> Added:  never mind, I just saw a link in anther thread.


Ru Paul for USSC!

Now with that out of the way the nominee should be the most qualified and not based on their skin color or sexual organ…


----------



## task0778

Mad_Jack_Flint said:


> Ru Paul for USSC!
> 
> Now with that out of the way the nominee should be the most qualified and not based on their skin color or sexual organ…



You sir, are a rabble-rouser.  If I may ask, where were you on Jan 6, 2021?


----------



## Peace

task0778 said:


> You sir, are a rabble-rouser.  If I may ask, where were you on Jan 6, 2021?


Pissing in a bathroom and my exact location can be disclosed because of sensitive assignment that had to do with me not being anywhere near D.C.!


----------



## miketx

mudwhistle said:


> Regardless.....he'll nominate the last person you'd want on the bench.
> Probably Hillary in black-face.


Heres a good pick!


----------



## miketx

Not a Monkeys Uncle said:


> A fag or a tranny


Both.


----------



## Peace

miketx said:


> Heres a good pick!
> 
> View attachment 597036


Hmmm, I believe Sir you have made the best pick!


----------



## Delldude

Slade3200 said:


> Do you not think a black female can be found that has the character and experience to serve as SCOTUS?


The clowns behind the curtain will surely bribe Biden with tapioca to nominate the most progressive, honky hating, black activist available.


----------



## beagle9

Slade3200 said:


> Do you not think a black female can be found that has the character and experience to serve as SCOTUS?


A qualified person be it male or female - black, white, yellow, brown, vanilla, orange, light, dark, tan or even cream color can be found for these job's, but let it be based on their qualifications always, and that is the only way to roll....

It has been done many times before, and it has always balanced itself out, but that's not the point, because using any gender or skin color as a criteria would be a ridiculous thing to even consider, otherwise to be based upon such nonsense when it comes to a job or interview..........

We should never use color or gender as being a prominent factor ever in consideration of a job over qualifications, otherwise it's not right to consider people to get any job being based upon either of the two things above being talked about.....

Color should never be used as being the leading criteria to then somehow consider a person or person's qualifications in a job.... It is simply ridiculous and is unfair. 

Yes it was done in the past, but it wasn't right then, and it won't be right now.

Skin color has never told us about a person's educational skills, their character or personality... Otherwise those things are never found within a person's skin color or gender.

What is basically being said however, is that people of color have been discriminated against, and so the position should be highly biased towards a person as based on their skin color and gender, and therefore the person of color deserves to be promoted as a person of color in order to balance out the spreadsheets or rather they should be seen as privileged as based upon their gender or their skin color when seeking a job and/or elected or permanent office appointment, but why ?? It's all because of their skin color or gender in order to make corrections for the past, but today it's being used to race bait by politician's, and that's unexceptable..

This is unfair to anyone that has done everything possible to lift themselves up to a level of qualifications to be based upon their merit's, their mindsets, experiences, their understanding of law, and ultimately their character's regardless of color or gender.

The gender and skin color thing has got to somehow get resolved and finally be over with in this country, because it's gone way to stupid now, and it's constantly preying upon white guilt.


----------



## Oddball




----------



## Slade3200

Delldude said:


> The clowns behind the curtain will surely bribe Biden with tapioca to nominate the most progressive, honky hating, black activist available.


You didn’t answer the question that I asked


----------



## Foolardi

The Real question to be asked is how Biden 
   is going to Get his Nomination { whoever } passed
  in a 50-50 senate.There has NEVER  been a Supreme Court
   Nominee passed with a 50-50 tiebreak vote by the
   Vice President.The only court that was recognized
  in our Constitution was The Supreme Court.
   All other courts { District and Appellate } were constructed
  later by Congress.
    Since our Founders wrote the Constitution with only
  One Court in mind { Supreme Court } there is no
   Precedent for a Senate tiebreaker vote by the V.P.
  to make way for a Supreme Court Jurist.


----------



## Foolardi

theHawk said:


> I’m old enough to remember a certain Senator being vehemently opposed to a black man being nominated to the Supreme Court....
> 
> View attachment 593986


 It's called Turnabout is Fair Play.
  There will be gob smack videos of how Joe Biden 
  treated and talked down To and About Clarence Thomas.
  who will be The Oldest Member of the Supreme Court.


----------



## Slade3200

beagle9 said:


> A qualified person be it male or female - black, white, yellow, brown, vanilla, orange, light, dark, tan or even cream color can be found for these job's, but let it be based on their qualifications always, and that is the only way to roll....
> 
> It has been done many times before, and it has always balanced itself out, but that's not the point, because using any gender or skin color as a criteria would be a ridiculous thing to even consider, otherwise to be based upon such nonsense when it comes to a job or interview..........
> 
> We should never use color or gender as being a prominent factor ever in consideration of a job over qualifications, otherwise it's not right to consider people to get any job being based upon either of the two things above being talked about.....
> 
> Color should never be used as being the leading criteria to then somehow consider a person or person's qualifications in a job.... It is simply ridiculous and is unfair.
> 
> Yes it was done in the past, but it wasn't right then, and it won't be right now.
> 
> Skin color has never told us about a person's educational skills, their character or personality... Otherwise those things are never found within a person's skin color or gender.
> 
> What is basically being said however, is that people of color have been discriminated against, and so the position should be highly biased towards a person as based on their skin color and gender, and therefore the person of color deserves to be promoted as a person of color in order to balance out the spreadsheets or rather they should be seen as privileged as based upon their gender or their skin color when seeking a job and/or elected or permanent office appointment, but why ?? It's all because of their skin color or gender in order to make corrections for the past, but today it's being used to race bait by politician's, and that's unexceptable..
> 
> This is unfair to anyone that has done everything possible to lift themselves up to a level of qualifications to be based upon their merit's, their mindsets, experiences, their understanding of law, and ultimately their character's regardless of color or gender.
> 
> The gender and skin color thing has got to somehow get resolved and finally be over with in this country, because it's gone way to stupid now, and it's constantly preying upon white guilt.


Stay with me for a second and please answer a couple of questions…

Do you think women have a perspective on certain situations that it is just not possible for men to have? Let’s look at understanding the feeling and struggles of pregnancy and child birth. Would it be a fair statement to say women are better qualified than men to understand what pregnant women go through?

would it also be fair to say that black people also have a unique perspective to understand the social climate for minorities better than say a white person?


----------



## Foolardi

" If there be a principle that ought not to be
    questioned within the United States,it is that
     every man has a right to abolish an old government
     and establish a new one.This principle is not only
     recorded in every public archive,written in every heart
     and sealed with the blood of a host of American   Martyr,but is the only lawful tenure by which the 
   United States hold their existence as a nation. "
    -- James Madison { Quoted by Commager,N.Y.Times
                             July 2,1961 }


----------



## Foolardi

Slade3200 said:


> Stay with me for a second and please answer a couple of questions…
> 
> Do you think women have a perspective on certain situations that it is just not possible for men to have? Let’s look at understanding the feeling and struggles of pregnancy and child birth. Would it be a fair statement to say women are better qualified than men to understand what pregnant women go through?
> 
> would it also be fair to say that black people also have a unique perspective to understand the social climate for minorities better than say a white person?


Silly drivel.Blacks can't even recognize the simple 
  ramifications of Killing their own.Blacks are murdering
  their own in record numbers.Blacks have led in Homicides
    by around 50+% the last decade in the U.S.
   The FBI releases their Crime reports every couple years
  or so.


----------



## beagle9

Slade3200 said:


> Stay with me for a second and please answer a couple of questions…
> 
> Do you think women have a perspective on certain situations that it is just not possible for men to have? Let’s look at understanding the feeling and struggles of pregnancy and child birth. Would it be a fair statement to say women are better qualified than men to understand what pregnant women go through?
> 
> would it also be fair to say that black people also have a unique perspective to understand the social climate for minorities better than say a white person?


Ok, so I'll try and see where you are heading with this...

1. Yes when it comes to childbirth, but of course a woman has a better understanding of that, and yes she can relay that in a way that helps a male hopefully understand her suffering during that event. And what does this have to do with law and justice specifically ????

2. Black people depending on their social climate, just as well as any color depending on their social climate, can otherwise definitely relay their thoughts and experiences better than someone living outside of their social climate in which they live in. Has nothing to do with color or gender.


----------



## Slade3200

Foolardi said:


> Silly drivel.Blacks can't even recognize the simple
> ramifications of Killing their own.Blacks are murdering
> their own in record numbers.Blacks have led in Homicides
> by around 50+% the last decade in the U.S.
> The FBI releases their Crime reports every couple years
> or so.


You didn’t address my questions. Care to try again?


----------



## Meathead

Natural Citizen said:


> I'm assuming that Biden will jump at the opportunity to appoint someone based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.
> 
> Additionally, he's more likely to pick a female judge, again, in the interest of social justice rather than qualification.
> 
> In other words, a black female by default, for no other reason than the optics of it.
> 
> Would the group tend to agree with me about that?


Maybe ex-Baltimore DA Marylin Mosby. She's a lawyer, black, corrupt and a perfect fit for Biden.


----------



## Slade3200

beagle9 said:


> Ok, so I'll try and see where you are heading with this...
> 
> 1. Yes when it comes to childbirth, but of course a woman has a better understanding of that, and yes she can relay that in a way that helps a male hopefully understand her suffering during that event. And what does this have to do with law and justice specifically ????
> 
> 2. Black people depending on their social climate, just as well as any color depending on their social climate, can otherwise definitely relay their thoughts and experiences better than someone living outside of their social climate in which they live in. Has nothing to do with color or gender.


Thank you for the direct answers. My point by asking those questions was to establish that there are areas in which woman have a unique understanding and perspective that men simply can not have. They have this because they are women and they experience things that men simply can not. The same is true for certain social issues. A white person can not understand what it is like growing up as a black person in America. Somebody who grew up in a wealthy family and has always been given everything can not understand what it is like to grow up poor etc.

The way it ties into our discussion is in the fact that womens issues and social issues primarily in the black community are significant issues that we deal with in our country. The SCOTUS is the highest court in the land and makes decisions about laws that deal with these issues. To have that court be the most qualified then it not only needs to have the best educated and experienced judges but it also needs to have people that have those unique perspectives and can bring real life understanding of the issues they will be judging.

Do you understand what I’m trying to say?


----------



## beagle9

Slade3200 said:


> Thank you for the direct answers. My point by asking those questions was to establish that there are areas in which woman have a unique understanding and perspective that men simply can not have. They have this because they are women and they experience things that men simply can not. The same is true for certain social issues. A white person can not understand what it is like growing up as a black person in America. Somebody who grew up in a wealthy family and has always been given everything can not understand what it is like to grow up poor etc.
> 
> The way it ties into our discussion is in the fact that womens issues and social issues primarily in the black community are significant issues that we deal with in our country. The SCOTUS is the highest court in the land and makes decisions about laws that deal with these issues. To have that court be the most qualified then it not only needs to have the best educated and experienced judges but it also needs to have people that have those unique perspectives and can bring real life understanding of the issues they will be judging.
> 
> Do you understand what I’m trying to say?


Well color has nothing to do with the court appointment, other than Biden seizing the opportunity to race bait in hopes to try and divide the nation along the lines of race as it is being used where it shouldn't be used.

Your other angle is in hopes to get a woman that you think will fight against over turning Roe-V-Wade.  A female that would work to support the killing of the unborn by using the high court in her "judgement favor", isn't the same as a woman giving childbirth verses a man not knowing what she goes through in the natural act of childbirth. Abortion is about as unnatural an act as it gets. Best be glad that this nation had a brain fart back in the 60's, and allowed all kinds of stupidity to take place, and then actually began to believe that it's ethical, normal, and acceptable to just decide on a whim to end a pregnancy without cause, otherwise thinking that the baby would somehow become an inconvenience in life, so just kill it eh ?


----------



## Slade3200

beagle9 said:


> Well color has nothing to do with the court appointment, other than Biden seizing the opportunity to race bait in hopes to try and divide the nation along the lines of race as it is being used where it shouldn't be used.
> 
> Your other angle is in hopes to get a woman that you think will fight against over turning Roe-V-Wade.  A female that would work to support the killing of the unborn by using the high court in her "judgement favor", isn't the same as a woman giving childbirth verses a man not knowing what she goes through in the natural act of childbirth. Abortion is about as unnatural an act as it gets. Best be glad that this nation had a brain fart back in the 60's, and allowed all kinds of stupidity to take place, and then actually began to believe that it's ethical, normal, and acceptable to just decide on a whim to end a pregnancy without cause, otherwise thinking that the baby would somehow become an inconvenience in life, so just kill it eh ?


Now you’re diving into personal views and making assumption about what my “angle” is. I haven’t mentioned anything of the sort. This conversation was about race and sex and whether those are legit factors to use for criteria to select a Supreme Court Justice. I made a couple arguments explaining the unique perspective they can bring that others can not. Regarding politics and issue positions that’s a whole of discussion. Let’s finish talking what we were talking about and then if you want to talk about my personal views and agenda we can go there.

so back to our conversation. Do you understand how diversity can round out an entity like scotus and why sex and race can be relevant factors to consider?


----------



## Delldude

Slade3200 said:


> You didn’t answer the question that I asked


Yes I did.


----------



## Slade3200

Delldude said:


> Yes I did.


Haha, no you responded to my questions but you dodged giving a direct answer. That’s pretty weak


----------



## Foolardi

Slade3200 said:


> Thank you for the direct answers. My point by asking those questions was to establish that there are areas in which woman have a unique understanding and perspective that men simply can not have. They have this because they are women and they experience things that men simply can not. The same is true for certain social issues. A white person can not understand what it is like growing up as a black person in America. Somebody who grew up in a wealthy family and has always been given everything can not understand what it is like to grow up poor etc.
> 
> The way it ties into our discussion is in the fact that womens issues and social issues primarily in the black community are significant issues that we deal with in our country. The SCOTUS is the highest court in the land and makes decisions about laws that deal with these issues. To have that court be the most qualified then it not only needs to have the best educated and experienced judges but it also needs to have people that have those unique perspectives and can bring real life understanding of the issues they will be judging.
> 
> Do you understand what I’m trying to say?


SCOTUS Exists NOT for Social Justice or Understanding but
   Interpretation of the LAw.How it legally best fits our
   Constitution.PERIOD.


----------



## Slade3200

Foolardi said:


> SCOTUS Exists NOT for Social Justice or Understanding but
> Interpretation of the LAw.How it legally best fits our
> Constitution.PERIOD.


Exactly and those doing the interpretations and writing opinions matter, which is exactly the point I was making


----------



## Foolardi

Slade3200 said:


> Now you’re diving into personal views and making assumption about what my “angle” is. I haven’t mentioned anything of the sort. This conversation was about race and sex and whether those are legit factors to use for criteria to select a Supreme Court Justice. I made a couple arguments explaining the unique perspective they can bring that others can not. Regarding politics and issue positions that’s a whole of discussion. Let’s finish talking what we were talking about and then if you want to talk about my personal views and agenda we can go there.
> 
> so back to our conversation. Do you understand how diversity can round out an entity like scotus and why sex and race can be relevant factors to consider?


  " Diversity,Social Justice,Perspective are all Democrat
  catch words.We the People means just that.
   NOT We the People of the Black Community.
   Or We the People of the Gated Community.
   Plus We the People meant We Citizens.
   First and foremost.This is Our Country.Our Land.
    Not Ted Turners or Bill Gates.
   Why was Washington D.C. fenced in before Biden's
    Inauguration.That would have been unheard of in the
  50's.Where During Trump's Inauguration Protests were
   ongoing.
   The Biden flaks and liars said that there was ample
   evidence of Disruptions in many city's ... Protesting
   Biden's Inauguration. Total LIE.
   Tucker Carlson showed what kind of Protestors 
   took place on Biden's Inauguration.Some Guy{just one }
  with a little flag was seen in front of a State Capitol
    Building Or City Capitol Bldg waving in Protest.
   Unarmed,Totally Innocuous.
    You can't make this stuff up.
     Democrats are Scum.Unamerican to the core.
   Liars of the first order.
I Just Proved it AGAIN


----------



## Slade3200

Foolardi said:


> " Diversity,Social Justice,Perspective are all Democrat
> catch words.We the People means just that.
> NOT We the People of the Black Community.
> Or We the People of the Gated Community.
> Plus We the People meant We Citizens.
> First and foremost.This is Our Country.Our Land.
> Not Ted Turners or Bill Gates.
> Why was Washington D.C. fenced in before Biden's
> Inauguration.That would have been unheard of in the
> 50's.Where During Trump's Inauguration Protests were
> ongoing.
> The Biden flaks and liars said that there was ample
> evidence of Disruptions in many city's ... Protesting
> Biden's Inauguration. Total LIE.
> Tucker Carlson showed what kind of Protestors
> took place on Biden's Inauguration.Some Guy{just one }
> with a little flag was seen in front of a State Capitol
> Building Or City Capitol Bldg waving in Protest.
> Unarmed,Totally Innocuous.
> You can't make this stuff up.
> Democrats are Scum.Unamerican to the core.
> Liars of the first order.
> I Just Proved it AGAIN


You’re dodging my points to go off on partisan rants… it’s entertaining to watch you Karen’s throw your fits but it’s ineffective in the realm of debate. Want to try again to make a point by addressing the topic of conversation?


----------



## Foolardi

Slade3200 said:


> You’re dodging my points to go off on partisan rants… it’s entertaining to watch you Karen’s throw your fits but it’s ineffective in the realm of debate. Want to try again to make a point by addressing the topic of conversation?


  Yes,Dear.How about the Bill Ayers use of Finding
  common ground.A Commie device used more as a
  way of deflecting a point already proven.


----------



## Slade3200

Foolardi said:


> Yes,Dear.How about the Bill Ayers use of Finding
> common ground.A Commie device used more as a
> way of deflecting a point already proven.


So why are you deflecting then? Why not just give straight forward and direct responses and keep the discussion on point?


----------



## Foolardi

Slade3200 said:


> So why are you deflecting then? Why not just give straight forward and direct responses and keep the discussion on point?


  You are being argumentative not debating.
   In a court of law you'd be asked to sit down.
   I have bigger fish to fry { Message Board-Wise }
  than yer silly conversations.At least you were Polite.


----------



## Slade3200

Foolardi said:


> You are being argumentative not debating.
> In a court of law you'd be asked to sit down.
> I have bigger fish to fry { Message Board-Wise }
> than yer silly conversations.At least you were Polite.


Hahahaha, reread the thread, especially your rants. Asked to sit down?! That’s hilarious.


----------



## Dadoalex

Natural Citizen said:


> I'm assuming that Biden will jump at the opportunity to appoint someone based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.
> 
> Additionally, he's more likely to pick a female judge, again, in the interest of social justice rather than qualification.
> 
> In other words, a black female by default, for no other reason than the optics of it.
> 
> Would the group tend to agree with me about that?


Why is it you think a person of color or female is less qualified than a White male?


----------



## Dadoalex

jbrownson0831 said:


> Sure, whomever the worst possible candidate for support of the US laws, thats who Poopeypants will shove out there.


Trump isn't president.


----------



## Dadoalex

Votto said:


> That is sooooo yesterday!
> 
> I say it is a black lesbian transphobic pan sexual.


Or a Trumpist...I mean, is there a difference?


----------



## chesswarsnow

toobfreak said:


> Black, female, transsexual.


Sorry bout that,

1. Mrs. Obama,...Mikey...lol!

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## Delldude

Slade3200 said:


> Haha, no you responded to my questions but you dodged giving a direct answer. That’s pretty weak


I gave a direct answer.....You can't handle the truth.


----------



## Slade3200

Delldude said:


> I gave a direct answer.....You can't handle the truth.


You didn’t even come close


----------



## Delldude

Slade3200 said:


> You didn’t even come close


Time will tell.


----------



## beagle9

Slade3200 said:


> Now you’re diving into personal views and making assumption about what my “angle” is. I haven’t mentioned anything of the sort. This conversation was about race and sex and whether those are legit factors to use for criteria to select a Supreme Court Justice. I made a couple arguments explaining the unique perspective they can bring that others can not. Regarding politics and issue positions that’s a whole of discussion. Let’s finish talking what we were talking about and then if you want to talk about my personal views and agenda we can go there.
> 
> so back to our conversation. Do you understand how diversity can round out an entity like scotus and why sex and race can be relevant factors to consider?


By sex and race in that you specifically like, then it is that you are suggesting that those two things found in the gender or color of your choice, uhhhhh would ultimately bring about rulings that you would specifically like and agree with, otherwise if a ruling ends up taking place as based upon your choices made...

That's a fair analysis by you to some degree, but again I think that you are confused to think that color has anything to do with one being educated, skilled in the law, and blind when it comes to a ruling.... Our hopes should always be that the person who is ruling from the high court or any court, will be administering the laws/justice as to be based upon the law in a color blind way.. I would be saying the same thing if we were talking about Biden saying that we needed a half black and half white on the court, otherwise in order to represent that skin tone or color of people as well.

If color has anything to do with what you want specifically, then you are seeking a biased individual that will rule based upon color in some and/or many cases for you, and that's where it goes wrong.

The court should only recognize the character and qualifications, and definitely not a person's skin color.

Biases yes they do exist in court rooms sure, but we need to stay away from using superficial physical attributes such as color or gender in order to somehow think that a person might rule in ones favor based upon such attributes. That my fellow USMB person (IMHO), is you seeking favor on the court for rulings that may not coinside with the law, but will fall along color lines or gender lines.


----------



## woodwork201

Penelope said:


> what do you mean? Do you mean you shouldn't of voted for reagan or what?


No; I mean that Reagan wasn't perfect and he was convinced, allowed himself to be convinced even, to appoint someone to the Court for all the wrong reasons.


----------



## woodwork201

Foolardi said:


> Silly drivel.Blacks can't even recognize the simple
> ramifications of Killing their own.Blacks are murdering
> their own in record numbers.Blacks have led in Homicides
> by around 50+% the last decade in the U.S.
> The FBI releases their Crime reports every couple years
> or so.


You can shut up now; you're not helping the cause.


----------



## woodwork201

Foolardi said:


> The Real question to be asked is how Biden
> is going to Get his Nomination { whoever } passed
> in a 50-50 senate.There has NEVER  been a Supreme Court
> Nominee passed with a 50-50 tiebreak vote by the
> Vice President.The only court that was recognized
> in our Constitution was The Supreme Court.
> All other courts { District and Appellate } were constructed
> later by Congress.
> Since our Founders wrote the Constitution with only
> One Court in mind { Supreme Court } there is no
> Precedent for a Senate tiebreaker vote by the V.P.
> to make way for a Supreme Court Jurist.


What does the lower versus supreme court difference have to do with settling a 50/50 tie?  And the Constitution did not create the Supreme Court; it simply outlined a set of authorities and limitations but authorized the Congress to create the Supreme Court and the lesser courts.

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 4, clearly gives the Vice President the authority, as President of the Senate, the vote to break any and all ties.  There are no limitations and no context missing or to be considered.  Harris might actually put herself in the Court should she get the nomination.


----------



## The Republicans

Natural Citizen said:


> I'm assuming that Biden will jump at the opportunity to appoint someone based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.
> 
> Additionally, he's more likely to pick a female judge, again, in the interest of social justice rather than qualification.
> 
> In other words, a black female by default, for no other reason than the optics of it.
> 
> Would the group tend to agree with me about that?


This president is a idiot and I think this president is pathetic. This is the same racist democrats who tried to accuse a African American man of sexual harassment.


----------



## The Republicans

If I was on that committee I would vote no and I DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING AGAINST THE NOMINATION BUT I would base my vote on how the nomination behave on the bench. We DO NOT  need a another politician to take up a seat! We need constitution originalist judicial philosophy


----------



## beagle9

woodwork201 said:


> You can shut up now; you're not helping the cause.


I'm guessing that he is saying or using the term "black's" in the sense that they in many ways operate as a tight knitted group for the most part, and in this thinking it is hard to understand the stats or silence that is seen amongst the group when it comes to their resolve or thinking that surrounds such things or stats being recorded. Can't include the so called uncle Tom's and Tomasena's into the mix, because they are a minority trying to relate their feeling's on the matter's, but are shot down by the radical activist within the group.


----------



## woodwork201

beagle9 said:


> I'm guessing that he is saying or using the term "black's" in the sense that they in many ways operate as a tight knitted group for the most part, and in this thinking it is hard to understand the stats or silence that is seen amongst the group when it comes to their resolve or thinking that surrounds such things or stats being recorded. Can't include the so called uncle Tom's and Tomasena's into the mix, because they are a minority trying to relate their feeling's on the matter's, but are shot down by the radical activist within the group.


Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that you and Foolardi are both echoing IM2's and Biden's view that blacks all think in one mind - or should.  Who are you suggesting are the "Uncle Tom's and Tomasenas"?  I assume that, by that, you mean any black person who thinks differently from how someone else tells them to think?  Please elaborate.


----------



## Foolardi

Dadoalex said:


> Why is it you think a person of color or female is less qualified than a White male?


  Lest of which the other way around.
   Because it's a way to make political hay.
    Create False and Unamerican narratives.
   The entire driven reason behind BLM.
    Or the absurd notions behind Voter Suppression.
   Like some sort of W.C.Fields vehicle.What he had to
    deal with.


----------



## Foolardi

woodwork201 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that you and Foolardi are both echoing IM2's and Biden's view that blacks all think in one mind - or should.  Who are you suggesting are the "Uncle Tom's and Tomasenas"?  I assume that, by that, you mean any black person who thinks differently from how someone else tells them to think?  Please elaborate.


 Correct where the proven assumption is wrong.
   Blacks Literally vote in Lockstep for Democrats.
    Piggybacking with what L.B.J. said.
   About once his Great Society project becomes
    part of the American Landscape ...
   " We'll have them " N word " votin' Democrat for the
  next 200 years."
   His plea is 60 years in the making.


----------



## beagle9

woodwork201 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that you and Foolardi are both echoing IM2's and Biden's view that blacks all think in one mind - or should.  Who are you suggesting are the "Uncle Tom's and Tomasenas"?  I assume that, by that, you mean any black person who thinks differently from how someone else tells them to think?  Please elaborate.


You are wrong, but could it be that you are looking so hard for racist when black's are being discussed, that you are getting lost within your interpretations of simple discussion ?? Do you assume that we are racist without evidence in your fever to uncover one ?? Now go back and read real slow in order to understand my post in the context that they are written in. Read them without thinking racist, and your enlightenment will be like a ray of sunshine breaking through.


----------



## beagle9

Foolardi said:


> Correct where the proven assumption is wrong.
> Blacks Literally vote in Lockstep for Democrats.
> Piggybacking with what L.B.J. said.
> About once his Great Society project becomes
> part of the American Landscape ...
> " We'll have them " N word " votin' Democrat for the
> next 200 years."
> His plea is 60 years in the making.


Otherwise he looked at it as their plan of keeping them (the Democrat elite), as being the Democrat's who will be using the black's for that very reason for the next 200 years. They figured heck what do the black's have to lose at this point, so it's going to work perfectly.

Now it's not that the Republican's weren't interested in helping black's because they sure were going to continue to help black's lift themselves up, but they weren't looking at the situation like the Democrat's were, otherwise to bribe the black's with free stuff that would ensure the Democrat power born of bribes and dependency would last for the next 200 years.


----------



## Foolardi

beagle9 said:


> Otherwise he looked at it as their plan of keeping them (the Democrat elite), as being the Democrat's who will be using the black's for that very reason for the next 200 years. They figured heck what do the black's have to lose at this point, so it's going to work perfectly.
> 
> Now it's not that the Republican's weren't interested in helping black's because they sure were going to continue to help black's lift themselves up, but they weren't looking at the situation like the Democrat's were, otherwise to bribe the black's with free stuff that would ensure the Democrat power born of bribes and dependency would last for the next 200 years.


   The Blacks were freed by a Tall White Republican.
  A Log splitter.Self-taught brought up in a Cabin.
  Jim Crow was authored by Democrats.
   Poll Taxes were part of Jim Crow.As were not being able 
  to drink from public water fountains or eat at a lunch counter
  if Black.All Areas where Democrats and Black activist are
   feverishly attempting to Gaslight Americans as if never  happened or Not so.
    But We the People are not about to put up with
  this sort of Mindset { Bullying tactics } when it comes
  to Educating our Kids and forcing them to wear masks
  and get a jab.No sane American can possibly find what
  Democrats are doing and saying as acceptable.
    I mean,even Franz Kafka couldn't have written a more
  perverse attempt to Gaslight a country into Oblivion.


----------



## woodwork201

Foolardi said:


> Correct where the proven assumption is wrong.
> Blacks Literally vote in Lockstep for Democrats.
> Piggybacking with what L.B.J. said.
> About once his Great Society project becomes
> part of the American Landscape ...
> " We'll have them " N word " votin' Democrat for the
> next 200 years."
> His plea is 60 years in the making.


You stated, "Blacks can't even recognize the simple ramifications of Killing their own."  Many blacks do recognize it but you referred to them as Uncle Toms and Tomasinas.

When you make generalized statements about black people then you're showing your racism and that does not help the cause of trying to convince those who might listen to conservative ideas.

Edit to correct, it was Beagle who said uncle Toms and Tomasinas.  Thus tying you both to the same racist-sounding generalization, whether you meant to or not.  

Generally, your posts show that you understand the facts and the problem but your racist tone and generalizations undercut the facts and the cause.


----------



## Delldude

Slade3200 said:


> You didn’t answer the question that I asked


As I was saying......

Progressives criticize J. Michelle Childs, a potential Biden Supreme Court pick​


> Childs was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina by Barack Obama in 2009. The 55-year-old jurist is a favorite of Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., who pushed Biden to make the pledge to select a Black woman and whose endorsement helped the president salvage his Democratic primary campaign. Across the aisle, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has also praised Childs.





> But although the South Carolina delegation has praised her, Childs’s résumé has drawn scrutiny from many on the left, with a particular focus on her time at a corporate law firm defending management in cases involving discrimination and labor law violations.
> 
> Our Revolution, a progressive group that sprung from Sen. Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaigns, has been critical of Childs, while two Democratic congressmen are circulating a letter stating that “for far too long, the Supreme Court has been dominated by pro-corporate justices” and that “labor-minded jurists bring crucial knowledge and experience to the bench.”





> “Whatever happened to diversity, as progressives try to disqualify Judge J. Michelle Childs?” it added, although none of the appeals from the left for a non-Childs option have called on Biden to break his promise to appoint a Black woman for the role.



Progressives criticize J. Michelle Childs, a potential Biden Supreme Court pick


----------



## Delldude

woodwork201 said:


> You stated, "Blacks can't even recognize the simple ramifications of Killing their own."  Many blacks do recognize it but you referred to them as Uncle Toms and Tomasinas.
> 
> When you make generalized statements about black people then you're showing your racism and that does not help the cause of trying to convince those who might listen to conservative ideas.
> 
> Edit to correct, it was Beagle who said uncle Toms and Tomasinas.  Thus tying you both to the same racist-sounding generalization, whether you meant to or not.
> 
> Generally, your posts show that you understand the facts and the problem but your racist tone and generalizations undercut the facts and the cause.


All white people are racist. Didn't get the memo?


----------



## hadit

bodecea said:


> It's so telling.....all the racists, the misogynsts, the homophobes jump in on this thread.


And Republicans, too. Don't forget they're in here.


----------



## hadit

JGalt said:


> Let's see:
> 
> 1. Gotta be black - Check
> 
> 2. Gotta be female - Check
> 
> 3. Gotta be someone who serves no other purpose - Check
> 
> 4. Gotta be someone Poopy Pants Biden sorta likes - Check
> 
> 5. Gotta be someone who eschew the leftist party line - Check
> 
> 6. Gotta be someone who was a scum-sucking lawyer - Check
> 
> Who would that be? Why none other than Kamala "Kneepads" Harris. So Hillary would be thrown into the Vice Presidency and bide her time until the old pedo kicks the bucket.
> 
> I just called it. Can you imagine that stupid bitch Kamala Harris sitting on the bench of the SC?
> 
> 
> And I own Page 3.


Black female means nothing in the day of self-identification. Would Quid Pro DARE to reject a white man who says he identifies as a black woman? Talk about backlash!


----------



## hadit

JimH52 said:


> Since Moscow Mitch stole two USSC picks, Biden is entitled to one and maybe more nominations.  You know, if Clarence disagrees with his loony wife, no telling what she might do....


He's entitled to nothing more than an opportunity afforded by the death or retirement of a justice, and the Senate can torpedo anyone he sends up.


----------



## hadit

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Bullshit! There is no African  American women on the court and never has been. He is, in fact trying to make the court look like America
> 
> Justices from Liberty, Oral Roberts, Bob Jones,? Are you fucking shiitting me?


To look like America, the court would have to have several overweight rednecks as well as a tofu farter or two.


----------



## hadit

IM2 said:


> There is a latina on the supreme court. Biden is no racist.


Biden didn't appoint her.


----------



## hadit

IM2 said:


> Just like trump picked all white judges.


But never announced that he would only consider white candidates.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Natural Citizen said:


> I'm assuming that Biden will jump at the opportunity to appoint someone based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.
> 
> Additionally, he's more likely to pick a female judge, again, in the interest of social justice rather than qualification.
> 
> In other words, a black female by default, for no other reason than the optics of it.
> 
> Would the group tend to agree with me about that?


Latest ABCNEWS poll shows 76% of Americans do not support his choice based on race.
I think everyone sees how well that worked out for the VP spot.

So - no I don't believe the Senate will approve some low experienced leftist appointed because she is not white.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

hadit said:


> To look like America, the court would have to have several overweight rednecks as well as a tofu farter or two.


Would that be you?


----------



## hadit

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Would that be you?


I'm already represented on the court.


----------



## Dadoalex

Foolardi said:


> Lest of which the other way around.
> Because it's a way to make political hay.
> Create False and Unamerican narratives.
> The entire driven reason behind BLM.
> Or the absurd notions behind Voter Suppression.
> Like some sort of W.C.Fields vehicle.What he had to
> deal with.


Non-Responsive.
Try actually answering the question.


----------



## Slade3200

Delldude said:


> As I was saying......
> 
> Progressives criticize J. Michelle Childs, a potential Biden Supreme Court pick​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressives criticize J. Michelle Childs, a potential Biden Supreme Court pick


What were you trying to say?


----------



## beagle9

woodwork201 said:


> You stated, "Blacks can't even recognize the simple ramifications of Killing their own."  Many blacks do recognize it but you referred to them as Uncle Toms and Tomasinas.
> 
> When you make generalized statements about black people then you're showing your racism and that does not help the cause of trying to convince those who might listen to conservative ideas.
> 
> Edit to correct, it was Beagle who said uncle Toms and Tomasinas.  Thus tying you both to the same racist-sounding generalization, whether you meant to or not.
> 
> Generally, your posts show that you understand the facts and the problem but your racist tone and generalizations undercut the facts and the cause.


To clarify.... When I mentioned Uncle Tom and Tomasena's, it was in the context of certain Black's labeling other black's who don't play along with them as Uncle Tom and Tomasena's. Make sure you read something correctly before making assumptions that are incorrect. Thanks.


----------



## Delldude

Slade3200 said:


> What were you trying to say?


You seem to think the Scotus pick will be some rational Breyer type replacement.
This woman is......How'd it flush with the prog's?


----------



## Slade3200

Delldude said:


> You seem to think the Scotus pick will be some rational Breyer type replacement.
> This woman is......How'd it flush with the prog's?


I have no clue who the pick will be. I’ll judge it when I see it. My question to you was whether you thought it possible for a black women to have the qualifications for the job.


----------



## beagle9

Slade3200 said:


> I have no clue who the pick will be. I’ll judge it when I see it. My question to you was whether you thought it possible for a black women to have the qualifications for the job.


Heck I'll answer that one - Yes because skin color doesn't determine a person's intelligence or education. Now picking a person based on skin color first, and then qualifying her next for the job is big time wrong.


----------



## Slade3200

beagle9 said:


> Heck I'll answer that one - Yes because skin color doesn't determine a person's intelligence or education. Now picking a person based on skin color first, and then qualifying her next for the job is big time wrong.


I agree. Do you think they are making a pick based solely on skin color and not vetting qualifications?


----------



## Delldude

Slade3200 said:


> I have no clue who the pick will be. I’ll judge it when I see it. My question to you was whether you thought it possible for a black women to have the qualifications for the job.


There are seated black female judges now on the bench in the courts, local, state and federal....if they are not qualified, they shouldn't have been appointed or elected, wouldn't you think?


----------



## Slade3200

Delldude said:


> There are seated black female judges now on the bench in the courts, local, state and federal....if they are not qualified, they shouldn't have been appointed or elected, wouldn't you think?


You didn’t answer my question. To answer yours, I’d say both qualified and unqualified judges get appointed but for the most part they earn their spot


----------



## Delldude

Slade3200 said:


> You didn’t answer my question. To answer yours, I’d say both qualified and unqualified judges get appointed but for the most part they earn their spot


It's apparently obvious they already do.


----------



## Slade3200

Delldude said:


> It's apparently obvious they already do.


Ok so what’s your issue?


----------



## Delldude

Slade3200 said:


> Ok so what’s your issue?



No issue here.....what is yours?



Slade3200 said:


> Do you not think a black female can be found that has the character and experience to serve as SCOTUS?



Based upon identity politics, which is where we are at now, NO.

Experience and character do not matter in identity politics.


----------



## beagle9

Slade3200 said:


> I agree. Do you think they are making a pick based solely on skin color and not vetting qualifications?


Nope, but again - if they pick the person because of gender or color, and then look to qualifications, then they have done wrong. Biden spoke in these way's, so he has done wrong.

I actually heard a radio station today, and undoubtedly it was touting itself as an all black radio station because every commercial and advertisement was speaking with the word black in front of it. Now can you even imagine if the white's had something like that ? There would be fury and nashing of teeth like you've never seen before coming from a huge sector of black people, so why is it that all of a sudden after year's of the civil rights movement (mostly pertaining to color), does the black's think it ok to do what they would cry to the highest about if white's we're to do the same things ?????


----------



## Slade3200

beagle9 said:


> Nope, but again - if they pick the person because of gender or color, and then look to qualifications, then they have done wrong. Biden spoke in these way's, so he has done wrong.
> 
> I actually heard a radio station today, and undoubtedly it was touting itself as an all black radio station because every commercial and advertisement was speaking with the word black in front of it. Now can you even imagine if the white's had something like that ? There would be fury and nashing of teeth like you've never seen before coming from a huge sector of black people, so why is it that all of a sudden after year's of the civil rights movement (mostly pertaining to color), does the black's think it ok to do what they would cry to the highest about if white's we're to do the same things ?????


You’re saying Biden has done wrong yet he hasn’t even picked anybody. How do you think he decides which black woman to pick? They look at qualifications and do extensive vetting. The notion that that wouldn’t be done is rather absurd


----------



## Slade3200

beagle9 said:


> Nope, but again - if they pick the person because of gender or color, and then look to qualifications, then they have done wrong. Biden spoke in these way's, so he has done wrong.
> 
> I actually heard a radio station today, and undoubtedly it was touting itself as an all black radio station because every commercial and advertisement was speaking with the word black in front of it. Now can you even imagine if the white's had something like that ? There would be fury and nashing of teeth like you've never seen before coming from a huge sector of black people, so why is it that all of a sudden after year's of the civil rights movement (mostly pertaining to color), does the black's think it ok to do what they would cry to the highest about if white's we're to do the same things ?????


Is your question about if whites had an all White radio station for real?! You can’t be that clueless can you?! Have you any understanding of our nations history?


----------



## Slade3200

Delldude said:


> No issue here.....what is yours?
> 
> 
> 
> Based upon identity politics, which is where we are at now, NO.
> 
> Experience and character do not matter in identity politics.


Whoa man. You are all over the place. Maybe you should reread this thread because you sound completely lost.


----------



## beagle9

Slade3200 said:


> You’re saying Biden has done wrong yet he hasn’t even picked anybody. How do you think he decides which black woman to pick? They look at qualifications and do extensive vetting. The notion that that wouldn’t be done is rather absurd


Has nothing to do with him not releasing his list or coming up with his pick. It's him saying that he is going to nominate a person of color or black lady for the position, when in fact Skin Color has absolutely nothing to do with the vetting, the resume, and the hiring of a supreme court justice. This nation is multicultural, multi colored, and full of potential expert's who are highly qualified based on their educational background, their life experiences, and their character's. This color talk, and gender talk is outright ridiculous when it comes to placing a candidate in front of the people in order to help decide whose who in that can do the job right, and without bias on many important issues.


----------



## beagle9

Slade3200 said:


> Is your question about if whites had an all White radio station for real?! You can’t be that clueless can you?! Have you any understanding of our nations history?


Yes I do, and so you think that Black's are somehow incapable of doing what white's or any other colors for that matter can do or have done also, otherwise if they get a total pass at not being required to obey the laws put in place in the 60s concerning these types of things ?? Black's can be racist also, so you do know that right ?  Understanding these things are paramount to a color blind and equal meritocracy where work and character are rewarded, and not favoritism or idiocy being rewarded instead.


----------



## beagle9

Slade3200 said:


> Is your question about if whites had an all White radio station for real?! You can’t be that clueless can you?! Have you any understanding of our nations history?


We aren't living in the past now, so get over it.


----------



## Delldude

Slade3200 said:


> Whoa man. You are all over the place. Maybe you should reread this thread because you sound completely lost.


No more than you. Biden, chief protector of COTUS, early on says he's going after a black justice.....a female black justice.....whoa, what about all the other 'colored/colorless' people?
Civil Rights Act anyone?
A strong candidate is mentioned, with, most likely, an easy path to appointment, and , like I pointed out, she's not radical enough, a corporate judge......almost a white woman in prog eyes.


----------



## Slade3200

beagle9 said:


> Has nothing to do with him not releasing his list or coming up with his pick. It's him saying that he is going to nominate a person of color or black lady for the position, when in fact Skin Color has absolutely nothing to do with the vetting, the resume, and the hiring of a supreme court justice. This nation is multicultural, multi colored, and full of potential expert's who are highly qualified based on their educational background, their life experiences, and their character's. This color talk, and gender talk is outright ridiculous when it comes to placing a candidate in front of the people in order to help decide whose who in that can do the job right, and without bias on many important issues.


Didn’t we establish the other day that women have perspectives that men simply do not have. That Black people have perspectives that white people simply cannot have. Judges deal with social issues that affect minorities. Their qualifications will show their understanding of law and ability to make decisions. However Their perspectives and life experiences will affect the opinions that they write and the way they shape and mold our country. Do you really not understand this?


----------



## Slade3200

beagle9 said:


> Yes I do, and so you think that Black's are somehow incapable of doing what white's or any other colors for that matter can do or have done also, otherwise if they get a total pass at not being required to obey the laws put in place in the 60s concerning these types of things ?? Black's can be racist also, so you do know that right ?  Understanding these things are paramount to a color blind and equal meritocracy where work and character are rewarded, and not favoritism or idiocy being rewarded instead.


Three words should answer your questions. Historically oppressed minority. I just think about that for a minute


----------



## Slade3200

beagle9 said:


> We aren't living in the past now, so get over it.


, We are quite literally living in the past right now. By the time you read this it will be the past.


----------



## woodwork201

beagle9 said:


> To clarify.... When I mentioned Uncle Tom and Tomasena's, it was in the context of certain Black's labeling other black's who don't play along with them as Uncle Tom and Tomasena's. Make sure you read something correctly before making assumptions that are incorrect. Thanks.


Failure to communicate is generally on the side of the speaker.  But thanks for clearing it up.


----------



## Delldude

Slade3200 said:


> Didn’t we establish the other day that women have perspectives that men simply do not have. That Black people have perspectives that white people simply cannot have. Judges deal with social issues that affect minorities. Their qualifications will show their understanding of law and ability to make decisions. However Their perspectives and life experiences will affect the opinions that they write and the way they shape and mold our country. Do you really not understand this?


With what you said, how then can a black judge make decisions regarding a white person if they have no white perspectives and/or vice versa?


----------



## Slade3200

Delldude said:


> With what you said, how then can a black judge make decisions regarding a white person if they have no white perspectives and/or vice versa?


They can make a decision based on their perspective and understanding of the law. That’s all they can do. Right now most of the court has the white perspective. What it doesn’t have is a black female perspective which is Bidens whole point


----------



## Delldude

Slade3200 said:


> They can make a decision based on their perspective and understanding of the law. That’s all they can do. Right now most of the court has the white perspective. What it doesn’t have is a black female perspective which is Bidens whole point


I don't think it's Biden point.

Decisions regarding the law now can never be made without a black female perspective?
Lot of laws regarding civil rights and such of all Americans have been made without regard to having an identity politics perspective.
How did we ever get this far?


----------



## Slade3200

Delldude said:


> I don't think it's Biden point.
> 
> Decisions regarding the law now can never be made without a black female perspective?
> Lot of laws regarding civil rights and such of all Americans have been made without regard to having an identity politics perspective.
> How did we ever get this far?


Why are you playing the game of absolutes?! It’s a weak tactic. We are talking about SCOTUS, a court comprised of 9 people. One that has NEVER had a black female perspective. That’s the reality


----------



## Delldude

Slade3200 said:


> Why are you playing the game of absolutes?! It’s a weak tactic. We are talking about SCOTUS, a court comprised of 9 people. One that has NEVER had a black female perspective. That’s the reality


Whether or not it has had or will have a black female perspective or any other perspective should not be a prerequisite. 
Their job is to interpret the Constitution and rule on the law, no matter to race, creed or color..


----------



## Slade3200

Delldude said:


> Whether or not it has had or will have a black female perspective or any other perspective should not be a prerequisite.
> Their job is to interpret the Constitution and rule on the law, no matter to race, creed or color..


It’s not a prerequisite, it’s a preference and it happens to be the preference of the person in charge of making the next pick


----------



## beagle9

Slade3200 said:


> Didn’t we establish the other day that women have perspectives that men simply do not have. That Black people have perspectives that white people simply cannot have. Judges deal with social issues that affect minorities. Their qualifications will show their understanding of law and ability to make decisions. However Their perspectives and life experiences will affect the opinions that they write and the way they shape and mold our country. Do you really not understand this?


Seeking a biased judge based on life experiences surrounding a skin color is as ridiculous as it gets. No we didn't establish any consensus on the ideas that you have presented here. If we want a color blind society, then let's get serious in having exactly that.

If the list was being formulated properly, then it would be made up of those who have the character, skills, education, and experience as a judge. This list would have male and female members of our society, and it would have a variety of colors hopefully, but if not then so be it because skin color should never determine an appointment in any job title in America. The fear of not having representation because of color is a myth. We as a people are smart enough to represent all in America, and if racism or violations are found, then get rid of a person that violates the law's. Simple.


----------



## beagle9

Slade3200 said:


> It’s not a prerequisite, it’s a preference and it happens to be the preference of the person in charge of making the next pick


If I were president of all Americans, and I were to say openly that I want a white person in a job as a preference, then the black's who would be against such a thing being said, along with the leftist, and many democrat's would go slam out of their mind's on such a thing. It's time to start calling this bull crap out, because if it's not right for white people, then it's not right for black people either... Enough of the stupidity already, and let's move the nation forward with character, skill, and hard work.


----------



## Delldude

Slade3200 said:


> It’s not a prerequisite, it’s a preference and it happens to be the preference of the person in charge of making the next pick


Who is the person in charge, making this pick?

Biden??  

Or who has his ear? 

Obama on one side, Susan Rice on the other?

Preference, politically goes directly to identity politics......not content of character.


----------



## Slade3200

beagle9 said:


> Seeking a biased judge based on life experiences surrounding a skin color is as ridiculous as it gets. No we didn't establish any consensus on the ideas that you have presented here. If we want a color blind society, then let's get serious in having exactly that.
> 
> If the list was being formulated properly, then it would be made up of those who have the character, skills, education, and experience as a judge. This list would have male and female members of our society, and it would have a variety of colors hopefully, but if not then so be it because skin color should never determine an appointment in any job title in America. The fear of not having representation because of color is a myth. We as a people are smart enough to represent all in America, and if racism or violations are found, then get rid of a person that violates the law's. Simple.


Unfortunately we don’t have a color and gender blind society. There is a history of oppression and reminisce of that prejudice everywhere.


----------



## Slade3200

beagle9 said:


> If I were president of all Americans, and I were to say openly that I want a white person in a job as a preference, then the black's who would be against such a thing being said, along with the leftist, and many democrat's would go slam out of their mind's on such a thing. It's time to start calling this bull crap out, because if it's not right for white people, then it's not right for black people either... Enough of the stupidity already, and let's move the nation forward with character, skill, and hard work.


This is true because whites have always been the majority who have held power and oppressed others. It would be wildly inappropriate for you to call for a white only anything.


----------



## Slade3200

Delldude said:


> Who is the person in charge, making this pick?
> 
> Biden??
> 
> Or who has his ear?
> 
> Obama on one side, Susan Rice on the other?
> 
> Preference, politically goes directly to identity politics......not content of character.


Yes, Joe Biden, the president


----------



## Delldude

Slade3200 said:


> Unfortunately we don’t have a color and gender blind society. There is a history of oppression and reminisce of that prejudice everywhere.


Democrats were a bitch until they realized a political advantage.


----------



## Slade3200

Delldude said:


> Democrats were a bitch until they realized a political advantage.


Ok and…


----------



## Delldude

Slade3200 said:


> Yes, Joe Biden, the president


You can prove that?


----------



## Slade3200

Delldude said:


> You can prove that?


Yes, refer to the US constitution please


----------



## woodwork201

Slade3200 said:


> They can make a decision based on their perspective and understanding of the law. That’s all they can do. Right now most of the court has the white perspective. What it doesn’t have is a black female perspective which is Bidens whole point


At least 6 of the current 9 justices have clearly ruled based on their political wishes, knowing full well that their actions are in violation of the Constitution.  Probably with a bit of research I'd find 8 of the 9 have done so.  For most, throughout history, their rulings have had very little to do with their understanding of the law.


----------



## woodwork201

Slade3200 said:


> Why are you playing the game of absolutes?! It’s a weak tactic. We are talking about SCOTUS, a court comprised of 9 people. One that has NEVER had a black female perspective. That’s the reality


The only perspective that matters is an understanding of the Constitution.


----------



## Slade3200

woodwork201 said:


> The only perspective that matters is an understanding of the Constitution.


That’s your opinion


----------



## beagle9

Slade3200 said:


> Unfortunately we don’t have a color and gender blind society. There is a history of oppression and reminisce of that prejudice everywhere.


That's why we have law's that punish anyone found discriminating against a person of any color..... This is instead of us engaging in color preferences which is against the law if found to be active in society....... We should always be dealing in character, skill, and one's intent or actions found in society, and we should always be basing our preferences solely upon those very things in society, and not instead basing them upon one's color ever. 

This stuff has been settled by law, but for some reason we keep returning to the bull crap over and over again. It's redundant.


----------



## Slade3200

beagle9 said:


> That's why we have law's that punish anyone found discriminating against a person of any color, otherwise so instead of us engaging in color preferences over character, skill, and one's intent or actions found in society, we should be basing our preferences solely upon those very things only in society, and not instead basing them upon a color ever. This stuff has been settled by law, but for some reason we keep returning to the bull crap over and over again. It's redundant.


Yup, those laws were a good start


----------



## beagle9

Slade3200 said:


> This is true because whites have always been the majority who have held power and oppressed others. It would be wildly inappropriate for you to call for a white only anything.


Regardless of your feelings or the past, these things are settled by law, and it makes it wrong either way. So you thinking that black's should have special privileges based on skin color because of the past is ridiculous, just as well as unlawful in the spirit of the laws that were passed for everyone who is American in this supposed new color blind society, otherwise that uses character over a color now, and this should go for any color of an American.


----------



## beagle9

Slade3200 said:


> Yup, those laws were a good start


We just need to apply them for all Americans equally, and in the spirit of the law's. The law's aren't supposed to be preferential or of preference based upon a color, but were constructed to do away with preference being based upon a color, and instead we are to focus on one's character and action's in one's life.


----------



## Slade3200

beagle9 said:


> Regardless of your feelings or the past, these things are settled by law, and it makes it wrong either way. So you thinking that black's should have special privileges based on skin color because of the past is ridiculous, just as well as unlawful in the spirit of the laws that were passed for everyone who is American in this supposed new color blind society, otherwise that uses character over a color now, and this should go for any color of an American.


Laws are nice and all but there’s also a reality that actually exists in our society that needs to be understood and considered as we progress. Making new laws does not dismiss and excuse generations of oppression. That’s doesn’t get erased by some ink on paper and a vote.


----------



## JimH52

woodwork201 said:


> At least 6 of the current 9 justices have clearly ruled based on their political wishes, knowing full well that their actions are in violation of the Constitution.  Probably with a bit of research I'd find 8 of the 9 have done so.  For most, throughout history, their rulings have had very little to do with their understanding of the law.


The high court has been politicized for years.  The US is on a slippery slope careening to the death of our democracy.


----------



## Delldude

Slade3200 said:


> Yes, refer to the US constitution please


That doesn't say who has his ear. I have Obama on one and Suzie on the other.
I'll give you this on his possible Scotus pick. Last night he said he was looking for a candidate basically cast from the Breyer mold. If so, that would be good. Time will tell. I know the leftist radicals are doing their best to persuade him to go the activist route. That has already been shown in many of his actions over the past year. There is heavy influence.
Obama doesn't approve of the left radicalism, he said so sometime ago as a bad turn for the dems. With that said, Bidens statement on a Breyer type replacement tells me Obama has his ear.....biggly.


----------



## beagle9

Slade3200 said:


> Laws are nice and all but there’s also a reality that actually exists in our society that needs to be understood and considered as we progress. Making new laws does not dismiss and excuse generations of oppression. That’s doesn’t get erased by some ink on paper and a vote.


Sorry, but it's been settled, now the law is to be followed and not some emotional bull crap that is used as an excuse these days.


----------



## Slade3200

beagle9 said:


> Sorry, but it's been settled, now the law is to be followed and not some emotional bull crap that is used as an excuse these days.


It’s settled in your mind… let me ask. Are you a black person?


----------



## Slade3200

Delldude said:


> That doesn't say who has his ear. I have Obama on one and Suzie on the other.
> I'll give you this on his possible Scotus pick. Last night he said he was looking for a candidate basically cast from the Breyer mold. If so, that would be good. Time will tell. I know the leftist radicals are doing their best to persuade him to go the activist route. That has already been shown in many of his actions over the past year. There is heavy influence.
> Obama doesn't approve of the left radicalism, he said so sometime ago as a bad turn for the dems. With that said, Bidens statement on a Breyer type replacement tells me Obama has his ear.....biggly.


It doesn’t matter who has his ear. He can give anybody he wants his ear. The choice is his, that’s what the constitution says. I’m also hoping for the most moderate candidate. I’m not a fan of activists on either side


----------



## woodwork201

Slade3200 said:


> That’s your opinion



No; that's the Constitution - written in the Constitution.  It's called the Supremacy clause.


----------



## woodwork201

Slade3200 said:


> It doesn’t matter who has his ear. He can give anybody he wants his ear. The choice is his, that’s what the constitution says. I’m also hoping for the most moderate candidate. I’m not a fan of activists on either side



Anyone who believes Biden has anything to do with making this choice is in denial.  Biden will be told what to say in front of the cameras, told to sign what needs signed with no knowledge of what it is, and do what he's told.  This is how it's been from the day he was nominated, including when he followed orders to make Harris his VP nominee.


----------



## Slade3200

woodwork201 said:


> No; that's the Constitution - written in the Constitution.  It's called the Supremacy clause.


The supremacy cause is different then a judges perspective. That’s why we have judgements and dissents


----------



## Slade3200

woodwork201 said:


> Anyone who believes Biden has anything to do with making this choice is in denial.  Biden will be told what to say in front of the cameras, told to sign what needs signed with no knowledge of what it is, and do what he's told.  This is how it's been from the day he was nominated, including when he followed orders to make Harris his VP nominee.


Yawn. This narrative was tired and old when y’all pushed it during the campaign. Try another line


----------



## Turtlesoup

Seen a photo of Sotomyer yesterday---the senior lib on the court looks like something is seriously wrong with her (health wise)---her days may be numbered.


----------



## Delldude

Slade3200 said:


> It doesn’t matter who has his ear. He can give anybody he wants his ear. The choice is his, that’s what the constitution says. I’m also hoping for the most moderate candidate. I’m not a fan of activists on either side


It's pretty obvious he's being pandered to. Many of his actions/changing positions reflect it.


----------



## Slade3200

Delldude said:


> It's pretty obvious he's being pandered to. Many of his actions/changing positions reflect it.


Oh good. Glad you got that all figured out


----------



## Delldude

Slade3200 said:


> Oh good. Glad you got that all figured out


You actually think the mental midget isn't being prodded?


----------



## Slade3200

Delldude said:


> You actually think the mental midget isn't being prodded?


I don’t waste energy in being presumptuous about things like that. It’s a meaningless partisan talking point that y’all have been using since the campaign. You sound just as retarded as the left sounded when they psychoanalyzed Trump. Congrats


----------



## Delldude

Slade3200 said:


> I don’t waste energy in being presumptuous about things like that. It’s a meaningless partisan talking point that y’all have been using since the campaign. You sound just as retarded as the left sounded when they psychoanalyzed Trump. Congrats


It's a reality in front of the camera....or do your eyes glass over every time stutters incoherently?


----------



## Slade3200

Delldude said:


> It's a reality in front of the camera....or do your eyes glass over every time stutters incoherently?


If that’s how you want to picture me then that’s just fine. Joe is old and he stutters and gaffs a bunch. It is what it is. I don’t watch many of his speeches. I was hoping he would beat Trump and make politics boring again. That’s exactly what he did. Now let’s get back to real life


----------



## beagle9

Slade3200 said:


> If that’s how you want to picture me then that’s just fine. Joe is old and he stutters and gaffs a bunch. It is what it is. I don’t watch many of his speeches. I was hoping he would beat Trump and make politics boring again. That’s exactly what he did. Now let’s get back to real life


Wow...  Kidding me right ? So the man can literally destroy everything around you, and you would just cover your eyes and plug your ears ? What, maybe watch another episode of dragnet, Hawaii 5.0, Gilligan's island ? lol


----------



## Delldude

Slade3200 said:


> If that’s how you want to picture me then that’s just fine. Joe is old and he stutters and gaffs a bunch. It is what it is. I don’t watch many of his speeches. I was hoping he would beat Trump and make politics boring again. That’s exactly what he did. Now let’s get back to real life


Real life is not what you envision.
Reality is all around you, yet you refuse to acknowledge it.
You remind me of Lot's wife.


----------

