Sign in to follow this  
Sean

SCOTUS pick today

Recommended Posts

 

 

Do you really think that the "birthers" were racists because they were in opposition to a Presidential candidate who happened to be black, or is this merely something else to fling at people who disagree w/our President's approach to most things?

Yes, the Birthers were racists.

 

 

So you suggest that the only reason that people wanted proof of his birth certificate is because he is black? You support my earlier point by trying to dismiss criticism/questions by suggesting that they were leveled solely because of race. IMHO - this is just as bad as dumbass Crackers derisively referring to any black man as "boy".

 

Thanks.

 

It's all about the dog whistles. Nothing but a way to point out that something about the guy isn't quite the same as everyone else.... At least Trump has the balls to come out and say that he wants to treat entire groups differently, without using code words. Name another Presidential candidate or President who was asked to provide his Birth Certificate to prove he was born in the US. I can't, at least not until people started asking for Tex Cruz' certificate, mostly to poke fun at the Birthers.

 

How many of our local Birthers and others who found Obama's declared nationality to be an interesting question have said a word about Cruz's place of birth? Both had mothers who were US citizens, and it was well known that Obama was born in Hawaii, while Cruz was indisputably born in Canada. Why the difference in treatment?

 

None of us likes to see racism in action, but by remaining silent about it, we allow it to persist. That is exactly the Cancer which is eating the GOP apart right now, because we allowed cowards to hide behind plausible deniability and code words. Trump removed that plausible deniability, and demonstrated that somewhere between 30 and 40% of the GOP primary voters kinda prefer someone who pledges to treat large groups of people differently on the basis of how they choose to worship, etc.

 

As to the 'Boy" dig, look no further than Simple Jack and his "O-Boy" moniker. I never knew he was a racist until Obama got into office, but he has certainly <ahem> shown his colors....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

"They are picking on me just because I am black, sort of" (Likely BO & Eric Holder quotes)

 

"Boy"? A boy sent to do a man's job, even if BO was white.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Do you really think that the "birthers" were racists because they were in opposition to a Presidential candidate who happened to be black, or is this merely something else to fling at people who disagree w/our President's approach to most things?

Yes, the Birthers were racists.

 

 

So you suggest that the only reason that people wanted proof of his birth certificate is because he is black? You support my earlier point by trying to dismiss criticism/questions by suggesting that they were leveled solely because of race. IMHO - this is just as bad as dumbass Crackers derisively referring to any black man as "boy".

 

Thanks.

 

It's all about the dog whistles. Nothing but a way to point out that something about the guy isn't quite the same as everyone else.... At least Trump has the balls to come out and say that he wants to treat entire groups differently, without using code words. Name another Presidential candidate or President who was asked to provide his Birth Certificate to prove he was born in the US. I can't, at least not until people started asking for Tex Cruz' certificate, mostly to poke fun at the Birthers.

 

How many of our local Birthers and others who found Obama's declared nationality to be an interesting question have said a word about Cruz's place of birth? Both had mothers who were US citizens, and it was well known that Obama was born in Hawaii, while Cruz was indisputably born in Canada. Why the difference in treatment?

 

None of us likes to see racism in action, but by remaining silent about it, we allow it to persist. That is exactly the Cancer which is eating the GOP apart right now, because we allowed cowards to hide behind plausible deniability and code words. Trump removed that plausible deniability, and demonstrated that somewhere between 30 and 40% of the GOP primary voters kinda prefer someone who pledges to treat large groups of people differently on the basis of how they choose to worship, etc.

 

As to the 'Boy" dig, look no further than Simple Jack and his "O-Boy" moniker. I never knew he was a racist until Obama got into office, but he has certainly <ahem> shown his colors....

 

 

if you take this kinda stupid BS at face value - I could understand your point. I'd suspect that it's more probably an attempt for folks whose sole purpose is to get a rise out of people to do more of that. Are there idiot racists? Yeah - I'd be dumb to suggest otherwise.

 

Is everyone who disagrees with the President racist? I honestly don't think most are, even though it seems to be popular for his proponents to claim such as a dismissal of the basis for those disagreements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Do you really think that the "birthers" were racists because they were in opposition to a Presidential candidate who happened to be black, or is this merely something else to fling at people who disagree w/our President's approach to most things?

Yes, the Birthers were racists.

 

 

So you suggest that the only reason that people wanted proof of his birth certificate is because he is black? You support my earlier point by trying to dismiss criticism/questions by suggesting that they were leveled solely because of race. IMHO - this is just as bad as dumbass Crackers derisively referring to any black man as "boy".

 

Thanks.

 

It's all about the dog whistles. Nothing but a way to point out that something about the guy isn't quite the same as everyone else.... At least Trump has the balls to come out and say that he wants to treat entire groups differently, without using code words. Name another Presidential candidate or President who was asked to provide his Birth Certificate to prove he was born in the US. I can't, at least not until people started asking for Tex Cruz' certificate, mostly to poke fun at the Birthers.

 

How many of our local Birthers and others who found Obama's declared nationality to be an interesting question have said a word about Cruz's place of birth? Both had mothers who were US citizens, and it was well known that Obama was born in Hawaii, while Cruz was indisputably born in Canada. Why the difference in treatment?

 

None of us likes to see racism in action, but by remaining silent about it, we allow it to persist. That is exactly the Cancer which is eating the GOP apart right now, because we allowed cowards to hide behind plausible deniability and code words. Trump removed that plausible deniability, and demonstrated that somewhere between 30 and 40% of the GOP primary voters kinda prefer someone who pledges to treat large groups of people differently on the basis of how they choose to worship, etc.

 

As to the 'Boy" dig, look no further than Simple Jack and his "O-Boy" moniker. I never knew he was a racist until Obama got into office, but he has certainly <ahem> shown his colors....

 

 

if you take this kinda stupid BS at face value - I could understand your point. I'd suspect that it's more probably an attempt for folks whose sole purpose is to get a rise out of people to do more of that. Are there idiot racists? Yeah - I'd be dumb to suggest otherwise.

 

Is everyone who disagrees with the President racist? I honestly don't think most are, even though it seems to be popular for his proponents to claim such as a dismissal of the basis for those disagreements.

 

I disagree with most Presidents most of the time, which doesn't make me a racist. Our current and our last President exploded our national debt in a way I find abhorrent. I don't object to Obama's share of that because of his skin color any more than I object to Bush's for his skin color. It is just a policy disagreement, for me.

 

But the birther stuff was breaking new ground. No other candidate or President ever had to answer such questions, Democrat or Republican. And the people who found that stuff interesting a few years back have little interest in it wrt Cruz. I mostly put the real racist idiots on ignore, and mock a couple, but after watching Mr. Trump start pulling apart the fabric of our society, I am beginning to think that remaining silent about it is as dangerous as using code words to conceal it. I'm starting to think that it is our responsibility to leave the place better than we found it. We certainly can't say that right now, in terms of society. That isn't solely because of racial divisions. I think that racial divisions are being exploited to keep the masses divided and pitted against one another, instead of focusing on the people really responsible for killing the middle class.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

I think anyone who opposes BO's actions & policies are automatically racists. That is why the

Dems put him up, certainly not because of his experience or qualifications. Smart folks, those Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But the birther stuff was breaking new ground. No other candidate or President ever had to answer such questions, Democrat or Republican. And the people who found that stuff interesting a few years back have little interest in it wrt Cruz. I mostly put the real racist idiots on ignore, and mock a couple, but after watching Mr. Trump start pulling apart the fabric of our society, I am beginning to think that remaining silent about it is as dangerous as using code words to conceal it. I'm starting to think that it is our responsibility to leave the place better than we found it. We certainly can't say that right now, in terms of society. That isn't solely because of racial divisions. I think that racial divisions are being exploited to keep the masses divided and pitted against one another, instead of focusing on the people really responsible for killing the middle class.

 

 

I think the 'birther' stuff was silly but it was an inevitable blow back to the 'Bush-Stole-The-Election' narrative from 2000. You invalidate our president, we invalidate yours. There are people who STILL cling to both perspectives, and believe in Trilateral commissions to boot.

 

And yes, it's been pretty ironic that both Cruz and, of course McCain, both had 'questionable' status relative to the right to run. The facts have kind of born out the disingenuousness of some arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<SNIP>

I disagree with most Presidents most of the time, which doesn't make me a racist. Our current and our last President exploded our national debt in a way I find abhorrent. I don't object to Obama's share of that because of his skin color any more than I object to Bush's for his skin color. It is just a policy disagreement, for me.

 

But the birther stuff was breaking new ground. No other candidate or President ever had to answer such questions, Democrat or Republican. And the people who found that stuff interesting a few years back have little interest in it wrt Cruz. I mostly put the real racist idiots on ignore, and mock a couple, but after watching Mr. Trump start pulling apart the fabric of our society, I am beginning to think that remaining silent about it is as dangerous as using code words to conceal it. I'm starting to think that it is our responsibility to leave the place better than we found it. We certainly can't say that right now, in terms of society. That isn't solely because of racial divisions. I think that racial divisions are being exploited to keep the masses divided and pitted against one another, instead of focusing on the people really responsible for killing the middle class.

 

 

On these last points especially, we are in vehement agreement. Especially w/r/t it being OUR responsibility, as individuals, to consistently identify, confront and correct inappropriate behaviors. We don't need to call the cops because someone's being a dick - TELL him he's being a dick and why. He'll either find out when others tell him the same thing that he really is being a dick, and needs to change, or he'll be ostracized because he is a dick.

 

When the collective we stop accepting unacceptable behavior, that's when it will change. I think that people fear social stigmatization more than they fear engagements with law enforcement, so why NOT use that as a means to encourage behavioral improvements?

 

The hard part will be being reasonable and rational in deciding the description of unacceptable behavior, while still protecting an individual's right to make their own decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard good commentary on the way to work this morning. Basically, audio snippets of role reversal of Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell at end of Bush and Obama terms and nominees. Both saying the opposite in the past of what they are now saying. You could literally just switch the two of them from the last prez to the current.

 

The radio host then goes on to say this kinda shit is why we have trump and sanders as shakeup candidates, because the public is sick of the same ol bs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

He got things he didn't want too, such as people like you who have been driven to being reactionary, mindlessly fighting him on everything. It was too early for a black President. Still too many old coots like you and Mitch who can't imagine or tolerate blacks in anything other than helot status. You can not accept the thought that there might be a black somewhere who is smarter than one of the Master Race. This is how Trump gets so much traction from questioning birth certificates and college records. There is something happening here, and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones....

 

That's pure unmitigated bullshit, Mark, and you know it. This attitude is quite disingenuous, and IMHO largely responsible for fomenting the increased racial tensions we've experienced during Obama's presidency.

 

 

I'm not bullshitting. Racism is real in America and did not disappear when Obama was elected. A small energized minority can wield enormous influence in our government if they are willing to sacrifice a lot of time and Free $peach and citing the increase of racial tensions during Obama's presidency is as much evidence that it isn't bullshit as otherwise. Racial tensions always have and always will get worse with each advance of blacks in America, and Obama's two elections are Bob Beamon, skip-a-century stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

He got things he didn't want too, such as people like you who have been driven to being reactionary, mindlessly fighting him on everything. It was too early for a black President. Still too many old coots like you and Mitch who can't imagine or tolerate blacks in anything other than helot status. You can not accept the thought that there might be a black somewhere who is smarter than one of the Master Race. This is how Trump gets so much traction from questioning birth certificates and college records. There is something happening here, and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones....

That's pure unmitigated bullshit, Mark, and you know it. This attitude is quite disingenuous, and IMHO largely responsible for fomenting the increased racial tensions we've experienced during Obama's presidency.

 

The whole Birther episode comes to mind.

 

 

Do you really think that the "birthers" were racists because they were in opposition to a Presidential candidate who happened to be black, or is this merely something else to fling at people who disagree w/our President's approach to most things?

 

The man was a sitting senator.

 

The previous sitting senator who had a birth location question, McCain, actually received a vote of the senate that he was eligible to run. Why not the same for the other guy? Who happened to win?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

envigorate is not a correct English lemma for invigorate. Now. It was correct pre-1600.

Not sure if Philly gets grandfathered back that far.

 

Arguably, envigorate is more better although less correctfully.

It's the sort of thing Churchill might have made a point of saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

He got things he didn't want too, such as people like you who have been driven to being reactionary, mindlessly fighting him on everything. It was too early for a black President. Still too many old coots like you and Mitch who can't imagine or tolerate blacks in anything other than helot status. You can not accept the thought that there might be a black somewhere who is smarter than one of the Master Race. This is how Trump gets so much traction from questioning birth certificates and college records. There is something happening here, and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones....

 

That's pure unmitigated bullshit, Mark, and you know it. This attitude is quite disingenuous, and IMHO largely responsible for fomenting the increased racial tensions we've experienced during Obama's presidency.

 

 

I'm not bullshitting. Racism is real in America and did not disappear when Obama was elected. A small energized minority can wield enormous influence in our government if they are willing to sacrifice a lot of time and Free $peach and citing the increase of racial tensions during Obama's presidency is as much evidence that it isn't bullshit as otherwise. Racial tensions always have and always will get worse with each advance of blacks in America, and Obama's two elections are Bob Beamon, skip-a-century stuff.

 

 

Racial tensions? Yeah - I'll buy that, and they've been exacerbated not only by cracker assholes but by comments like those in your prior post. It's those comments that I'm calling bullshit on.

 

" . It was too early for a black President.Still too many old coots like you and Mitch who can't imagine or tolerate blacks in anything other than helot status. You can not accept the thought that there might be a black somewhere who is smarter than one of the Master Race. "

 

That's a pretty broad brush you're using to sling around the tar for the feathers. Shit like this is dumping gasoline on the ground and just hoping that one of your sparks set it off. Why would you seek to create a conflagration?

 

I emphatically disagree with your premise - why don't you tell me why I shouldn't?

 

 


envigorate is not a correct English lemma for invigorate. Now. It was correct pre-1600.

Not sure if Philly gets grandfathered back that far.

 

Arguably, envigorate is more better although less correctfully.

It's the sort of thing Churchill might have made a point of saying.

 

lemma? Even with an english teacher wife, I had to look that up. Thanks for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

He got things he didn't want too, such as people like you who have been driven to being reactionary, mindlessly fighting him on everything. It was too early for a black President. Still too many old coots like you and Mitch who can't imagine or tolerate blacks in anything other than helot status. You can not accept the thought that there might be a black somewhere who is smarter than one of the Master Race. This is how Trump gets so much traction from questioning birth certificates and college records. There is something happening here, and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones....

 

That's pure unmitigated bullshit, Mark, and you know it. This attitude is quite disingenuous, and IMHO largely responsible for fomenting the increased racial tensions we've experienced during Obama's presidency.

 

 

I'm not bullshitting. Racism is real in America and did not disappear when Obama was elected. A small energized minority can wield enormous influence in our government if they are willing to sacrifice a lot of time and Free $peach and citing the increase of racial tensions during Obama's presidency is as much evidence that it isn't bullshit as otherwise. Racial tensions always have and always will get worse with each advance of blacks in America, and Obama's two elections are Bob Beamon, skip-a-century stuff.

 

 

Racial tensions? Yeah - I'll buy that, and they've been exacerbated not only by cracker assholes but by comments like those in your prior post. It's those comments that I'm calling bullshit on.

 

" . It was too early for a black President.Still too many old coots like you and Mitch who can't imagine or tolerate blacks in anything other than helot status. You can not accept the thought that there might be a black somewhere who is smarter than one of the Master Race. "

 

That's a pretty broad brush you're using to sling around the tar for the feathers. Shit like this is dumping gasoline on the ground and just hoping that one of your sparks set it off. Why would you seek to create a conflagration?

 

I emphatically disagree with your premise - why don't you tell me why I shouldn't?

 

 

envigorate is not a correct English lemma for invigorate. Now. It was correct pre-1600.

Not sure if Philly gets grandfathered back that far.

 

Arguably, envigorate is more better although less correctfully.

It's the sort of thing Churchill might have made a point of saying.

 

lemma? Even with an english teacher wife, I had to look that up. Thanks for that.

 

 

Are you unaware of the openly racist statements Dabby has made here? The brush I used is only as broad as he and his elk. Seems to me the brush you assert I use is the one you are wielding now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

He got things he didn't want too, such as people like you who have been driven to being reactionary, mindlessly fighting him on everything. It was too early for a black President. Still too many old coots like you and Mitch who can't imagine or tolerate blacks in anything other than helot status. You can not accept the thought that there might be a black somewhere who is smarter than one of the Master Race. This is how Trump gets so much traction from questioning birth certificates and college records. There is something happening here, and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones....

 

That's pure unmitigated bullshit, Mark, and you know it. This attitude is quite disingenuous, and IMHO largely responsible for fomenting the increased racial tensions we've experienced during Obama's presidency.

 

 

I'm not bullshitting. Racism is real in America and did not disappear when Obama was elected. A small energized minority can wield enormous influence in our government if they are willing to sacrifice a lot of time and Free $peach and citing the increase of racial tensions during Obama's presidency is as much evidence that it isn't bullshit as otherwise. Racial tensions always have and always will get worse with each advance of blacks in America, and Obama's two elections are Bob Beamon, skip-a-century stuff.

 

 

Racial tensions? Yeah - I'll buy that, and they've been exacerbated not only by cracker assholes but by comments like those in your prior post. It's those comments that I'm calling bullshit on.

 

" . It was too early for a black President.Still too many old coots like you and Mitch who can't imagine or tolerate blacks in anything other than helot status. You can not accept the thought that there might be a black somewhere who is smarter than one of the Master Race. "

 

That's a pretty broad brush you're using to sling around the tar for the feathers. Shit like this is dumping gasoline on the ground and just hoping that one of your sparks set it off. Why would you seek to create a conflagration?

 

I emphatically disagree with your premise - why don't you tell me why I shouldn't?

 

Are you unaware of the openly racist statements Dabby has made here? The brush I used is only as broad as he and his elk. Seems to me the brush you assert I use is the one you are wielding now.

 

 

Sorry Mark - responding directly to your comments, YOUR words, isn't a broad brush. I disagree with President Obama's agenda in almost every regard. My disagreement stems from my thought that our government has intruded too far into our daily lives, and nothing that he's done has reduced the level of that intrusion. My opposition has nothing to do with the president's race, and every thing to do with what he's proposed, and the way that several of those propositions have been implemented completely disregarding the opposite perspective.

 

I am not unaware of Dab's comments, but, I think they are intended more to elicit a reaction from defenders of everything Obama than they are an indication of overt racism. I could very well be wrong on that point, but, I don't think that I am.

 

I accept Sol's point of not letting ignorant, inflammatory rhetoric go unchecked. If we accept that as a desirable approach, then intellectual integrity should have us addressing it no matter who the object and offender happen to be. A black guy's being a prick? Then ya call him a prick because he's being a prick, not 'cause he's black. A white guy's being a prick? same thing - it's the prickish behavior that's being called, and the race of the prick doesn't excuse it.

 

Most of Obama's defenders, you included, seem to act as though that kind of behavior only goes one way, with the black man as the object - and as long as that thought exists, then those who hold it are perpetuating the problems as much as the guy who goes around using racial epithets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

"I am not unaware of Dab's comments, but, I think they are intended more to elicit a reaction from defenders of everything Obama than they are an indication of overt racism. I could very well be wrong on that point, but, I don't think that I am. "

 

My comments relate to my opposition of BO's actions & policies, regardless of his race. As mentioned, I think

​the Dems put him up because he is half black, therefor being immune to criticism, rather than his qualifications.

 

"Reactions"? People have to allow their chains to be pulled. It appears some are anxious to have their chains

pulled so they can be indignant about someone else having differing opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Racial tensions? Yeah - I'll buy that, and they've been exacerbated not only by cracker assholes but by comments like those in your prior post. It's those comments that I'm calling bullshit on.

 

" . It was too early for a black President.Still too many old coots like you and Mitch who can't imagine or tolerate blacks in anything other than helot status. You can not accept the thought that there might be a black somewhere who is smarter than one of the Master Race. "

 

That's a pretty broad brush you're using to sling around the tar for the feathers. Shit like this is dumping gasoline on the ground and just hoping that one of your sparks set it off. Why would you seek to create a conflagration?

 

I emphatically disagree with your premise - why don't you tell me why I shouldn't?

Are you unaware of the openly racist statements Dabby has made here? The brush I used is only as broad as he and his elk. Seems to me the brush you assert I use is the one you are wielding now.

 

Sorry Mark - responding directly to your comments, YOUR words, isn't a broad brush. I disagree with President Obama's agenda in almost every regard. My disagreement stems from my thought that our government has intruded too far into our daily lives, and nothing that he's done has reduced the level of that intrusion. My opposition has nothing to do with the president's race, and every thing to do with what he's proposed, and the way that several of those propositions have been implemented completely disregarding the opposite perspective.

 

I am not unaware of Dab's comments, but, I think they are intended more to elicit a reaction from defenders of everything Obama than they are an indication of overt racism. I could very well be wrong on that point, but, I don't think that I am.

 

I accept Sol's point of not letting ignorant, inflammatory rhetoric go unchecked. If we accept that as a desirable approach, then intellectual integrity should have us addressing it no matter who the object and offender happen to be. A black guy's being a prick? Then ya call him a prick because he's being a prick, not 'cause he's black. A white guy's being a prick? same thing - it's the prickish behavior that's being called, and the race of the prick doesn't excuse it.

 

Most of Obama's defenders, you included, seem to act as though that kind of behavior only goes one way, with the black man as the object - and as long as that thought exists, then those who hold it are perpetuating the problems as much as the guy who goes around using racial epithets.

 

 

I only needle the obvious racists here on that. I understand the unfairness of Obama's blackness, and that sometimes the R's aren't much shrillerl with him than they were on Bill Clinton. I believe it stems from a sense of entitlement to power acquired during the Reagan era, the D's lost their damn minds during that era for precisely the same reason. They had been on top for a looonggg time, and were frequently hysterical too. It can be difficult to know exactly what is driving a person 's ODS and I try to give the benefit of the doubt, waiting for racist dog whistles to appear before making the call. However being a Party Animal and being a white supremacist are not mutually exclusive. Some are clearly both here, and some I believe only become white supremacists when Obama was elected.

 

Some of these folks refuse to allow any discussion on race. This is primarily done by Obama's detractors by labeling any mention of racism racism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Demo who voted for him twice, I did so the first time because I found him well spoken, intelligent, solid under pressure, opposed to the plans of the previous administration, and more charismatic by far than Hillary. I was surprised the nation voted in such numbers for a black man, but was glad that they did so for what I felt were similar feelings of competence. I think any racial benefit which might be derived from his parentage was more than cancelled by the same liability. He also had very smart folks running his campaign, and good voter modeling and analysis.

Dabs, I think you're creating a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation here. He won because, overall, he was the best candidate. Hillary would've been the first woman, so your charge would need just slightly modification to fit that outcome. In fact, there was no conspiracy, just the vagaries of the voting public and a better campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<SNIP>

I only needle the obvious racists here on that. I understand the unfairness of Obama's blackness, and that sometimes the R's are hardly any more shrill with him than they were on Bill Clinton. I believe it stems from a sense of entitlement to power acquired during the Reagan era, the D's lost their damn minds during that era for precisely the same reason. They had been on top for a looonggg time, and were downright silly at times.

 

 

Some folks refuse to allow any discussion on race. This is primarily done by Obama's detractors by labeling any mention of racism racism.

 

 

I'm glad you're finally seeing the light. Maybe we oughta go watch blazing saddles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

As a Demo who voted for him twice, I did so the first time because I found him well spoken, intelligent, solid under pressure, opposed to the plans of the previous administration, and more charismatic by far than Hillary. I was surprised the nation voted in such numbers for a black man, but was glad that they did so for what I felt were similar feelings of competence. I think any racial benefit which might be derived from his parentage was more than cancelled by the same liability. He also had very smart folks running his campaign, and good voter modeling and analysis.

 

Dabs, I think you're creating a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation here. He won because, overall, he was the best candidate. Hillary would've been the first woman, so your charge would need just slightly modification to fit that outcome. In fact, there was no conspiracy, just the vagaries of the voting public and a better campaign.

 

Not sure the Dems putting up BO was a conspiracy, perhaps just good tactics? Yes, he did get elected, twice.

"Things happen" "Liability"? If he is as good as you describe, being black should not be a liability.

"Red line in the sand"? Maybe Hillary could have done it better?

 

So, now it is Hillary's turn. "You are criticizing her just because she is a woman" (Likely Dem quote)

 

Same song, different reason.

 

Interesting to note that under BO the Dems lost both the House & Senate. If he is good as you describe,

one might think the Dems would have increased their strength, not having it reduced?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lemma? Even with an english teacher wife, I had to look that up. Thanks for that.

 

It's not like I know this stuff cold but I just hella love looking this stuff up.

I used to read William Safire's columns back in the day, him of the nattering nabobs of negativism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

<SNIP>

I only needle the obvious racists here on that. I understand the unfairness of Obama's blackness, and that sometimes the R's are hardly any more shrill with him than they were on Bill Clinton. I believe it stems from a sense of entitlement to power acquired during the Reagan era, the D's lost their damn minds during that era for precisely the same reason. They had been on top for a looonggg time, and were downright silly at times.

 

 

Some folks refuse to allow any discussion on race. This is primarily done by Obama's detractors by labeling any mention of racism racism.

 

 

I'm glad you're finally seeing the light. Maybe we oughta go watch blazing saddles?

 

 

Do you really believe that after Obama beat Mongo Mitch wouldn't filibuster the building of a fake Rock Ridge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IL Senator Mark Kirk is the first to officially break rank with the Republican leadership and say he will meet with Garland.

 

Not only is Kirk meeting with Garland on Tuesday, he is calling out his fellow senators for not doing their job and meeting with Garland. Kirk, not coincidentally, faces a difficult election in November and doesn't want to appear to be an obstructionist to the moderate Illinois electorate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IL Senator Mark Kirk is the first to officially break rank with the Republican leadership and say he will meet with Garland.

 

Not only is Kirk meeting with Garland on Tuesday, he is calling out his fellow senators for not doing their job and meeting with Garland. Kirk, not coincidentally, faces a difficult election in November and doesn't want to appear to be an obstructionist to the moderate Illinois electorate.

He clearly does not understand who the enemy is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

IL Senator Mark Kirk is the first to officially break rank with the Republican leadership and say he will meet with Garland.

Not only is Kirk meeting with Garland on Tuesday, he is calling out his fellow senators for not doing their job and meeting with Garland. Kirk, not coincidentally, faces a difficult election in November and doesn't want to appear to be an obstructionist to the moderate Illinois electorate.

 

He clearly does not understand who the enemy is.

I am embarrassed for him on account of his ignorance and cowardness. Selling out his party and country to protect his job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

IL Senator Mark Kirk is the first to officially break rank with the Republican leadership and say he will meet with Garland.

Not only is Kirk meeting with Garland on Tuesday, he is calling out his fellow senators for not doing their job and meeting with Garland. Kirk, not coincidentally, faces a difficult election in November and doesn't want to appear to be an obstructionist to the moderate Illinois electorate.

He clearly does not understand who the enemy is.
I am embarrassed for him on account of his ignorance and cowardness. Selling out his party and country to protect his job.

 

Selling out his party? Debatable. Many in the GOP are embarrassed by this obstruction.

 

Selling out his country? Not a justifiable charge. More like following Constitutional mandate and Senate tradition.

 

Also, there is nothing being sold.

 

So, pretty much a waste of a post. Thanks for the easy targets:)

 

Pull!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

IL Senator Mark Kirk is the first to officially break rank with the Republican leadership and say he will meet with Garland.

Not only is Kirk meeting with Garland on Tuesday, he is calling out his fellow senators for not doing their job and meeting with Garland. Kirk, not coincidentally, faces a difficult election in November and doesn't want to appear to be an obstructionist to the moderate Illinois electorate.

 

He clearly does not understand who the enemy is.
I am embarrassed for him on account of his ignorance and cowardness. Selling out his party and country to protect his job.

Selling out his party? Debatable. Many in the GOP are embarrassed by this obstruction.

 

Selling out his country? Not a justifiable charge. More like following Constitutional mandate and Senate tradition.

 

Also, there is nothing being sold.

 

So, pretty much a waste of a post. Thanks for the easy targets:)

 

Pull!

You don't miss a thing do you...

 

(that is sarcasm too)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting concept -

 

Obama can appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court if the Senate does nothing

 

It is altogether proper to view a decision by the Senate not to act as a waiver of its right to provide advice and consent. A waiver is an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. As the Supreme Court has said,  No procedural principle is more familiar to this Court than that a constitutional right, or a right of any other sort, may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.' "

 

It is in full accord with traditional notions of waiver to say that the Senate, having been given a reasonable opportunity to provide advice and consent to the president with respect to the nomination of Garland, and having failed to do so, can fairly be deemed to have waived its right.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-can-appoint-merrick-garland-to-the-supreme-court-if-the-senate-does-nothing/2016/04/08/4a696700-fcf1-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting concept -

 

Obama can appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court if the Senate does nothing

 

It is altogether proper to view a decision by the Senate not to act as a waiver of its right to provide advice and consent. A waiver is an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. As the Supreme Court has said,  No procedural principle is more familiar to this Court than that a constitutional right, or a right of any other sort, may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.' "

 

It is in full accord with traditional notions of waiver to say that the Senate, having been given a reasonable opportunity to provide advice and consent to the president with respect to the nomination of Garland, and having failed to do so, can fairly be deemed to have waived its right.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-can-appoint-merrick-garland-to-the-supreme-court-if-the-senate-does-nothing/2016/04/08/4a696700-fcf1-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story.html

That would be great!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting concept -

 

Obama can appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court if the Senate does nothing

 

It is altogether proper to view a decision by the Senate not to act as a waiver of its right to provide advice and consent. A waiver is an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. As the Supreme Court has said,  No procedural principle is more familiar to this Court than that a constitutional right, or a right of any other sort, may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.' "

 

It is in full accord with traditional notions of waiver to say that the Senate, having been given a reasonable opportunity to provide advice and consent to the president with respect to the nomination of Garland, and having failed to do so, can fairly be deemed to have waived its right.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-can-appoint-merrick-garland-to-the-supreme-court-if-the-senate-does-nothing/2016/04/08/4a696700-fcf1-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story.html

 

 

Here’s how that would work. The president has nominated Garland and submitted his nomination to the Senate. The president should advise the Senate that he will deem its failure to act by a specified reasonable date in the future to constitute a deliberate waiver of its right to give advice and consent.

So the President simply tells the Senate how he thinks they should exercise their powers and if they don't do it, he has defined their powers for them?

 

I see a tiny separation of powers problem. If you don't see it, try to imagine a Republican President and a recalcitrant Dem Senate and I'm sure it will come to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Interesting concept -

 

Obama can appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court if the Senate does nothing

 

It is altogether proper to view a decision by the Senate not to act as a waiver of its right to provide advice and consent. A waiver is an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. As the Supreme Court has said,  No procedural principle is more familiar to this Court than that a constitutional right, or a right of any other sort, may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.' "

 

It is in full accord with traditional notions of waiver to say that the Senate, having been given a reasonable opportunity to provide advice and consent to the president with respect to the nomination of Garland, and having failed to do so, can fairly be deemed to have waived its right.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-can-appoint-merrick-garland-to-the-supreme-court-if-the-senate-does-nothing/2016/04/08/4a696700-fcf1-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story.html

 

Here’s how that would work. The president has nominated Garland and submitted his nomination to the Senate. The president should advise the Senate that he will deem its failure to act by a specified reasonable date in the future to constitute a deliberate waiver of its right to give advice and consent.

So the President simply tells the Senate how he thinks they should exercise their powers and if they don't do it, he has defined their powers for them?

 

I see a tiny separation of powers problem. If you don't see it, try to imagine a Republican President and a recalcitrant Dem Senate and I'm sure it will come to you.

 

Nope. The article does not discuss the HOW of the Senate's exercise of their powers. It simply argues the WHEN of the Senate waiving their right to exercise it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Senate makes rules for the Senate. Not the President.

 

Imagine that was what I or the article had argued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Interesting concept -

 

Obama can appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court if the Senate does nothing

 

It is altogether proper to view a decision by the Senate not to act as a waiver of its right to provide advice and consent. A waiver is an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. As the Supreme Court has said,  No procedural principle is more familiar to this Court than that a constitutional right, or a right of any other sort, may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.' "

 

It is in full accord with traditional notions of waiver to say that the Senate, having been given a reasonable opportunity to provide advice and consent to the president with respect to the nomination of Garland, and having failed to do so, can fairly be deemed to have waived its right.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-can-appoint-merrick-garland-to-the-supreme-court-if-the-senate-does-nothing/2016/04/08/4a696700-fcf1-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story.html

That would be great!

 

 

Until Trump takes office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine that rules and powers were the same.

 

Obama has no power to set the Senate's schedule nor does his displeasure with their inaction give him the power to act without their advice and consent.

 

I think refusing to hold hearings on Garland is stupid but it's within their power and Obama can't just sidestep the whole confirmation question by putting his own schedule on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Interesting concept -Obama can appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court if the Senate does nothing

It is altogether proper to view a decision by the Senate not to act as a waiver of its right to provide advice and consent. A waiver is an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. As the Supreme Court has said,  No procedural principle is more familiar to this Court than that a constitutional right, or a right of any other sort, may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.' "

It is in full accord with traditional notions of waiver to say that the Senate, having been given a reasonable opportunity to provide advice and consent to the president with respect to the nomination of Garland, and having failed to do so, can fairly be deemed to have waived its right.https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-can-appoint-merrick-garland-to-the-supreme-court-if-the-senate-does-nothing/2016/04/08/4a696700-fcf1-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story.html

 

That would be great!

Until Trump takes office.

Which office would that be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Interesting concept -

 

Obama can appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court if the Senate does nothing

 

It is altogether proper to view a decision by the Senate not to act as a waiver of its right to provide advice and consent. A waiver is an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. As the Supreme Court has said,  No procedural principle is more familiar to this Court than that a constitutional right, or a right of any other sort, may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.' "

 

It is in full accord with traditional notions of waiver to say that the Senate, having been given a reasonable opportunity to provide advice and consent to the president with respect to the nomination of Garland, and having failed to do so, can fairly be deemed to have waived its right.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-can-appoint-merrick-garland-to-the-supreme-court-if-the-senate-does-nothing/2016/04/08/4a696700-fcf1-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story.html

That would be great!

 

Until Trump takes office.

Will the senate still be on strike?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until Trump takes office.

 

And he nominates a person for the SCOTUS bench and the Senate fails to hold hearings / vote on the nominee within a reasonable time frame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Imagine that rules and powers were the same.

 

Obama has no power to set the Senate's schedule nor does his displeasure with their inaction give him the power to act without their advice and consent.

 

I think refusing to hold hearings on Garland is stupid but it's within their power and Obama can't just sidestep the whole confirmation question by putting his own schedule on it.

 

Obama doesn't need to set the Senate's schedule for SCOTUS to agree that by refusing to hold hearings & a vote in a reasonable time frame, they are waiving their right to do so. Nor does the argument claim Obama's displeasure at their inaction gives him the power to act without their advice and consent. Nice spin though.

 

Boiled down, the legal position being presented is that the way the Constitution is worded gives the President the power to nominate & appoint and the Senate the power to advise & consent. The legal argument presented is that by choosing not to exercise their power in a reasonable time frame, as with other powers, they are implicitly waiving their right to exercise it. SCOTUS would be the ones that determine if that is a correct interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Imagine that rules and powers were the same.

 

Obama has no power to set the Senate's schedule nor does his displeasure with their inaction give him the power to act without their advice and consent.

 

I think refusing to hold hearings on Garland is stupid but it's within their power and Obama can't just sidestep the whole confirmation question by putting his own schedule on it.

 

Article II Section 2 of the Big C sez:

 

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Imagine that rules and powers were the same.

 

Obama has no power to set the Senate's schedule nor does his displeasure with their inaction give him the power to act without their advice and consent.

 

I think refusing to hold hearings on Garland is stupid but it's within their power and Obama can't just sidestep the whole confirmation question by putting his own schedule on it.

 

Obama doesn't need to set the Senate's schedule for SCOTUS to agree that by refusing to hold hearings & a vote in a reasonable time frame, they are waiving their right to do so. Nor does the argument claim Obama's displeasure at their inaction gives him the power to act without their advice and consent. Nice spin though.

 

Boiled down, the legal position being presented is that the way the Constitution is worded gives the President the power to nominate & appoint and the Senate the power to advise & consent. The legal argument presented is that by choosing not to exercise their power in a reasonable time frame, as with other powers, they are implicitly waiving their right to exercise it. SCOTUS would be the ones that determine if that is a correct interpretation.

 

 

I read "by and with" to mean "by and with" not "by and with or without at his option" the advice and consent of the Senate.

 

"You had a chance and could have consented" is not "you did consent."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's great Tom, but not the point. You made the argument that the issue was with Obama's ability to set the rules & schedule of the Senate. It wasn't. I simply pointed out what the legal argument being made in the article was. For someone that likes dragging posts from thread to thread, I'm sure you can understand the impulse to correct you when you start discussing something the article did not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If "The legal argument presented is that by choosing not to exercise their power in a reasonable time frame" then who would decide what is a "reasonable" period of time in which the Senate should act?

 

The person setting their schedule. Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If "The legal argument presented is that by choosing not to exercise their power in a reasonable time frame" then who would decide what is a "reasonable" period of time in which the Senate should act?

 

The person setting their schedule. Obama.

I would imagine that would be the Supreme Court, although this issue is nothing more than "an interesting concept" that will likely go no further. That said, the concept of forfeiture of rights (not sure if "powers" fits) not timely asserted is not novel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If "The legal argument presented is that by choosing not to exercise their power in a reasonable time frame" then who would decide what is a "reasonable" period of time in which the Senate should act?

 

The person setting their schedule. Obama.

 

Obama isn't setting their schedule. In the argument given, he is simply trying to exercise his power & responsibility to nominate & appoint a SCOTUS justice. Whether or not he is allowed to do that would depend on a decision by SCOTUS and, therefore, SCOTUS would be the ones deciding what is a reasonable timeframe. As they have a great many other things not explicitly written into the US Constitution but can still be reasonably inferred from the language therein plus some common sense.

 

If you want to argue the merits of the argument in question - take up someone that actually thinks it'll be acted on and make it to SCOTUS for a decision. I'm just pointing out that what you claim the argument to be and what the argument actually presented in the article says are two different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If "The legal argument presented is that by choosing not to exercise their power in a reasonable time frame" then who would decide what is a "reasonable" period of time in which the Senate should act?

 

The person setting their schedule. Obama.

I would imagine that would be the Supreme Court, although this issue is nothing more than "an interesting concept" that will likely go no further. That said, the concept of forfeiture of rights (not sure if "powers" fits) not timely asserted is not novel.

 

Kindly demonstrate where the Supremes are given the power to dictate to The Senate how quickly, or not, a nomination should be considered?

This is solely in The Senate's domain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If "The legal argument presented is that by choosing not to exercise their power in a reasonable time frame" then who would decide what is a "reasonable" period of time in which the Senate should act? The person setting their schedule. Obama.

I would imagine that would be the Supreme Court, although this issue is nothing more than "an interesting concept" that will likely go no further. That said, the concept of forfeiture of rights (not sure if "powers" fits) not timely asserted is not novel.
Kindly demonstrate where the Supremes are given the power to dictate to The Senate how quickly, or not, a nomination should be considered?This is solely in The Senate's domain.

like I said in the first post on the subject, it's an interesting concept. I do not assert that it's correct, in fact I think it's probably wrong (unfortunately). Had the Framers foreseen such rediculous behavior by the Senate, they may well have written the appointments clause differently. The President has an obvious duty by inclusion of the word "shall" nominate and "shall" appoint where there is no such word with respect to the Senate action. But still, it's an interesting concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Imagine that rules and powers were the same.

 

Obama has no power to set the Senate's schedule nor does his displeasure with their inaction give him the power to act without their advice and consent.

 

I think refusing to hold hearings on Garland is stupid but it's within their power and Obama can't just sidestep the whole confirmation question by putting his own schedule on it.

 

 

Not only that, but there is no number of justices stipulated in the Constitution, so there is nothing unconstitutional about an eight judge SC. Or a one-judge one....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If "The legal argument presented is that by choosing not to exercise their power in a reasonable time frame" then who would decide what is a "reasonable" period of time in which the Senate should act?

 

The person setting their schedule. Obama.

I would imagine that would be the Supreme Court, although this issue is nothing more than "an interesting concept" that will likely go no further. That said, the concept of forfeiture of rights (not sure if "powers" fits) not timely asserted is not novel.

 

Kindly demonstrate where the Supremes are given the power to dictate to The Senate how quickly, or not, a nomination should be considered?

This is solely in The Senate's domain.

 

The SCOTUS bench is given the power to interpret and have final say on the US Constitution. It is within their powers & remit to rule there is an implied time limit on the exercise of powers & rights, as they have done in the past. If that is to occur, then like other non-explicit requirements of the US Constitution on the government, SCOTUS do have the power to dictate to the Senate what those non-explicit requirements are.

 

Sucks, I know, but I don't live in a country where the Constitution gives someone the non-explicit right to an abortion. Like it or not, SCOTUS has that kind of power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We saw this coming -

 

From RedState.com

 

Now that Donald Trump is the presumptive nominee, this is not even a close call. There is absolutely no reason to drag this out any longer. Garland is not a great choice, but he is not a terrible one, either. And more than anything, he is old (for a modern Supreme Court appointment) and will be up for replacement in probably 10 years instead of 20 or 30.

 

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/05/04/republicans-confirm-merrick-garland-asap./

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politics as usual....

 

Sen. Orrin Hatch reacts to meeting with Merrick Garland before it occurs

 

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) hasnt yet met with Supreme Court nominee Merrick B. Garland for what has been a long anticipated encounter between the former Judiciary Committee chairman and the federal appeals court judge he has long praised.

But when the meeting does happen, dont expect Garland to succeed in convincing Hatch to support his nomination, because Hatch has already declared that it won't.

"Like many of my Senate colleagues, I recently met with Chief Judge Merrick Garland, President Obama'snominee to the Supreme Court. Our meeting, however, does not change my conviction that the Senate should consider a Supreme Court nominee after this presidential election cycle," Hatch wrote in an op-ed published on the website of the Deseret News early Thursday morning and later removed. It remains available in a Google database.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/05/26/sen-orrin-hatch-reacts-to-meeting-with-merrick-garland-before-it-occurs/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, "I recently met" now refers to future meetings. That makes sense, if perception matters more than reality. Something tells me that we'd hear a word for that, if Hillary did it...the L word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, "I recently met" now refers to future meetings. That makes sense, if perception matters more than reality. Something tells me that we'd hear a word for that, if Hillary did it...the L word.

Perhaps Sen. Hatch is simply giving us the 2016 edition of Sen John Kyl's (R-AZ) 2011 "that was not intended to be a factual statement" utterance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This presidential election will be decided, to some degree, on who "the people" want appointing SCOTUS justices.

 

Can the GOP find a way to change their leadership style and goals, and can NRA & gun rights folks accept as legitimate our style of government if a Democrat is elected?

 

 

 

 

 

So far, I'm three for three on saying Obama SCOTUS appointees should be confirmed.

 

How many R SCOTUS appointees have you said should be confirmed?

 

Can Bloomberg and anti-gun folks accept as legitimate our style of government if a Republican is elected?

 

 

Well, it looks like my question will be answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless the new guy fails Sol’s test, (dead girl or live boy in the bed) he’ll be confirmed. The rest is just Circus performance for the base and the donors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Unless the new guy fails Sol’s test, (dead girl or live boy in the bed) he’ll be confirmed. The rest is just Circus performance for the base and the donors.

Every once in a while - you really get it right.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

Unless the new guy fails Sol’s test, (dead girl or live boy in the bed) he’ll be confirmed. The rest is just Circus performance for the base and the donors.

This is an old thread but I now realize it would have been funnier if I had found one related to the nomination of Harriet Miers. Is that how her name was spelled? Who can remember? I can't even remember whether it was a live boy or a dead girl who brought her down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

This is an old thread but I now realize it would have been funnier if I had found one related to the nomination of Harriet Miers. Is that how her name was spelled? Who can remember? I can't even remember whether it was a live boy or a dead girl who brought her down.

It was a trait you shared with her. Idiocracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a good PoV on why we should just get on with it, and that for Liberals, this is about as best a judge as could be hoped from a fucktard like Trump. I mean, we could've gotten a "Christian Fundie" as a nominee.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/09/opinion/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-trump.html?action=click&amp;pgtype=Homepage&amp;clickSource=story-heading&amp;module=opinion-c-col-left-region&amp;region=opinion-c-col-left-region&amp;WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Here's a good PoV on why we should just get on with it, and that for Liberals, this is about as best a judge as could be hoped from a fucktard like Trump. I mean, we could've gotten a "Christian Fundie" as a nominee.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/09/opinion/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-trump.html?action=click&amp;pgtype=Homepage&amp;clickSource=story-heading&amp;module=opinion-c-col-left-region&amp;region=opinion-c-col-left-region&amp;WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

Interesting idea about how to couch a vote of "No".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Interesting idea about how to couch a vote of "No".

Probably unworkable, but really points out the "you're not going to get anyone more acceptable, so suck it up buttercup" opinion. And he's likely right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Interesting idea about how to couch a vote of "No".

Quote

I propose that the Democrats offer the following compromise: Each Senate Democrat will pledge either to vote yes for Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation — or, if voting no, to first publicly name at least two clearly better candidates whom a Republican president might realistically have nominated instead (not an easy task).

It summarizes why I said Obama's nominees should be confirmed (including Garland).

They were qualified for the job. And I've been rather pleased on occasion with Professor Sotomayor.

This guy is qualified, isn't who I would have picked, but is who Trump picked, so confirm him.

And he might turn out to please some surprised people on occasion. As I mentioned in the other thread, he supported Emily's List's corporate first amendment rights. So that's sorta good, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much ado about a fait accompli. 

Kavanaugh is highly qualified. Brilliant mind and all that. This outrage is understandable, but will soon become boring. 

Yes, Trump lost the popular vote and the GOP controls the House via gerrymandering. Yes, the minority is in power, and is working to further alter laws to suppress minority voting and stack courts so they can remain in power. Yes, American democracy is hugely flawed, and Democrats will, once again, have to work hard to restore our fiscal house, our political ethics, our social values and our national security. 

But this judge is well qualified, and deserves an up or down vote. To obstruct the process only hurts our democracy in a way only the GOP thinks is legitimate. We need to publicly disavow their tactics but register millions more until the slim, gerrymandered victories fail and we once again have a representative democracy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Much ado about a fait accompli. 

Kavanaugh is highly qualified. Brilliant mind and all that. This outrage is understandable, but will soon become boring. 

Yes, Trump lost the popular vote and the GOP controls the House via gerrymandering. Yes, the minority is in power, and is working to further alter laws to suppress minority voting and stack courts so they can remain in power. Yes, American democracy is hugely flawed, and Democrats will, once again, have to work hard to restore our fiscal house, our political ethics, our social values and our national security. 

But this judge is well qualified, and deserves an up or down vote. To obstruct the process only hurts our democracy in a way only the GOP thinks is legitimate. We need to publicly disavow their tactics but register millions more until the slim, gerrymandered victories fail and we once again have a representative democracy.

Agreed. No need for Fauxtrage - need for voting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh, now the truth comes out. He's a disciple of the Trump school of debt:

 

In 2016, Kavanaugh reported having between $60,000 to $200,000 in debt accrued over three credit cards and a personal loan. Each credit card held between $15,000 to $50,000 in debt, and a Thrift Savings Plan loan was between $15,000 to $50,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Ahh, now the truth comes out. He's a disciple of the Trump school of debt:

 

In 2016, Kavanaugh reported having between $60,000 to $200,000 in debt accrued over three credit cards and a personal loan. Each credit card held between $15,000 to $50,000 in debt, and a Thrift Savings Plan loan was between $15,000 to $50,000.

Doesn't everybody?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sean said:

Doesn't everybody?

No. I'm allergic to debt. Hate it. Took me ages to come to terms with the need to get a mortgage for the house as I'd previously never had a loan in my life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Sean said:

Doesn't everybody?

Trump voters? Yes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Ahh, now the truth comes out. He's a disciple of the Trump school of debt:

 

In 2016, Kavanaugh reported having between $60,000 to $200,000 in debt accrued over three credit cards and a personal loan. Each credit card held between $15,000 to $50,000 in debt, and a Thrift Savings Plan loan was between $15,000 to $50,000.

And the White House says it is because of baseball.  Seems that Kavansugh bought Washington Nationals season tickets for himself and friends. Apparently there was also some home improvement projects in there as well.  Who in the hell puts any kind of serious home improvement project on a credit card? That's what home equity or a bank loan is for.  Sheesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jerseyguy said:

And the White House says it is because of baseball.  Seems that Kavansugh bought Washington Nationals season tickets for himself and friends. Apparently there was also some home improvement projects in there as well.  Who in the hell puts any kind of serious home improvement project on a credit card? That's what home equity or a bank loan is for.  Sheesh.

Default on your credit card - ding on your credit score. 

Default on your HELOC - lose your house. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Much ado about a fait accompli. 

Kavanaugh is highly qualified. Brilliant mind and all that. This outrage is understandable, but will soon become boring. 

Yes, Trump lost the popular vote and the GOP controls the House via gerrymandering. Yes, the minority is in power, and is working to further alter laws to suppress minority voting and stack courts so they can remain in power. Yes, American democracy is hugely flawed, and Democrats will, once again, have to work hard to restore our fiscal house, our political ethics, our social values and our national security. 

But this judge is well qualified, and deserves an up or down vote. To obstruct the process only hurts our democracy in a way only the GOP thinks is legitimate. We need to publicly disavow their tactics but register millions more until the slim, gerrymandered victories fail and we once again have a representative democracy.

The popular vote was not contested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

The popular vote was not contested.

It was, by President Trump.

And, NHHMT continues to maintain it was stolen through illegal voting. 

Neither of them have evidence. But, that doesn’t stop them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to argue that Democrats should be pleased by the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh. His reputation, as told in an article in the NYT about the "Phalanx of Former Law Clerks Rushes Into Action" is that of a hard working, caring judge who hires 4 clerks each year, and one year all 4 were women. They describe moments of kindness and consistent principled behavior, athletic ability and attention to detail. They say he listens even more carefully when colleagues or staff disagreed with his opinions. Yes, this group opinion is akin to "news" from a PR firm, but they comport with the Judge's pattern of taking part in church outreach and public works programs.

His professional bio is that of a consummate jurist. He has written scores of well researched and important decisions, some of which prohibited race from dictating jury composition, and another that stated his court did not have jurisdiction to decide an ACA decision, setting up Justice Roberts to "save" Obamacare, much to the frustration of conservatives. 

He's got some ugly chapters, such as when he wrote ten tough questions for President Clinton in which asked about Monica Lewinsky receiving his ejaculate in her mouth, and he is a staunch conservative on many issues near and dear to the liberal beating heart.

But this decision should be about competence, demeanor and jurisprudence skill. The individual beliefs held by Judge Kavanaugh are not disqualifying, and President Trump showed surprising bipartisanship with this nomination. In order to show respect and reverence for American traditions of Democracy, Democrats should set a pattern of honestly considering the candidate on his merits, not their fears of his impact on legislation they hold dear. 

Democracy is worth more than Roe v Wade. If the people care about the end results of elections, they need to vote for different candidates. Ending a woman's right to have control over her body and to have medical options will have a hugely negative effect on the GOP: they will have staked a flag as the party at war with women's health, rights and safety given this administration's predilection for hiring, defending &  being led by #metoo perps. Given continuing demographic changes, it seems the GOP wants to hasten the process of their own demise. I say let them.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

But this decision should be about competence, demeanor and jurisprudence skill. The individual beliefs held by Judge Kavanaugh are not disqualifying, and President Trump showed surprising bipartisanship with this nomination. In order to show respect and reverence for American traditions of Democracy, Democrats should set a pattern of honestly considering the candidate on his merits, not their fears of his impact on legislation they hold dear. 

Well said.   The same should have happened for Merrick Garland as well.   

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll only have the Best Judges, believe me.

 

"Tulsa attorney John O'Connor, who is being considered for a federal judgeship that would span all of Oklahoma,..."

" O'Connor's membership in the Brother House of Tulsa, a decades-old men's club. Durbin said the group discriminates against women and read aloud from a Tulsa newspaper article that stated Brother House's mission was to "develop male spirituality and fatherhood in response to male bashing from the opposite sex.""

"The 63-year-old corporate lawyer has never been a judge or clerked for a judge, according to a questionnaire he answered for the Judiciary Committee. A small minority, 20 percent, of his legal work has been done in federal court, he wrote."

https://newsok.com/article/5601074/john-oconnor-an-oklahoma-judicial-nominee-faces-questions-about-tulsa-mens-club

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites