Supreme Court Poll

[houndawg]

It's democratic pandering to get the votes.

It is. And my guess is this woman is very qualified (I'm about as far from a legal scholar as they come), but I still can't believe there is anyone who thinks it's OK to base nominations on race and sex.

To be quite honest, he SHOULD have publicly said he was going to nominate the best PERSON and then gone ahead and nominated her. IMO that looks MUCH better for EVERYONE involved.

but...but.......it was good enough for Ronald Reagan...

[Ibanez]

You're welcome.

I wouldn’t have expected such a high fallutin word to come from a CCU grad.

highfalutin*
you ass. It's my Catholic school education.

[houndawg]

I wouldn’t have expected such a high fallutin word to come from a CCU grad.

highfalutin*
you ass. It's my Catholic school education.

hifalutin is the more common variant - in either case there is one "l".

[houndawg]

Tucker Carlson just lost all cred by demanding to see Jackson's LSAT scores. The lady graduated from Harvard and Harvard Law School, passed the bar, served as an attorney for several years, clerked for several judges, and then served as a District Court judge for several years before becoming a Court of Appeals judge last year. Carlson has nothing better than a BA and a questionable career as a political commentator.

I have no idea what Jackson's political persuasion is, but for this white guy with no legal cred whatsoever to question her credentials is at least sexist, and quite possibly racist as well. It evokes memories of the idiot men who questioned Dr. Biden's degrees with no rationale that could stand up to logic. It was all political then, and it's all political now. And it's disgusting in my book. The same people who do this to Dr. Biden and Judge Jackson will do the same thing to Dr. Mayim Bialik and Dr. Danica McKellar, writing them both off as mere actresses, and not scientists and mathematicians. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if they were to write off Dr. Brian May as a mere "musician." It's elitist and disgusting, in my book....

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/rol ... p_catchall

Let's be real here, Biden did KBJ a big disservice by publicly promising to put a "woman of cullah" on the Supreme Court. The social justice crowd can act like "equity" is really just anti-discrimination doctrine instead of using what happened to people's ancestors as a proxy for presdent-day privilege but thinking people know that's garbage so it was inevitably going to be controversial. It's a shame that she'll have that cloud over head as long as she's there because if there's one "affirmative action" justice it's the "Wise Latina".

Sandra Day O'Connor?

[89Hen]

It is. And my guess is this woman is very qualified (I'm about as far from a legal scholar as they come), but I still can't believe there is anyone who thinks it's OK to base nominations on race and sex.

To be quite honest, he SHOULD have publicly said he was going to nominate the best PERSON and then gone ahead and nominated her. IMO that looks MUCH better for EVERYONE involved.

but...but.......it was good enough for Ronald Reagan...

I was 13. Sorry I didn't have an opinion on that then.

[UNI88]

but...but.......it was good enough for Ronald Reagan...

I was 13. Sorry I didn't have an opinion on that then.

But you were born an opinionated, old curmudgeon.

[BDKJMU]

It is. And my guess is this woman is very qualified (I'm about as far from a legal scholar as they come), but I still can't believe there is anyone who thinks it's OK to base nominations on race and sex.

To be quite honest, he SHOULD have publicly said he was going to nominate the best PERSON and then gone ahead and nominated her. IMO that looks MUCH better for EVERYONE involved.

but...but.......it was good enough for Ronald Reagan...

Wrong.

[BDKJMU]

Let's be real here, Biden did KBJ a big disservice by publicly promising to put a "woman of cullah" on the Supreme Court. The social justice crowd can act like "equity" is really just anti-discrimination doctrine instead of using what happened to people's ancestors as a proxy for presdent-day privilege but thinking people know that's garbage so it was inevitably going to be controversial. It's a shame that she'll have that cloud over head as long as she's there because if there's one "affirmative action" justice it's the "Wise Latina".

Sandra Day O'Connor?

Reagan never said he was going to pick a white woman.

[UNI88]

Sandra Day O'Connor?

Reagan never said he was going to pick a white woman.

So saying you're going to pick a woman is ok but specifying race isn't? Or is it the combination of race and gender?

You're nitpicking so you can attack Biden but not Reagan.

[BDKJMU]

Reagan never said he was going to pick a white woman.

So saying you're going to pick a woman is ok but specifying race isn't? Or is it the combination of race and gender?

You're nitpicking so you can attack Biden but not Reagan.

Neither is. Reagan was also wrong. But Reagan limited his pick to 50% of the population. Biden limited his to 6%. Yuge differemce.

[UNI88]

So saying you're going to pick a woman is ok but specifying race isn't? Or is it the combination of race and gender?

You're nitpicking so you can attack Biden but not Reagan.

Neither is. Reagan was also wrong. But Reagan limited his pick to 50% of the population. Biden limited his to 6%. Yuge differemce.

Differentiating based on gender and/or race is either right or it isn't. The difference is that you will jump through whatever logical hoops you need to to make liberals look bad and conservatives look good.

I actually agree with you that Biden (and Reagan) shouldn't have made that public statement. But my primary concern is that he nominate a qualified candidate which he appears to have done. You have trouble tearing down his nominee so you're taking shots at his words.

[BDKJMU]

Neither is. Reagan was also wrong. But Reagan limited his pick to 50% of the population. Biden limited his to 6%. Yuge differemce.

Differentiating based on gender and/or race is either right or it isn't. The difference is that you will jump through whatever logical hoops you need to to make liberals look bad and conservatives look good.

I actually agree with you that Biden (and Reagan) shouldn't have made that public statement. But my primary concern is that he nominate a qualified candidate which he appears to have done. You have trouble tearing down his nominee so you're taking shots at his words.

Wrong- I said Reagan was wrong to inject gender.

And Biden was worse- he took gender and added race (the only POTUS to inject race into his pick).

[UNI88]

Differentiating based on gender and/or race is either right or it isn't. The difference is that you will jump through whatever logical hoops you need to to make liberals look bad and conservatives look good.

I actually agree with you that Biden (and Reagan) shouldn't have made that public statement. But my primary concern is that he nominate a qualified candidate which he appears to have done. You have trouble tearing down his nominee so you're taking shots at his words.

Wrong- I said Reagan was wrong to inject gender.

And Biden was worse- he took gender and added race (the only POTUS to inject race into his pick).

So you're mad because Biden one-upped Reagan?



They're all bad so not a yuge difference. You want to frame it as a yuge difference because of partisan bias.

[SDHornet]

Yes. Play by their rules. Taking the high road to "rise above" is a losers strategy.

The discussions on her light pedo sentencing was fair game. She'll be confirmed nonetheless.

If their rules are wrong, then playing by them is also wrong.

Our political landscape is increasingly shaped by the independent voters who are not ideologically locked into one party or the other. The Dems’ behavior did not hurt them at all with their base voters but it certainly hurt them with independents. That is one reason we saw the GOP perform so unexpectedly well down ballot in the last election.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't disagree...I also don't make the rules. *shoulder shrug emoji*

[BDKJMU]

Wrong- I said Reagan was wrong to inject gender.

And Biden was worse- he took gender and added race (the only POTUS to inject race into his pick).

So you're mad because Biden one-upped Reagan?



They're all bad so not a yuge difference. You want to frame it as a yuge difference because of partisan bias.

Yeah, 6% versus 50% not a yuge difference at all.

That’s like saying all crimes are bad, therefore they should all receive the same punishment

[AZGrizFan]

So you're mad because Biden one-upped Reagan?



They're all bad so not a yuge difference. You want to frame it as a yuge difference because of partisan bias.

Yeah, 6% verus 50% not a yuge difference at all.

That’s like saying all crimes are bad, therefore they should all receive the same punishment

I agree. Beheading no matter the offense.

[UNI88]

Yeah, 6% verus 50% not a yuge difference at all.

That’s like saying all crimes are bad, therefore they should all receive the same punishment

I agree. Beheading no matter the offense.

Including Christians engaged in usury?

[houndawg]

Sandra Day O'Connor?

Reagan never said he was going to pick a white woman.

First woman.

[houndawg]

So saying you're going to pick a woman is ok but specifying race isn't? Or is it the combination of race and gender?

You're nitpicking so you can attack Biden but not Reagan.

Neither is. Reagan was also wrong. But Reagan limited his pick to 50% of the population. Biden limited his to 6%. Yuge differemce.

Wrong again.

He limited his pick to a very small subset of 50% of the population.

BDMBFK -

[BDKJMU]

Neither is. Reagan was also wrong. But Reagan limited his pick to 50% of the population. Biden limited his to 6%. Yuge differemce.

Wrong again.

He limited his pick to a very small subset of 50% of the population.

BDMBFK -

I was clearly referencing the percent of the population that’s female, dipshit.

[houndawg]

Wrong again.

He limited his pick to a very small subset of 50% of the population.

BDMBFK -

I was clearly referencing the percent of the population that’s female, dipshit.

Still wrong, goober.


When Reagan said female he meant white females.

Before your time but a non-white female would have been unthinkable in the early 80s.

[BDKJMU]

I was clearly referencing the percent of the population that’s female, dipshit.

Still wrong, goober.


When Reagan said female he meant white females.

Before your time but a non-white female would have been unthinkable in the early 80s.

Wrong. You have no idea what Reagan meant.

[AZGrizFan]

I was clearly referencing the percent of the population that’s female, dipshit.

Still wrong, goober.


When Reagan said female he meant white females.

Before your time but a non-white female would have been unthinkable in the early 80s.

And apparently even in the ‘00’s, when Brandon voted against one. Now it’s all the rage.

[houndawg]

Still wrong, goober.


When Reagan said female he meant white females.

Before your time but a non-white female would have been unthinkable in the early 80s.

And apparently even in the ‘00’s, when Brandon voted against one. Now it’s all the rage.

Yes, the landscape is littered with proof of my assertion.

When Long Dong Silver retires in disgrace Jumpin' Joe can make up for that by nominating Anita Hill.