Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
“I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman.”-Donald Trump
So, the only difference is President Biden specified black woman. I wonder what’s distinctly different about this nominee vs Justice Coney Barrett that you are upset about?
"I am announcing today that one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can possibly find, one who meets the high standards I will demand for all court appointments,"
“I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman.”-Donald Trump
So, the only difference is President Biden specified black woman. I wonder what’s distinctly different about this nominee vs Justice Coney Barrett that you are upset about?
Who said I was upset?
Biden said he was nominating a person based on race and gender.
While you all squabble, she's speaking now, and FWIW, from her words, she's likeable and admirable.
I have every political reason to think I may not agree with her on everything, but the mature thing to do is listen and judge her for who she is and what she thinks... not whether you like the person who did a clumsy job of choosing her.
When a democrat nominates someone it's always "time for a mature approach" and when a republican nominates someone it's time for the circus to begin.
It's a double standard to be sure but the reality is that it is the only standard we have right now. Republicans can try to make an issue of this nomination if they wish but they'll come out on the losing end of this one.
When a democrat nominates someone it's always "time for a mature approach" and when a republican nominates someone it's time for the circus to begin.
It's a double standard to be sure but the reality is that it is the only standard we have right now. Republicans can try to make an issue of this nomination if they wish but they'll come out on the losing end of this one.
When a democrat nominates someone it's always "time for a mature approach" and when a republican nominates someone it's time for the circus to begin.
It's a double standard to be sure but the reality is that it is the only standard we have right now. Republicans can try to make an issue of this nomination if they wish but they'll come out on the losing end of this one.
It's frankly annoying that the Republicans are always taking the high road while the Democrats and their allies in the media continually reach new depths with their disgusting personal smear campaigns.
The GOP should hold the hearings, be polite, and then deny her the seat using Rule 26. The Democrats can cry all they want, but until they have 51 Senators (not 50 plus Kamala), there's nothing they could do about it.
Then just wait out the clock until November returns the Senate to the Republicans. The Supreme Court can function with 8 justices until the 2024 Presidential election.
Uhm, ACB was a circuit judge for three years and actually authored more than two opinions.
Most of ACB's experience was as an academic other than serving 3 years on a lower court, never tried a case, never argued as a solicitor, least amount of background documentation of any justice. Very few opinions because her experience is lacking.
It's frankly annoying that the Republicans are always taking the high road while the Democrats and their allies in the media continually reach new depths with their disgusting personal smear campaigns.
The GOP should hold the hearings, be polite, and then deny her the seat using Rule 26. The Democrats can cry all they want, but until they have 51 Senators (not 50 plus Kamala), there's nothing they could do about it.
Then just wait out the clock until November returns the Senate to the Republicans. The Supreme Court can function with 8 justices until the 2024 Presidential election.
Sure they took the high road not even allowing Garland a hearing and appointing ACB while voting in the 2020 election was underway. They certainly have integrity.
She was a public defender. She didn't get a choice of which clients she would represent, and she did her job and did it well. Why would you have a problem with someone earning their pay...?
Nah. OP has issues with the Constitution. OP doesn't like the 6th amendment and thinks it only applies to his in group.
Quote:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
ALL Americans have the right to counsel in criminal court.
Sure they took the high road not even allowing Garland a hearing and appointing ACB while voting in the 2020 election was underway. They certainly have integrity.
Surely even you can discern the difference between declining to hold a hearing on a doomed nomination and accusing someone of participating in gang rape as a high school student.
Then again, I'm probably giving you way too much credit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
