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.
From where I reasonably stand . Not sure you got any of it straight.
The adult was qualified thru Law school. Performed the duties of oath when deemed capable of US district Court of appeals. Followed the rules of the court . Sentences were debatable yet ultimately not overturned. So there is that.
So the only thing straight is that the New Scotus is a hard worker . As the years of long hours in govt prove.
So basically she got nominated because they discriminated against over 95% of the people who would have qualified for the position because of their race or gender and then acted like this is some major accomplishment or something?
She had to work extra hard to get where she is today because of her race and sex... But the obvious reason democrats nominated her is because they wanted a black woman!
Is this a new twist on logic?
I don't see the issue. A black woman her age probably had to knock down some doors in her career (read: in the past) as racism is still a thing no matter how much some people want to deny that fact.
And, yes, Biden wanted to nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court (in 2022). I don't see where both of your statements cannot be true at the same time.
Both can be true. She undoubtedly faced hurdles as a woman of color born 50 years ago.
And the democrats would like government to reflect the makeup of the country, not just one group who has dominated historically. Some republicans want that too.
Do you have any undeniable proof at all that she faced any hurdles whatsoever? The fact of the matter is over 95% of the people who would have qualified for this position were discriminated against based on their race or gender and not even considered for this position. Also, the Supreme Court should not reflect the makeup of the country at all. These people should be the most educated, intelligent, and fair-minded people in the country regardless of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. This woman is a token plain and simple and she will always be remembered as a token.
She had to work extra hard to get where she is today because of her race and sex... But the obvious reason democrats nominated her is because they wanted a black woman!
Is this a new twist on logic?
All her adult life, she has been promoted beyond her capability because of her race and gender. She'll most likely be the worst USSCJ in history.
The only problem with her is that she is an extreme liberal. So much so that she refused to define 'woman' because she knew it would upset her sponsors. If she weren't extreme liberal, she would have been a fine pick. In my opinion anyway.
Other than that being easy on pedophiles thingie, yep.
I think this might actually backfire on the Democrats. Sure many black people vote Democrat, but a lot of them are also Conservative. There is no guarantee that she will be as progressive as her party would like.
I think this might actually backfire on the Democrats. Sure many black people vote Democrat, but a lot of them are also Conservative. There is no guarantee that she will be as progressive as her party would like.
It's possible that it could backfire but Biden violated EEO law and common decency by making race and gender a criteria for selection, I'm sure her extremist views are well vetted. I would LMAO if she actually tried to interpret the Constitution and thwart the Democrats efforts to kill the Constitution and all of our Rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
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.