Tell us why's that, Sadbert?
Everything about this SC hearing will be unprecedented.
Tell us why's that, Sadbert?
Depends on how it's used.
I think Will has used racially charged terms and language that I wouldn't use. I certainly have used similar terms for effect. If you want to call us racist, that's your opinion.
You will be afraid to answer this question.
Has koriwhat ever used racist terms?
Yes or no.
I don't recall him using "racist terms," but I wouldn't be surprised.
So, is Will racist?
Derp still talking about me
Referring to Candace Owens as Coondace Owens is a lot less racist than endorsing a policy of involuntary hysterectomies on Mexican women.
You're a lonely single loser who will never touch a woman, that's why.
A popular cuckback for Chumpettes these days. Apparently something you guys strongly relate to.
Don't know. Ask him.
Are you racist?
Yes or no.
Just what I've read about this fringe person, if all of that is thrown at her, it will demonstrate that she's even less suitable than Kavanaugh
but of course, that's exactly why the Repugs and Christian Nationalists want her, she's gonna up America for non-Repugs, non-Christians.
There's nothing unprecedented about this. She's absolutely qualified for the post, and there's no legal reason not to confirm her if the Senate has the votes.
You might not like or agree with her political leaning or views on fundamental issues, but you can say that for a number of SCOTUS members.
I mean, if you're angry about this, you should direct your rage at RGB and the Democratic party/voters.
President Donald Trump might have finally found something frequent critic and Lincoln Project founder George Conway have common ground on: conservative Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
Both Trump on Saturday at the nomination ceremony and Conway on Twitter used the phrase "eminently qualified" in talking about Barrett's credentials for the Supreme Court.
Conway responded to a tweet asking: "Is it possible some GOP senators will vote *against* confirming her because they feel she is not qualified?"
Conway tweeted:
"No. Not a chance. She is eminently qualified to serve on the Supreme Court."
Yep, 2016 was the year to care about this.
It would have wasted time with garland
Not enough votes so why even bring it up?
The law says president can make a section
Then senate can take it up
Senate does not take most stuff if it has no chance to pass
Everything about it is unprecedented. It doesn't matter whose fault you think it is.
Confirming a justice within 5 weeks (or less) of her nomination on a party line vote is something that has never been done. Most of the people voting to confirm her were screaming in opposition of an election year nomination just 4 years ago.
So yes, it's unprecedented. RBG should have retired, but the only reason that that's a big deal is because of these unprecedented times.
In my lifetime a Republican President nominated a moderate, even liberal-leaning judge because he was the most qualified option. Those days are over.
The fact that this should have been totally expected from the GOP doesn't change the fact it's unprecedented.
So, you can't make that determination for Will but you've made it for your enemies.
K.
speaking of disgusting bigotry, what are your thoughts on islam and muslims?
Actually, he was speaking of racism not bigotry, philo.
Feels, ethics and/or morals have no bearing here... it's not illegal, it's well within the rules, the candidate is qualified, end of story.
You know why the Dems didn't nominate one 4 years ago? They didn't control the Senate, period.
You're simply mad because RGB gambled and lost.
i can rephrase it to arabs instead of muslims if that will help you cope
You had to make a faulty equation to cope.
If the nominee was a muslim woman, they would be praising her on the left.
denzelboom.gif
But I don't think she gambled. I think she was addicted to her stature and power in the court and had no intention of ever leaving.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)