• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Biden on the Barrett Nomination

Biden's statement (THE U.S. SUPREME COURT – STATEMENT BY VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN) hits the right notes. A quick reminder that voting rights and equal justice and Roe are all at stake before the pivot to the main takeaway: "health care hangs in the balance."



Trump and the GOP are rushing this illegitimate nomination through because they want another friendly face there when they go before the court on November 10 to argue for taking tens of millions of Americans' health care away. And bringing back pre-existing conditions during a pandemic.

Every Dem with a microphone, Twitter account, or tree stump to climb on and speak from should be reminding voters morning, noon, and night what Trump, every GOP candidate and elected official, and Barrett are trying to do to Americans' health care.
Four years ago he said the Senate should act quickly, now he wants them to wait.
 
Last edited:
Ironic coming from a Trump supporter. You know he ran on a Muslim ban, right?

The issue is, I don't know many anti religious bigots. I do know a lot of fundamentals have a sense of persecution however. Her religion isn't the main issue. There are many reasons to be concerned with a candidate like her.
He didn't ban Muslims-it was a restriction on areas that are hotbeds for Jihadists. Some Muslim countries or areas with large percentages of Muslims were not included since they aren't supplying lots of terrorists
 
That's a minor point and it shouldn't become the focus of this thread. It's pretty clear, I think, where she stands on the ACA and Roe. Possibly on LGBT rights as well. People can choose their sides, but I agree a vote on her nomination should be shelved until we see how the American people vote in November. If Trump wins and the Senate remains al Republican majority, there is nothing to stop her nomination, but if the people elect the Democrats to leadership, it should be Biden's call to fill that seat. Fair is fair.
what are you talking about-if the Dems had the senate in 2016, we'd have Garland as a justice.
 
I just find it interesting that you guys are so desperate to pack the courts before November, considering it's popular in right wing circles that Trump will "win in a landslide", and that America is a "Center right country", and that Democrats are nothing more than a loud minority. Surely the "silent majority" could wait after the election if Trump will undoubtedly win, no?
who knows what happens in November. Vote fraud is in the air. But what I know is this

No matter what happens
what we have got
is the senate, and the dems do not.
 
Whites didn't create the American economy. That's a stupid statement, especially in a historical context where whites literally had free labor and accumulated wealth off the backs of black slaves for hundreds of years. In anything, the slaves built America and whites reaped the benefits.
why the race issue-I didn't say whites did

but who do you think did. You pretend that the US wouldn't exist but for black slavery. Thats complete crap
 
I just find it interesting that you guys are so desperate to pack the courts before November, considering it's popular in right wing circles that Trump will "win in a landslide", and that America is a "Center right country", and that Democrats are nothing more than a loud minority. Surely the "silent majority" could wait after the election if Trump will undoubtedly win, no?
It's legal, it's in the hands of the republican president and republican senate. It's what the constitution calls for. If you snow flake liberal/democrats cant' stand the fact that Trump is President until Jan. 20 regardless of what happens, that sucks for you.
 
You're moving the goalpost. I specifically said SCOTUS.

Estrada was a right-wing ideologue with no experience as a judge. Peter Keisler was thought by the Senate as being out of the mainstream of legal thought and his nomination was sent back to Bush.
you're lying. Estrada had as much experience as KAGAN did. and she was put on the SUPREME COURT. He worked for the CLINTON SOLICITOR GENERAL and all three then living Democratic SGs endorsed him. Keisler was not seen as out of the mainstream. He was blackballed for being JEWISH and a founder of the FEDERALIST SOCIETY by A MINORITY of the senators. EVEN THE NY TIMES supported him as did the ABA.
 
And a Democratic nominee who said he didn’t want his kids going to school in a racial jungle, called Obama the first clean, articulate black American he’s met, bragged that his state was a slave state, contrasted a black guy snorting coke with a guy living on Park Avenue, told us that poor kids were just as bright and talented as white kids, and who adjusts his speech and slurs his words when speaking to black Americans.

But prior to this election cycle, in terms of our history, this is being blown up out of proportion.
The many racist positions of Joe Biden have been documented and have been discussed on these boards. Joe's got huge ghosts in his background. So nobody really believes the Trump racism claims. I'll vote my pocketbook and I'll vote law and order and the democrats don't take care of either.
 
The many racist positions of Joe Biden have been documented and have been discussed on these boards. Joe's got huge ghosts in his background. So nobody really believes the Trump racism claims. I'll vote my pocketbook and I'll vote law and order and the democrats don't take care of either.
/// So nobody really believes the Trump racism claims. /// It's public record that Trump was sued/lost/settled for discriminating against blacks. Educate yourself, or cease with the lies ( whichever applies) and avoid future embarrassing posts like the one you just put forth above.
 
/// So nobody really believes the Trump racism claims. /// It's public record that Trump was sued/lost/settled for discriminating against blacks. Educate yourself, or cease with the lies ( whichever applies) and avoid future embarrassing posts like the one you just put forth above.
There are many ways you can get sued for "discrimination" and not have a racist bone in your body. For example, people have been sued for

1) requiring a HS diploma for a job
2) a college degree for a job
3) no criminal record, for a job

and be sued for "disparate impact" racial discrimination, because in all three cases, black males are less likely to have
1) a hs diploma
2) a college degree
3) a felony-free background check

than whites
 
There are many ways you can get sued for "discrimination" and not have a racist bone in your body. For example, people have been sued for

1) requiring a HS diploma for a job
2) a college degree for a job
3) no criminal record, for a job

and be sued for "disparate impact" racial discrimination, because in all three cases, black males are less likely to have
1) a hs diploma
2) a college degree
3) a felony-free background check

than whites
Your rather desperate attempt to move the goal posts doesn't change the 'fact' that Trump was indeed sued/lost/settled for 'racial' ( you left that descriptor out ) discrimination against blacks. Educate yourself, and save yourself further embarrassment down the road.
 
Getting rid of the individual mandate was a big one. It seems that as enrollment numbers decline, popularity increases. Go figure.

How exactly do they plan to "legislate from the bench"?

The GOP are too incompetent to get repeal OR replace, so they're asking the courts to do the simple part - the repeal, via judicial fiat, because they can't get it done the typical way, you know, with a vote in Congress. Worthless. Been trying for 10 years and they're hoping Roberts et al. bail them out.
 
Your rather desperate attempt to move the goal posts doesn't change the 'fact' that Trump was indeed sued/lost/settled for 'racial' ( you left that descriptor out ) discrimination against blacks. Educate yourself, and save yourself further embarrassment down the road.
you are obviously ignorant of title VII litigation and you want to ASSume that because Trump was sued for racial discrimination, that means he is a racist. I was merely correcting your Assumptions because you clearly know almost nothing about this field. People are sued all the time for "racial discrimination" and many of those suits do not require, nor even entail any personal racial animus by the defendant in order for plaintiffs to prevail.
 
if Hillary was president now, and had a slim majority in the senate-would she do anything differently? I just love you Trump haters who pretend that the Democrat party is somehow more honest or more virtuous than the GOP
Sure they are the same, but in the absence of them being in the position, the hypocrisy is all by the GOP.
 
Sure they are the same, but in the absence of them being in the position, the hypocrisy is all by the GOP.
horsecrap. The dems were screaming FILL IT NOW in 2016.
 
you are obviously ignorant of title VII litigation and you want to ASSume that because Trump was sued for racial discrimination, that means he is a racist. I was merely correcting your Assumptions because you clearly know almost nothing about this field. People are sued all the time for "racial discrimination" and many of those suits do not require, nor even entail any personal racial animus by the defendant in order for plaintiffs to prevail.
/// and YOU want to ASSume /// Allow me to educate you pro bono. This tactic you are notorious for using here at DP ( putting YOUR words in OTHERS mouths, and trying ( and failing ) repeatedly to tell others what they think does two things. 1) It makes you look desperate and silly, as it implies you believe you are capable of mind reading. 2) It immediately makes your jibberish YOU attribute to OTHERS meaningless, and puts another 'loss' in your debating column.
 
/// and YOU want to assume /// Allow me to educate you pro bono. This tactic you are notorious for using here at DP ( putting YOUR words in OTHERS mouths, and trying ( and failing ) repeatedly to tell others what they think does two things. 1) It makes you look desperate and silly, as it implies you believe you are capable of mind reading. 2) It immediately makes your jibberish meaningless, and puts another 'loss' in your debating column.

when you constantly stalk another poster and try to attack everything they say, you should know what you are talking about. Your posts constantly fail to show any understanding.

I cannot help the fact that you don't understand Title VII litigation and that many cases of "racial discrimination" are based on what is called disparate impact-meaning a facially neutral policy-such as requiring a clean background check or a HS Diploma -can work a disparate impact on blacks and result in a law suit. Such claims DO NOT require proof of a racial animus by the defendant.



So you might start learning about this field before pretending you can lecture someone who has litigated hundreds of these suits.
 
and what was the hypocrisy in that?
in 2016, the GOP which had the senate, said we won't act on a Dem candidate but the Dems screamed to fill the seat. The GOP still has the senate, but now the WH and the Dems are screaming to wait. Both sides are somewhat hypocritical but what the Dems lie about is that in both cases, they don't hold the senate and it has been over 100 years since a president was able to confirm a justice in an election year, when the other party controlled the senate
 
when you constantly stalk another poster and try to attack everything they say, you should know what you are talking about. Your posts constantly fail to show any understanding.

I cannot help the fact that you don't understand Title VII litigation and that many cases of "racial discrimination" are based on what is called disparate impact-meaning a facially neutral policy-such as requiring a clean background check or a HS Diploma -can work a disparate impact on blacks and result in a law suit. Such claims DO NOT require proof of a racial animus by the defendant.



So you might start learning about this field before pretending you can lecture someone who has litigated hundreds of these suits.
Second, more desperate, goal post moving effort duly noted. And who engaged who first in this convo? Difference is I won't whine like you do when someone attacks/addresses my posts. I'll do what I did above and state the truth about your tactic of repeatedly attempting to tell others what they think, because you have no valid argument of your own. Now, either admit you do indeed attempt to tell others what they think, or out yourself again.....Your call.
 
Care to explain what makes Barrett illegitimate?

How do you mean?

The President has the power to appoint members of the Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Nothing other than that is required to be "legitimate".
 
/// So nobody really believes the Trump racism claims. /// It's public record that Trump was sued/lost/settled for discriminating against blacks.
Do you have any evidence that Trump was aware of the lower level employees discriminating against black Americans, as it was occurring?

Trump was running an enormously large company.

And, clearly, he settled without admission of guilt. Which would indicate that he discovered his employees were discriminating after the fact.

 
Second, more desperate, goal post moving effort duly noted. And who engaged who first in this convo? Difference is I won't whine like you do when someone attacks/addresses my posts. I'll do what I did above and state the truth about your tactic of repeatedly attempting to tell others what they think, because you have no valid argument of your own. Now, either admit you do indeed attempt to tell others what they think, or out yourself again.....Your call.
find someone else to stalk with your silly nonsense. You tried to pretend that since Trump was sued for racial discrimination, that makes him a racist. I schooled you on that nonsense and demonstrated that there is no proof that being sued for discrimination under Title VII does not establish a racial animus.
 
Back
Top Bottom