• 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!

Do you disapprove of GOP handling of Ketanji Brown Jackson's Supreme Court confirmation hearings?

Do you disapprove of GOP handling of Ketanji Brown Jackson's Supreme Court confirmation hearings?

  • Total voters
    65
Yes, I disapprove. I think we need to get back to giving SCOTUS nominees a wide bipartisan vote, unless they are unqualified or have scandals. I don't like the modern trend of near party-line votes (or no vote at all).

Several Republican senators made statements that she was qualified and smart and they thought she would do well, but alas they couldn't vote for her due to their difference in judicial philosophy. I think statements like that were meant to be conciliatory, but I don't like that.
 
Last edited:
Overitall said:
I don’t respond to trolling posts. Enjoy your day.
Click to expand...
Yup! Just like what I thought you would do. So go ahead with going out telling everyone the sky is falling.
 
Atomic Kid said:
Yup! Just like what I thought you would do. So go ahead with going out telling everyone the sky is falling.
Click to expand...

I got the same reply from that poster after they told me I was required to say "you are right."

Here for a debate, clearly.
 
Gatsby said:
Yes, I disapprove. I think we need to get back to giving SCOTUS nominees a wide bipartisan vote, unless they are unqualified or have scandals. I don't like the modern trend of near party-line votes (or no vote at all).

Several Republican senators made statements that she was qualified and smart and they thought she would do well, but alas they couldn't vote for her due to their difference in judicial philosophy. I think statements like that were meant to be conciliatory, but I don't like that.
Click to expand...
Or perhaps more like in the way many southern gentlemen are very comfortable with black folk until they try to move in next door to them.
 
Gatsby said:
Yes, I disapprove. I think we need to get back to giving SCOTUS nominees a wide bipartisan vote, unless they are unqualified or have scandals. I don't like the modern trend of near party-line votes (or no vote at all).

Several Republican senators made statements that she was qualified and smart and they thought she would do well, but alas they couldn't vote for her due to their difference in judicial philosophy. I think statements like that were meant to be conciliatory, but I don't like that.
Click to expand...
That's a little disingenuous when the "difference in judicial philosophy" is that she has done whatever she wants with poor legal reasoning and has used her discretion to give child pornographers sentences that were half of what her peers sentenced them to. She also refused to have a conversation about her judicial philosophy, something I don't recall ever seeing before during Supreme Court nomination hearings. That's about the only relevant conversation to be has during the hearings because they can't discuss individual policy preferences.

And on child pornography the Democrats want it both ways. They say she is within her discretion to give light sentences for such crimes and if Congress wants longer sentences they should take the discretion away from judges. So Republicans proposed a law today to create a mandatory minimum sentence of five years and Democrats blocked it. Go figure. When this process started I was very much on her side. But, now I'm torn.
 
pedoblicans 2.jpg
 
GummyVitamins said:
That's a little disingenuous when the "difference in judicial philosophy" is that she has done whatever she wants with poor legal reasoning and has used her discretion to give child pornographers sentences that were half of what her peers sentenced them to. She also refused to have a conversation about her judicial philosophy, something I don't recall ever seeing before during Supreme Court nomination hearings. That's about the only relevant conversation to be has during the hearings because they can't discuss individual policy preferences.

And on child pornography the Democrats want it both ways. They say she is within her discretion to give light sentences for such crimes and if Congress wants longer sentences they should take the discretion away from judges. So Republicans proposed a law today to create a mandatory minimum sentence of five years and Democrats blocked it. Go figure. When this process started I was very much on her side. But, now I'm torn.
Click to expand...
"Child pornographers" you mean people who create pornography?

You do know that this is about people who possess and specifically don't produce child pornography, including a 18 year old recent high school graduate who had 5 videos. That's tough. You want a law saying that 18 year old kid HAS to get 5 years because.... why?

Jackson’s average sentence (45 months) and those recommended by the probation office (52 months

^that's if you look at the sentence instead of term of incarceration. But I am curious to hear why we should have a mandatory 5 years for anyone who has a single image/video of child porn. That's a terrible idea in my opinion even though I think it's a terrible and disturbing subject
 
it was to be expected imo.......Fox has given voice to millions of people who are essentially childish pricks......they love to see this kind of behavior......
 
Idiocy and victimhood - that's all the GOP could muster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom