• 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!

GOP already going after Biden's Supreme Court pick...

Well, McConnell and your fascist Republican Party did steal a Supreme Court seat, after all.

The Democrats had a legitimate reason not to be happy about that.
You can blather on about all the perceived injustices, but I believe they will go soft on her because she is a black woman. They won't want to come across as RACISTS, even thought that is what the left will call them anyway!
 
You can blather on about all the perceived injustices, but I believe they will go soft on her because she is a black woman. They won't want to come across as RACISTS, even thought that is what the left will call them anyway!

It's not a perceived injustice. It was an injustice. Scalia died in Feb 2016, freaking 9 months before the election. What McConnell did was a disgrace.

But fascists will be fascists and you will continue to cheerlead for them. Because that's what you people do.

"Owning the libs" is all that matters, it justifies everything.
 
I never said I did. Now that the filibuster has been removed I have accepted that the bench will be filled by very partisan picks from now on. The Democrats won and they get to confirm whoever they all agree on.

I'd rather have a Supreme Court where all of the Justices have firmly-held views and can argue them passionately rather than a bunch of wishy-washy moderates who don't really stand for anything. How about you?
 
I don't see it that way. Aside from Donnelly (D-IN) and Heitkamp (D-ND) also voting for Gorsuch, he was the only Democrat who voted for Kavanaugh. If I were in the Senate, I would have been the only Democrat who voted for Barrett. The way I figure it, that puts he and I at roughly the same place on the ideological spectrum... and the way I would approach these kinds of nominations is that the President deserves to nominate whomever he chooses to the Supreme Court. It doesn't matter what party the President comes from, his nominee deserves respect. I'm not going to vote against them unless I've got a good reason not to... and I'm pretty sure that's roughly in line with Manchin's point of view as well.

Yeah, I know. We're never going to agree. You still believe the Republican Party is a legitimate political party and that there is still a "middle" ground to be had with them. I don't.

The Republicans have given up on democracy, as they demonstrated on Jan 6. But "centrists" like you won't recognize that until it's too late.
 
I'd rather have a Supreme Court where all of the Justices have firmly-held views and can argue them passionately rather than a bunch of wishy-washy moderates who don't really stand for anything. How about you?
It does not really matter at this point. We are gonna get whoever the party in power favors.
 
Yeah, I know. We're never going to agree. You still believe the Republican Party is a legitimate political party and that there is still a "middle" ground to be had with them. I don't.

The Republicans have given up on democracy, as they demonstrated on Jan 6. But "centrists" like you won't recognize that until it's too late.

Actually, no, I don't believe that. I've always leaned Democrat, but I've also been willing to give the Republican a fair shot.

Not anymore, though. I am never, ever, ever going to vote Republican again unless or until they utterly repudiate Trump and everything he stands for. I voted for Bush, Sr. twice, Bob Dole once, and Bush, Jr. once. None of those men would have ever licked Trump's boots the way today's GOP does.... and I'd never vote for anyone who did or ever would.

I would have walked through fire for John McCain in 2000. And I was ready and willing to vote for him in 2008.... until he picked Palin as his VP. I haven't considered voting GOP since she walked across that stage.
 
Actually, no, I don't believe that. I've always leaned Democrat, but I've also been willing to give the Republican a fair shot.

Not anymore, though. I am never, ever, ever going to vote Republican again unless or until they utterly repudiate Trump and everything he stands for. I voted for Bush, Sr. twice, Bob Dole once, and Bush, Jr. once. None of those men would have ever licked Trump's boots the way today's GOP does.... and I'd never vote for anyone who did or ever would.

I would have walked through fire for John McCain in 2000. And I was ready and willing to vote for him in 2008.... until he picked Palin as his VP. I haven't considered voting GOP since she walked across that stage.

Fair enough, I apologize. However, this is NOT what Manchin believes. He foolishly thinks that there are decent Republicans in the Senate that he can convince to protect voting rights.

He's wrong.
 
Oh, sorry.... I thought you had a point of view.
I don't think justices should bring their views to the bench. They should act in two capacities.

1. Determine if the law in question is lawful.
2. If the law is being followed correctly

Beyond that, justices should keep their opinions to themselves.
 
Fair enough, I apologize. However, this is NOT what Manchin believes. He foolishly thinks that there are decent Republicans in the Senate that he can convince to protect voting rights.

He's wrong.

Disagree with you there. I'm with Manchin... there's a deal there to be struck.

I think the main problem is that Chuck Schumer is a useless Majority Leader. All he's good for is talking the talk. A Senate leader needs to focus more on walking the walk - doing what it takes to get the wheels moving. If we had someone like Amy Klobuchar as Senate Leader, you'd see things start to move.
 
I don't think justices should bring their views to the bench. They should act in two capacities.

1. Determine if the law in question is lawful.
2. If the law is being followed correctly

Beyond that, justices should keep their opinions to themselves.

Yeah? Good luck getting those 5 conservative Justices to adequately explain the Bush vs Gore decision, which was based on absolutely no legal precedent.
 
I don't think justices should bring their views to the bench. They should act in two capacities.

1. Determine if the law in question is lawful.
2. If the law is being followed correctly

Beyond that, justices should keep their opinions to themselves.

The thing with that, though, is that you're talking about the Court of Appeals. By the time cases get to the Supreme Court, they aren't so clear-cut. Justices have to rely on their character and their judgment... and be open-minded enough to realize when the other side has the better argument.
 
Disagree with you there. I'm with Manchin... there's a deal there to be struck.

I think the main problem is that Chuck Schumer is a useless Majority Leader. All he's good for is talking the talk. A Senate leader needs to focus more on walking the walk - doing what it takes to get the wheels moving. If we had someone like Amy Klobuchar as Senate Leader, you'd see things start to move.

Yeah, a deal that guarantees that Republicans always win elections. Then Republicans will vote for it.

And the point is there should NOT be a deal made with Republicans when it comes to voting rights. There should be no compromise when it comes to Constitutional rights like voting, which is something else Manchin and Sinema don't understand.

And you just said the Republicans are slimeballs...so why make a deal with them?
 
Yeah, a deal that guarantees that Republicans always win elections. Then Republicans will vote for it.

And the point is there should NOT be a deal made with Republicans when it comes to voting rights. There should be no compromise when it comes to Constitutional rights like voting, which is something else Manchin and Sinema don't understand.

And you just said the Republicans are slimeballs...so why make a deal with them?

Not all of them are slimeballs. There are some good ones there... but I'm probably not going to do them any favors by naming them. ;)
 
falsely saying she was soft on sex offenders to begin with....and for providing protection for people in detention at Guantanamo.....


Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson are set to begin Monday, and Republicans are already signaling their plan to attack her for providing legal representation to people imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay. In doing so, lawmakers are revealing a belief that certain people don’t deserve a quality legal defense — undermining a key pillar of the U.S. judicial system.
The GOP concedes that in her role as a Washington, D.C., public defender, Jackson did not choose her clients, but nonetheless accuses her of being too enthusiastic in their defense. “Jackson’s advocacy for these terrorists was ’zealous,’ going beyond just giving them a competent defense,” the Republican National Committee says on its website in a takedown of Jackson.



n a thinly sourced Twitter thread on Thursday, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) made a series of inflammatory attacks against Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is President Joe Biden’s nominee for the Supreme Court and currently a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
The tweets dealt with some of Jackson’s past statements on sex offender registries and civil commitment, as well as her views on mandatory minimums. He claimed, without evidence, that Jackson “has a pattern of letting child porn offenders off the hook for their appalling crimes, both as a judge and as a policymaker.”


It was a preview of a tactic Republicans will likely deploy next week when Jackson testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which Hawley is a member. But despite his claim that she is soft on sex offenses, nothing is particularly unusual about her judgments in such cases.
“I’m concerned that this is a record that endangers our children,” Hawley tweeted Thursday, in a thread that contained out-of-context screenshots of Jackson’s past statements and no links to the underlying material he was criticizing.



A
"Falsely"? She said people who just own kidiee porn aren't bad.
 
"Falsely"? She said people who just own kidiee porn aren't bad.

You pretty much just lap up and regurgitate whatever BS they feed you, don't you?

I had never seen a creature with a 3-second digestive cycle until Trump kicked over that rock and you all came swarming out.
 
Not all of them are slimeballs. There are some good ones there... but I'm probably not going to do them any favors by naming them. ;)

Romney is the only Republican Senator who voted to convict Trump during both impeachment trials. So I disagree that there are "some" good Republicans.

And even Romney won't support voting rights and the BBB bill.
 
Romney is the only Republican Senator who voted to convict Trump during both impeachment trials. So I disagree that there are "some" good Republicans.

And even Romney won't support voting rights and the BBB bill.

That's why it's called deal-making, RIP.... if you're expecting them to just fall over with their legs in the air, you're going to be in for either a long wait or a lot of disappointment. Or both.
 
You pretty much just lap up and regurgitate whatever BS they feed you, don't you?
You have very little self-awareness, don't you.
I had never seen a creature with a 3-second digestive cycle until Trump kicked over that rock and you all came swarming out.
Got a Trump fixation problem, eh? He's everywhere you know - check under your bed before you turn out the night tonight.
 
The thing with that, though, is that you're talking about the Court of Appeals. By the time cases get to the Supreme Court, they aren't so clear-cut. Justices have to rely on their character and their judgment... and be open-minded enough to realize when the other side has the better argument.
It's not their job to decide who has the better argument. It's their job to determine if the law was followed as it's written.
 
You pretty much just lap up and regurgitate whatever BS they feed you, don't you?
Or I can read her writings.
I had never seen a creature with a 3-second digestive cycle until Trump kicked over that rock and you all came swarming out.
Find a mirror - you'll see just the person you're talking about.
 
You have very little self-awareness, don't you.

Got a Trump fixation problem, eh? He's everywhere you know - check under your bed before you turn out the night tonight.

Not at all... I know exactly who I am and what I know. Comes from thinking for myself. I highly recommend it.
 
Not at all... I know exactly who I am and what I know. Comes from thinking for myself. I highly recommend it.
Sure. :rolleyes: It's apparent by the climate disaster mantras you spew.
 
Back
Top Bottom