• 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!

If I was a Republican I'd be proud of Jackson hearing

However you see it his commentary was based on her judicial rulings and sentencing not on her personally. If she was Republican democrats would have accused her of being a closet pedophile.
That is what he is basically trying to paint, at least that she is friendly to pedophiles. Pay attention.
 
However you see it his commentary was based on her judicial rulings and sentencing not on her personally. If she was Republican democrats would have accused her of being a closet pedophile.
Of course you would stick up for the entitled elitist little prick.
 
He sure as hell did not work himself up from the bottom.
oh.Well. that should gave disqualified him, besides being a rapist and an alcoholic.
 
The respect Republicans are treating this lady with stands in stark contrast to how democrats have been treating recent Republican presidential nominees. Questions have been based on policy and judicial decisions and have been tough but fair. No personal attacks, no unsubstantiated allegations no attempt to destroy her and her family. They truly are the adults in the room and are schooling democrats on how these hearings should be conducted. It's a pleasant change to not be embarrassed for my country watching this dignified proceeding.
Kavannaugh's hearings were a witch hunt and a circus on every level. The Democrats were disgraceful.
ACB received zero respect and was treated to an unConstitutional religious test.

The GOP has treated this current nominee with respect and decency.
 
The respect Republicans are treating this lady with stands in stark contrast to how democrats have been treating recent Republican presidential nominees. Questions have been based on policy and judicial decisions and have been tough but fair. No personal attacks, no unsubstantiated allegations no attempt to destroy her and her family. They truly are the adults in the room and are schooling democrats on how these hearings should be conducted. It's a pleasant change to not be embarrassed for my country watching this dignified proceeding.
Well, could it simply be that she is QUALIFIED beyond reproach, instead of the "lesser" nominees that were nominated under that aberration of a PRESIDENT FROM 2017-2021 ?????.............
 
The respect Republicans are treating this lady with stands in stark contrast to how democrats have been treating recent Republican presidential nominees. Questions have been based on policy and judicial decisions and have been tough but fair. No personal attacks, no unsubstantiated allegations no attempt to destroy her and her family. They truly are the adults in the room and are schooling democrats on how these hearings should be conducted. It's a pleasant change to not be embarrassed for my country watching this dignified proceeding.
The vote has not taken place yet .............. they will not support her they don't need a reason.

The public is getting duped. Koch put out the word he likes reverse psychology. IT's in play every day such as blaming democrats for crap the right wingers did another such as ======== COVID 19/Variants then followed with anti vaccine and masks. Then the crappy economy that Rump left behind. It's all choreographed.

Ukraine is Biden's fault too. What isn't Biden's fault?

Hey folks it's all about mid term elections.
 
Last edited:
Kavannaugh's hearings were a witch hunt and a circus on every level. The Democrats were disgraceful.
ACB received zero respect and was treated to an unConstitutional religious test.

The GOP has treated this current nominee with respect and decency.
All I remember is Kavanaugh really likes beer.
 
She's on a school board where a book that says babies should be taught they are racist is part of the curriculum so it's a fair question that needs asked.
Did you read that book?
 
"If, would" ---> used as stupid attempt to bootstrap credibility


"No personal attacks" --> used to disguise behaviors such as verbally indicting her for representing the most unsavory criminals: terrorists and pedo types.


I could go on. I could talk about dog whistling race shit. But I won't (for now). Why do people who consider themselves patriots take such glee in smearing defense attorneys? I get that there's this popular "lawyers suck omg lol" attitude, but if you love your country why would you attack someone for what such attorneys do?

Public Service Announcement: nothing we have ever sacrificed or done in the name of freedom means anything unless the allegedly lowest of the low enjoys full protection of all applicable rights.

And what, really, is a right when all you can do is complain about its being denied before being hauled away in a Nalvany-style sham prosecution? (I know, cleverly call all prosecutions you approve of "legitimate" and all others "fake"! That'll pwn those libs!). Yet that's all you end up getting if the entire concept of providing a zealous defense is shat upon because omg sleezey lawyer loves criminals because he is one LOL MAGA! When you call an essential point of constitutional law like the right to effective assistance of counsel "getting off on a technicality".

These people - like the GOPers who smeared her - are advocating for the one thing that might actually be a step on the path to a pure sham judicial system. Like Russia's.


__________
At any rate, can someone remind @Chainsawmassacre that he's a hardcore Trumpist, now meaning Republican? He seems to love the hearing. He might've just gotten turned around a bit. On the way to posting replies. Help 'em out a bit.
 
She's on a school board where a book that says babies should be taught they are racist is part of the curriculum so it's a fair question that needs asked.

Turns out that board doesn't control curriculum.
 
I heard part of Cotton's and he sounds like a phony, a complete moron.
A constant barrage of questions he claims were simple - do you support harsher penalties for sex abusers or weaker penalties!! Answer me! Either or!
It was so juvenile, along with his mannerisms which seemed put on for show.


Cotton is a low grade moron. This is known.
 
The respect Republicans are treating this lady with stands in stark contrast to how democrats have been treating recent Republican presidential nominees. Questions have been based on policy and judicial decisions and have been tough but fair. No personal attacks, no unsubstantiated allegations no attempt to destroy her and her family. They truly are the adults in the room and are schooling democrats on how these hearings should be conducted. It's a pleasant change to not be embarrassed for my country watching this dignified proceeding.
Lol.

Your kidding right?
 
"If, would" ---> used as stupid attempt to bootstrap credibility


"No personal attacks" --> used to disguise behaviors such as verbally indicting her for representing the most unsavory criminals: terrorists and pedo types.


I could go on. I could talk about dog whistling race shit. But I won't (for now). Why do people who consider themselves patriots take such glee in smearing defense attorneys? I get that there's this popular "lawyers suck omg lol" attitude, but if you love your country why would you attack someone for what such attorneys do?

Public Service Announcement: nothing we have ever sacrificed or done in the name of freedom means anything unless the allegedly lowest of the low enjoys full protection of all applicable rights.

And what, really, is a right when all you can do is complain about its being denied before being hauled away in a Nalvany-style sham prosecution? (I know, cleverly call all prosecutions you approve of "legitimate" and all others "fake"! That'll pwn those libs!). Yet that's all you end up getting if the entire concept of providing a zealous defense is shat upon because omg sleezey lawyer loves criminals because he is one LOL MAGA!

Imagine advocating to switching to a pure sham judicial system like NK, China, Russia....just because doing so lets you say something



__________
At any rate, can someone remind @Chainsawmassacre that he's a hardcore Trumpist, now meaning Republican? He seems to love the hearing. He might've just gotten turned around a bit. On the way to posting replies. Help 'em out a bit.
Ginning up and catering to their voter base is job one, and what a base it is.
 
Cotton just asked Judge Jackson if "we should catch and convict more or fewer criminals." This is a genuinely stupid, disingenuous question that has nothing to do with the job of a judge. Their job is to deal with the criminals who come before them, not opine on crime in general.

These are mental midgets bent on scoring political points. What a useless exercise.

Yes-- and the job of the judge is to judge based upon the laws that the elected and accountable legislature has passed and elected and accountable executive has signed.
 
"If, would" ---> used as stupid attempt to bootstrap credibility


"No personal attacks" --> used to disguise behaviors such as verbally indicting her for representing the most unsavory criminals: terrorists and pedo types.


I could go on. I could talk about dog whistling race shit. But I won't (for now). Why do people who consider themselves patriots take such glee in smearing defense attorneys? I get that there's this popular "lawyers suck omg lol" attitude, but if you love your country why would you attack someone for what such attorneys do?

Public Service Announcement: nothing we have ever sacrificed or done in the name of freedom means anything unless the allegedly lowest of the low enjoys full protection of all applicable rights.

And what, really, is a right when all you can do is complain about its being denied before being hauled away in a Nalvany-style sham prosecution? (I know, cleverly call all prosecutions you approve of "legitimate" and all others "fake"! That'll pwn those libs!). Yet that's all you end up getting if the entire concept of providing a zealous defense is shat upon because omg sleezey lawyer loves criminals because he is one LOL MAGA! When you call an essential point of constitutional law like the right to effective assistance of counsel "getting off on a technicality".

These people - like the GOPers who smeared her - are advocating for the one thing that might actually be a step on the path to a pure sham judicial system. Like Russia's.


__________
At any rate, can someone remind @Chainsawmassacre that he's a hardcore Trumpist, now meaning Republican? He seems to love the hearing. He might've just gotten turned around a bit. On the way to posting replies. Help 'em out a bit.

The prisoners at Guantanamo were unlawful enemy combatants captured while engaging in warfare against the USA.
They were not criminal defendants.
They held under the laws of war, not in the legal system, and thus did not have a right to counsel.
It is entirely correct and proper to question Judge Jackson about this.
 
Back
Top Bottom