• 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!

Is every white republican senator going to vote against this black woman nominee for scotus?

Once again I will ask, if the gop is not racist, why are its elected officials ninety five percent white men and the base ninety five percent white folks?

How many times and in how many different ways does the gop need to prove many are indeed racist?
When Tim Scott votes no on K. Brown Jackson does that mean he believes she is not qualified or that he is a racist or is it just another black on black crime that doesn't fit the race baiting narrative.
 
Hillary came awful close. 78,000 votes in just three states and won the popular vote over all by almost 3 million. A better disciplined female candidate without baggage would have stomped Trumps ass just like Biden did.

To all those HRC haters, she has started an exploratory group looking into running again. If she has learned her lessons from last time, (and I'm sure she has), she would stand a good chance against Trump or DeSantis with a well run campaign.
I am sceptical by the mere fact that unlike many countries america has never had a women holding the position of leader.
 
Once again I will ask, if the gop is not racist, why are its elected officials ninety five percent white men and the base ninety five percent white folks?

How many times and in how many different ways does the gop need to prove many are indeed racist?
It's GOT to be the race. No way it could be that Brown-Jackson can't define "woman" and doesn't recognize inalienable rights. Can't be that she's got a habit of giving preferential sentences to sex offenders. None of that shit could POSSIBLY be the reason. It's all about the race....

This shit gets really old. It hasn't done you tree hugging, pinko commies any good playing this race game the past 15 years but you just can't seem to get off the pipe with the routine.
 
Democrats would also rather have Biden than a woman as president.
Do not despair that america is so backwards that they will not let a woman be president. Australia has had women as leader and then shat on her so much it disgraced all politicians in australia.
I suspect america would do the same though.
 
I am sceptical by the mere fact that unlike many countries america has never had a women holding the position of leader.

So what?

Why is it mandatory?

You know, its not that long ago women took cares of the kids and home.

Good grief.
 
"It is clear that Judge Jackson’s judicial philosophy and positions on the defining issues of our time make her the wrong choice for the Supreme Court. From leaving the door open on court packing to her multiple overturned opinions, I cannot support a nominee with her record of judicial activism. I remain disappointed that President Biden missed the opportunity to unite the country with a mainstream nominee that could have received resounding bipartisan support. For all these reasons, I will be voting no on Judge Jackson’s nomination to the Supreme Court."

Senator Tim Scott
 
No, just partisan like the democrats were in their voting against Republican SCOTUS nominees. In case you haven’t heard, 3 white Republicans, Collins, Romney, Murkowski have stated they would vote for Jackson. A black republican will vote against her. It’s all about partisanship, these votes have always been partisan votes. Qualifications, race, gender, means nothing. Just who nominated them, a Republican president’s nominee will always be opposed by Democrats, a Democratic president’s nominee will always be opposed by Republicans. Most anyway as 3 Republicans stated they’d vote for Jackson’s confirmation.

Kavanaugh got just 1 Democratic senator’s vote, Barrett received no Democratic senator’s vote. This proves the partisanship of the voting process for confirmation. It’s all about the R and or the D. Not about anything else.
Is it possible the last two additions to the supreme court are not qualified to sit on the supreme court and really were nothing more than republican politics? Mitch's refusal to give Obama his pick was a slap in the face to precedent. To me that was a really low move by the gop and then I have to listen to the minions defending their every underhanded ploy.
 
Is it possible the last two additions to the supreme court are not qualified to sit on the supreme court and really were nothing more than republican politics? Mitch's refusal to give Obama his pick was a slap in the face to precedent. To me that was a really low move by the gop and then I have to listen to the minions defending their every underhanded ploy.
Does qualifications matter? Not as much as you think. Every Democratic president tosses out on average half of all judges because they have a conservative bent. Republicans toss out on average half the judges because they’re viewed as liberal. Just for starters, half of the judges are dismissed because they don’t have the same political views as the president.



Since ex-democratic majority leader, Senator Harry Reid first used the nuclear option, I haven’t paid any attention to the hearings. The nominations are guaranteed regardless of qualifications. What were Jackson’s qualification, most important she was a liberal, then female and black. Then came other qualities.

Although I think Garland deserved a vote on the senate floor, said so on this site numerous times. McConnell took nothing from Obama. The GOP had 54 senators and could easily have defeated Garlands nomination. I will never understand why McConnell didn’t allow a vote on him. Stupid politics in my book. But the bottom line is even with a floor vote, Garland wasn’t going to be confirmed. No way could Garland have achieved getting 5 Republican senators to vote for his confirmation.

I think this was political payback for Schumer’s statement during the Bush administration that the senate wouldn’t allow a vote for any Bush SCOTUS nominee if an opening occurred. This in 2007, a full year and one half before the end of Bush’s presidency. Political revenge is nothing new. It’s just reached new heights in our modern political era of polarization, the great divide and the super, mega, ultra-high partisanship.

The fact Jackson will get at least 3 Republican Senators to vote for her conformation is a good thing. I think she’ll make a good SCOTUS judge. But what I think isn’t about to take the politics out of judicial nomination process, the hearings and votes in the senate.
 
Does qualifications matter? Not as much as you think. Every Democratic president tosses out on average half of all judges because they have a conservative bent. Republicans toss out on average half the judges because they’re viewed as liberal. Just for starters, half of the judges are dismissed because they don’t have the same political views as the president.



Since ex-democratic majority leader, Senator Harry Reid first used the nuclear option, I haven’t paid any attention to the hearings. The nominations are guaranteed regardless of qualifications. What were Jackson’s qualification, most important she was a liberal, then female and black. Then came other qualities.

Although I think Garland deserved a vote on the senate floor, said so on this site numerous times. McConnell took nothing from Obama. The GOP had 54 senators and could easily have defeated Garlands nomination. I will never understand why McConnell didn’t allow a vote on him. Stupid politics in my book. But the bottom line is even with a floor vote, Garland wasn’t going to be confirmed. No way could Garland have achieved getting 5 Republican senators to vote for his confirmation.

I think this was political payback for Schumer’s statement during the Bush administration that the senate wouldn’t allow a vote for any Bush SCOTUS nominee if an opening occurred. This in 2007, a full year and one half before the end of Bush’s presidency. Political revenge is nothing new. It’s just reached new heights in our modern political era of polarization, the great divide and the super, mega, ultra-high partisanship.

The fact Jackson will get at least 3 Republican Senators to vote for her conformation is a good thing. I think she’ll make a good SCOTUS judge. But what I think isn’t about to take the politics out of judicial nomination process, the hearings and votes in the senate.
It is not Democrat vs Republican. It is a living constitution or laws as written. Democrats select super legislators.
 
So what?

Why is it mandatory?

You know, its not that long ago women took cares of the kids and home.

Good grief.
No not mandatory. But it does say a lot about society in america.

And I am sure that when mums get home from work now and greet their kids they are really glad things have changed.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/maggie...t-household-responsibilities/?sh=10882d3752e9
However, while women are more educated and more employed than ever, they are still taking on most of the household and familial duties. And it’s not just about chores and childcare; women are also much more likely to be the ones who care for sick or elderly family members. Although working mothers spend more time on work, household labor, and child care than fathers, they are not more likely to have access to workplace policies such as paid family and medical leave, paid sick days, workplace flexibility, and affordable childcare.
 
Once again I will ask, if the gop is not racist, why are its elected officials ninety five percent white men and the base ninety five percent white folks?

How many times and in how many different ways does the gop need to prove many are indeed racist?
Nice try but only fools believe this lie. They are bias exactly the same as the democratic party. It is party bias that is why the democrats picked her and it is party bias why the republicans won't vote for her. Now the racist is Biden who picked her because of her skin color or race. When you choose a person based on their race that is racist without any doubt. So if you want to throw out the race card toss it right in Biden's lap where it belongs.
 
Again, the problem is that the decision was made to appoint only a black female, and disregard all others.

Why are you OK with that? Are you making the claim that two wrongs make a right?
I have it on good authority that every single white, male attorney was on the list but didn't make the cut.
 
Once again I will ask, if the gop is not racist, why are its elected officials ninety five percent white men and the base ninety five percent white folks?

How many times and in how many different ways does the gop need to prove many are indeed racist?
The GOP is dead. This group controlled by a fascist platform will vote against her because she is NOT a radical right wing woman, because she is not white and most of all because she is a moderate voice.
 
Was there a thread like this when every black Democratic Senator voted against Barrett ... and Kavanaugh ... and Gorsuch ... and Alito ...?
 
The GOP is dead. This group controlled by a fascist platform will vote against her because she is NOT a radical right wing woman, because she is not white and most of all because she is a moderate voice.
However not every senator in this ALEC Right Wing Party is going to vote against ........ the majority will.
 
It's GOT to be the race. No way it could be that Brown-Jackson can't define "woman" and doesn't recognize inalienable rights. Can't be that she's got a habit of giving preferential sentences to sex offenders. None of that shit could POSSIBLY be the reason. It's all about the race....

This shit gets really old. It hasn't done you tree hugging, pinko commies any good playing this race game the past 15 years but you just can't seem to get off the pipe with the routine.
Something wrong with tree hugging?

BTW how would you define woman?

Can you recognize inalienable rights? If so how?

"she's got a habit of giving preferential sentences to sex offenders."........says who? Any hard evidence? This is a big load of lies, misinformation, distorted information and negligent behavior.
 
Once again I will ask, if the gop is not racist, why are its elected officials ninety five percent white men and the base ninety five percent white folks?

How many times and in how many different ways does the gop need to prove many are indeed racist?
This is what lefty does to black men and women running for political office. Who is the racist?


Did you do any homework on the demographics of the house districts?
Did you do any homework on whether a black politician was running in the district or state? Perhaps Schumer should retire and let a black politician run.

This is a typical thread from you. Pick a topic without substance simply to divide.
 
Once again I will ask, if the gop is not racist, why are its elected officials ninety five percent white men and the base ninety five percent white folks?

How many times and in how many different ways does the gop need to prove many are indeed racist?
I see now. You are a racist simply because you don't vote for a politician based on the color of their skin or their gender.

What did you say about the GOP base? Don't you do any homework?
 
Once again I will ask, if the gop is not racist, why are its elected officials ninety five percent white men and the base ninety five percent white folks?

How many times and in how many different ways does the gop need to prove many are indeed racist?
There are 3 repubs who said they will vote in favor of KBJ
 
I see now. You are a racist simply because you don't vote for a politician based on the color of their skin or their gender.

What did you say about the GOP base? Don't you do any homework?
Lol, that doesn't change the numbers.
 
Back
Top Bottom