• 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!

Ketanji Brown Nominated to Supreme Court - Confirmation Hearing 3.21.22

TurtleDude said:
irrelevant. Biden had the aura of a moderate-which is why he was chosen to be the nominee but his actions are hardly that of a moderate. His party has become much farther left than Bill Clinton's party. I didn't support Reagan's actions there but it wasn't a campaign promise. and there were many top level white female jurists at the time
Click to expand...

Why do you not know facts?

Reagan made that a campaign promise. You need to do better with your history.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...e-court/844817dc-27aa-4f5d-8e4f-0ab3a5e76865/
 
TurtleDude said:
couldn't care less. the issue is Biden now. I didn't vote for Reagan. I in fact, ran the Libertarian Party campaign in 1980 for president-New Haven/Yale (Ed Clark for President)
Click to expand...

You should know facts before posting on here. You didn't. You claimed it wasn't a campaign promise. It was. You should thank me for educating you.
 
tres borrachos said:
You should know facts before posting on here. You didn't. You claimed it wasn't a campaign promise. It was. You should thank me for educating you.
Click to expand...
As I said it matters not to me, you most likely googled that because I doubt anyone remembers that alleged promise
 
TurtleDude said:
As I said it matters not to me, you most likely googled that because I doubt anyone remembers that alleged promise
Click to expand...

I didn't Google it. I knew it. I was 18 in 1980, voted for Reagan, and knew he promised to nominate a woman to SCOTUS at that time. We discussed it in 1981 when I was a Freshman in college in my government class. I guess they didn't discuss it in your Trump University classes.
 
dockside said:
Did any of those child porn offenders include Josh Duggar? This twice-convicted child porn criminal is seen in photos with Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Josh Hawley, all of them smiling for the camera. Just goes to show you what hypocrites they (Republicans) are. Anything to get their name out to the base upon whom they depend to stay in their cushy offices. I read that right after Cruz's craziness questioning Jackson, he was seen checking his Twitter feed. It's all theater with them (and, to a lesser degree, the Dems). They gotta please their biased, ignorant, racist base.
Click to expand...

Josh Duggar was adored by the right. He was photographed with pretty much every Republican politician. I'll bet he taught them all he knows about child porn.
 
TurtleDude said:
couldn't care less. the issue is Biden now. I didn't vote for Reagan.
Click to expand...
Too much pride to be a man and admit you were wrong? There's no difference in Biden's campaign promise and Reagan's and that's the point and you made a huge deal about it. Many people expose their weak characters when they're unable to simply say "I was wrong." Pride is one of the 7 Deadly Sins for a reason - people make poor decisions due to pride and are too prideful to admit they made a mistake. I've found it liberating to say I was wrong and it also makes someone more credible to admit so rather to say "Couldn't care less."
 
TurtleDude said:
As I said it matters not to me, you most likely googled that because I doubt anyone remembers that alleged promise
Click to expand...
It wasn't an "alleged promise" it was a real promise. Still can't admit you made a mistake?

What AA says about pride?

The literature of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) considers pride to be a singularly bad thing. The main texts (Big Book and 12 & 12) repeatedly describe it as a negative character trait and suggest that it represents an over inflated ego and self-absorbed personality.Jun 24, 2021
 
jakiejakester said:
It wasn't an "alleged promise" it was a real promise. Still can't admit you made a mistake?
Click to expand...
that was 40 years ago, I don't recall what Reagan was saying-I was working for another candidate
I said I didn't support it-so why does it matter
 
TurtleDude said:
that was 40 years ago, I don't recall what Reagan was saying-I was working for another candidate
I said I didn't support it-so why does it matter
Click to expand...
It matters because you made a big deal about Biden making an unprecedented campaign promise and therefore his pick is flawed due to his promise.

What AA says about pride?

The literature of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) considers pride to be a singularly bad thing. The main texts (Big Book and 12 & 12) repeatedly describe it as a negative character trait and suggest that it represents an over inflated ego and self-absorbed personality.Jun 24, 2021
 
TurtleDude said:
that was 40 years ago, I don't recall what Reagan was saying-I was working for another candidate
I said I didn't support it-so why does it matter
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter because the woman Reagan nominated wasn't Black. 1648567531736.png :rolleyes:
 
Collins may have broken a potential tie. Shame that other GOP were influenced by the alleged soft on crime allegation.

BREAKING: Collins to Back Jackson for Supreme Court, Giving Her a G.O.P. Vote

WASHINGTON — Senator Susan Collins of Maine plans to vote to confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court, ensuring that President Biden’s nominee and the first Black woman to be put forward for the post will receive at least one Republican backer. After a second personal meeting with the judge on Tuesday afternoon, Ms. Collins said Judge Jackson had alleviated some concerns that surfaced after last week’s contentious Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, when Republicans attacked the nominee for her record and grilled her on a host of divisive issues.

“I have decided to support the confirmation of Judge Jackson to be a member of the Supreme Court,” Ms. Collins said in an interview after the meeting. The centrist senator, often a key vote on Supreme Court clashes, said that she had been reassured that Judge Jackson would not be “bending the law to meet a personal preference” and that the nominee met her personal standard for serving on the court.

“In recent years, senators on both sides of the aisle have gotten away from what I perceive to be the appropriate process for evaluating judicial nominees,” she said. “In my view, the role under the Constitution assigned to the Senate is to look at the credentials, experience and qualifications of the nominee. It is not to assess whether a nominee reflects the individual ideology of a senator or would vote exactly as an individual senator would want.”

Her decision will allow Mr. Biden and Senate Democrats to claim some degree of bipartisanship around the historic nomination, though whether other Republicans will join Ms. Collins remains unclear. If Democrats stay united, it would also avoid the spectacle of Vice President Kamala Harris having to break a tie to seat a nominee on the Supreme Court, an unprecedented outcome that some saw as potentially damaging to the court’s standing.

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/30/u...n-collins.html
 
Manu Raju
@mkraju

A former federal prosecutor, who worked on sex crime cases, says Jackson’s handling of child porn cases was “consistent” with judges throughout the judiciary, per new letter shared by source. Says painting her as soft on sex crimes “lacks any appreciation” for complexity of cases


1648647206236.png
 
Credence said:
Collins may have broken a potential tie. Shame that other GOP were influenced by the alleged soft on crime allegation.

BREAKING: Collins to Back Jackson for Supreme Court, Giving Her a G.O.P. Vote
Click to expand...
Wow! In other news - Water is wet!

Murkowski and Romney will probably be next.

Most intelligent folks would be influenced by her apparently warped ideology. More than enough reason to vote "no".
 
Article by Douglas A Berman on Sentencing Law and Policy.
Just for the record; he is a Conservative


Sentencing Law and Policy
Excerpt:

But, to be truly fair and sound, any review of Judge Jackson's CP sentencings must include proper context regarding the federal sentencing guidelines for CP which are widely recognized as dysfunctional and unduly severe. As this recent US Sentencing Commission report explains, the CP guideline (2G2.2) "fails to distinguish adequately between more and less severe offenders" (p. 19), and "most courts believe §2G2.2 is generally too severe and does not appropriately measure offender culpability in the typical non-production child pornography case" (p. 22). With the CP guidelines "too severe" and poorly designed to "measure offender culpability" in the digital age, federal judges nationwide rarely follow them. Indeed, data in recent (and past) USSC reports document that Judge Jackson's record of imposing below-guideline CP sentences is quite mainstream because: (1) federal judges nationwide typically sentence below the CP guideline in roughly 2 out of 3 cases (p. 23), and (2) federal judges nationwide, when deciding to go below the CP guideline, typically impose sentences around 54 months below the calculated guideline minimum (p. 25).

Reviewing a brief accounting of nine CP cases sentenced by Judge Jackson (which I believe was produced by GOP Senators and/or staff and was forwarded to me), I was first struck by the fact that in a majority of these cases (5 of 9) the prosecution advocated for a below-guideline sentence and in three others the prosecution advocated for only the guideline minimum. In other words, Judge Jackson was generally sentencing CP defendants in cases in which even the prosecution concluded mitigating factors meant that the guidelines were not a proper benchmark range in light of congressional sentencing purposes. Notably, the recent USSC report indicates that the government formally moves for a below-range sentence in roughly 1 out of every 5 CP cases (p. 23); it is not clear if prosecutors made formal motions for departures or variances in Judge Jackson's CP cases, but it is clear that in the majority of these cases the prosecutors were the ones who requested a sentence below the CP guidelines. More.......

 
Superfly said:
I'd love to know how many times she got drunk and was accused of rape.
Click to expand...
I don't understand why you feel this important information but, perhaps one of the democrat senators that asked that of Kavanaugh could ask her and then we would know for sure.

Her apparent ideology and that of her most ardent supporters is enough for me to be against this nominee.
 
SuperDS77 said:
I don't understand why you feel this important information but, perhaps one of the democrat senators that asked that of Kavanaugh could ask her and then we would know for sure.

Her apparent ideology and that of her most ardent supporters is enough for me to be against this nominee.
Click to expand...

And the fact that she is a woman of color makes you no never mind.

giphy.gif
 
Superfly said:
And the fact that she is a woman of color makes you no never mind.

giphy.gif
Click to expand...
Nope, not one bit.

Playing the race card based on literally nothing? Pathetic and predictable.

Carry on with your fallacious ways young lady!

Be well! :)
 
SuperDS77 said:
Nope, not one bit.

Playing the race card based on literally nothing? Pathetic and predictable.

Carry on with your fallacious ways young lady!

Be well! :)
Click to expand...

You defend a thrice-accused rapist, but have issue with a woman of color.

But it's not about the fact that she is a woman of color.

Sure, Jan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom