• 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!

Looks like Ketanji Brown Jackson to be Biden's SCOTUS pick

tres borrachos said:
You weren't alive during World War III, so your opinion on Nazis should be irrelevant too, amirite?

Reagan did the exact same thing Biden did. That is an historical fact. Luckily the left didn't act like buffoons when Reagan announced what he did. They didn't scream and carry on like Trump Fan Nation is today.

Tell me exactly why she isn't the best candidate for the nomination.
Click to expand...
Reagan ended the Cold War.... "Tear down the wall ...."

Biden .. meh .. he can't even articulate his thought, unless it's scripted.
 
tres borrachos said:
Because you're the one saying that Biden believed there to be no qualified men when he tapped Brown-Jackson. So did Reagan tap Day-O'Connor because there were no qualified men at the time?
Click to expand...
Quote me where I said as you claim.

Thanks
 
tres borrachos said:
You're better than this. Don't lie. Your post is right there.
Click to expand...

You purposefully are twisting the meaning of my posts.

It is wholly unacceptable to discriminate against people for reasons of sex or color.

That is what is taking place here and throughout industry as well, for 40 years now.

You should correct the past by stopping such practices not changing who you discriminate against.
 
noonereal said:
You purposefully are twisting the meaning of my posts.

It is wholly unacceptable to discriminate against people for reasons of sex or color.

That is what is taking place here and throughout industry as well, for 40 years now.

You should correct the past by stopping such practices not changing who you discriminate against.
Click to expand...

Your post is right there. When confronted by it, you claimed you never made it - and you did make it. Be honest and admit it.
 
tres borrachos said:
Your post is right there. When confronted by it, you claimed you never made it - and you did make it. Be honest and admit it.
Click to expand...

Do you wish to speak to the discrimination I am or are you just going to troll?
 
noonereal said:
Do you wish to speak to the discrimination I am or are you just going to troll?
Click to expand...

Do you wish to admit you made the post?

There is no discrimination. Just like there was none when Reagan did it and when Trump did it. They are allowed to select the person they feel is best for SCOTUS. What makes her unqualified for the role?
 
tres borrachos said:
There is no discrimination. Just like there was none when Reagan did it and when Trump did it.
Click to expand...

Of course there was.

You don't make up for the past by discriminating against another group.

Ever hear that two wrongs don't make a right?
 
noonereal said:
Of course there was.

You don't make up for the past by discriminating against another group.

Ever hear that two wrongs don't make a right?
Click to expand...

No, there wasn't. SCOTUS is a lifetime appointment that is more than just "legal experience". That is something everyone who understands SCOTUS knows. And SCOTUS is supposed to represent the entire country, not just males. Reagan knew that. There are no black females on SCOTUS today. Biden is right to want to add a black female so they are represented. And the next POTUS who wants to add an Asian or an Indian, given that they have no representation, would be right too.

You haven't said how she isn't qualified for the role yet.
 
noonereal said:
Of course there was.

You don't make up for the past by discriminating against another group.

Ever hear that two wrongs don't make a right?
Click to expand...

In general, you will only find the beneficiaries of past discrimination espousing this view.
 
noonereal said:
Of course there was.

You don't make up for the past by discriminating against another group.

Ever hear that two wrongs don't make a right?
Click to expand...
Humor me and explain to me why being discriminatory is inherently bad. I'm looking at the definition and it doesn't seem inherently bad.
 
noonereal said:
I never put forth that assertion.

You really are struggling with simple English, aren't you?
Click to expand...

You also claimed you never asked about men, and you did.

If you believe her to be qualified, then why are you complaining?
 
Naming someone to the Supreme court is not a hiring position. It is a political decision. There are no laid-out requirements. Presidents have named political rivals to the court. They have named men who did not graduate from law school. men who never served as judges. In short, nominations have been made depending on the political needs or desires at the time. This nomination, involving a person who is of the backbone of the Democratic Party and part of an underrepresented group in the corridors of political power, is no different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom