• 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!

No need to argue if any black woman is qualified for the supreme court. Is it just plain old time one was finally added to the court?

Cope said:
If it were done without plainly stating a racist screed? Yes, very likely. When you come out and admit to discriminating against a good portion of the rest of the US?
Not so much.
Click to expand...
Please tell us again about the makeup of the big tent of the republicans. Why is telling us americans he intends on picking a black woman for the supreme court racist? Reagan told us he intends to pick a woman, was that sexist?

You folks get your panties all in a wad over the silliest of things.
 
Napoleon said:
I don’t see how adding another black person to the Court achieves that. 1 black Justice is as close to proportionate representation to the black population as it gets on a 9-seat bench. If the goal is to racially diversify the Court then the nominee should be Asian since that is a demographic which has never been represented on the Court.
Click to expand...
I can't help but read these types of replies as, let's just keep white men the majority of the court since white folks are the majority in america. Here's a suggestion, how about if we do away with all but one white man on the court and have the rest be black men and women. I can see white america have a massive collective heart attack.
 
bongsaway said:
I can't help but read these types of replies as, let's just keep white men the majority of the court since white folks are the majority in america. Here's a suggestion, how about if we do away with all but one white man on the court and have the rest be black men and women. I can see white america have a massive collective heart attack.
Click to expand...
I can get behind diversifying the court as close to proportion of population as possible even if it is just superficial showboating. Doing what you suggest above just reeks of animus.
 
Napoleon said:
I can get behind diversifying the court as close to proportion of population as possible even if it is just superficial showboating. Doing what you suggest above just reeks of animus.
Click to expand...
Animus? I don't own a pet. You are welcome to your opinion.
 
Napoleon said:
I can get behind diversifying the court as close to proportion of population as possible even if it is just superficial showboating. Doing what you suggest above just reeks of animus.
Click to expand...
Objectively, animus isn't a disqualification. 😂
 
bongsaway said:
Please tell us again about the makeup of the big tent of the republicans. Why is telling us americans he intends on picking a black woman for the supreme court racist? Reagan told us he intends to pick a woman, was that sexist?

You folks get your panties all in a wad over the silliest of things.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.
But yes, it was.
 
Master Debator said:
And that's your incredibly amusing opinion.
Click to expand...
It is not based in opinion at all.
Look up the definition if need be but I will post it here for you just to make it easier.

"
  1. prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
    "we are investigating complaints about racist abuse"
 
Cope said:
It is not based in opinion at all.
Look up the definition if need be but I will post it here for you just to make it easier.
Click to expand...
Post it all you like, it won't change the fact that remains your opinion. Lol
 
Napoleon said:
I can get behind diversifying the court as close to proportion of population as possible even if it is just superficial showboating. Doing what you suggest above just reeks of animus.
Click to expand...
Here's some animus for ya'. After watching the shit show the gop has been putting on ever since trump announced he is running for president, I've learned to despise that same gop. I've never like republican politics, I thought it was too rigid and in general supported business over people but I did not wish ill will on its supporters. Today, things have changed for me, I despise what the gop has become. An angry, victim filled base who thinks they are owed something, a leadership that plays on the fears of the base lying to them decade after decade about the democrats. Have they come for your guns yet even though we've been hearing it for at least fifty years now. That is one example. The gop leadership feeds the base fear, does nothing for them but keep the poor and voting against their own best interests much of the time and then lie and lie and lie to them, even about covid and the base swallows it all. Yeah, I have some real serious animus towards the current form of the gop. I just don't care for the way the gop operates.
 
bongsaway said:
Animus? I don't own a pet. You are welcome to your opinion.
Click to expand...
I’m curious as to why you think another black Justice is the right choice to diversify the Court vs someone from a demographic which is not and has never been represented on the Court?
If I’m welcome to my opinion then I’ll tell you what it is. This has nothing to do with superficial diversification. Democrats are hoping a black woman will carry personal biases with her to influence decisions and that it would somehow improve black voter turnout to vote for Democrat candidates. If that’s how they want to play the game then so be it, but you folks better pray she doesn’t turn out to be another Clarance Thomas in a pantsuit.
 
Cope said:
Words have definitions. You are making yourself look foolish by stating the definition of something is an opinion.
Click to expand...
Words do have definitions. Whether or not Biden's actions meet that definition is your opinion.
 
Master Debator said:
Words do have definitions. Whether or not Biden's actions meet that definition is your opinion.
Click to expand...
Oh i see. His words were racist, we just don't know if his acting on them constitutes racism. Is that what you are saying because he excluded a whole lot of people when he said that he WILL nominate a female POC to the USSC.
 
Napoleon said:
I’m curious as to why you think another black Justice is the right choice to diversify the Court vs someone from a demographic which is not and has never been represented on the Court?
If I’m welcome to my opinion then I’ll tell you what it is. This has nothing to do with superficial diversification. Democrats are hoping a black woman will carry personal biases with her to influence decisions and that it would somehow improve black voter turnout to vote for Democrat candidates. If that’s how they want to play the game then so be it, but you folks better pray she doesn’t turn out to be another Clarance Thomas in a pantsuit.
Click to expand...
Are you so naive that you think these justices follow the constitution with their decisions? They 'interpret' the constitution based on their political views and if you think otherwise you are doing an excellent job of fooling yourself.
 
Napoleon said:
I’m curious as to why you think another black Justice is the right choice to diversify the Court vs someone from a demographic which is not and has never been represented on the Court?
If I’m welcome to my opinion then I’ll tell you what it is. This has nothing to do with superficial diversification. Democrats are hoping a black woman will carry personal biases with her to influence decisions and that it would somehow improve black voter turnout to vote for Democrat candidates. If that’s how they want to play the game then so be it, but you folks better pray she doesn’t turn out to be another Clarance Thomas in a pantsuit.
Click to expand...
Oh my, political motivations with a Supreme Court nominee, say it ain't so.... 😂
 
bongsaway said:
Are you so naive that you think these justices follow the constitution with their decisions? They 'interpret' the constitution based on their political views and if you think otherwise you are doing an excellent job of fooling yourself.
Click to expand...
The Justices interpret the Constitution based on their legal philosophy. That’s not the same thing as hoping a nominee will lean a certain direction based on nothing but her race.
 
Cope said:
Oh i see. His words were racist, we just don't know if his acting on them constitutes racism. Is that what you are saying because he excluded a whole lot of people when he said that he WILL nominate a female POC to the USSC.
Click to expand...
I never agreed his words were racist. He did exclude a lot of people from the nomination but his motivations could be political, he could think a black woman would offer a perspective beneficial to the court, there could be any number of reasons why he chose to narrow his search to a black woman that go beyond thinking white men are unqualified.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom