• 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!

With three GOP senators on board to vote for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, it's looking like a done deal..

No, we don't. The founders shit all over the Constitution once they gained real power. What we need is to drop is the religious devotion to a flawed Constitution. Federal power was a necessity that George Washington realized from the start. You don't seem to understand that the Articles of Confederation was a major failure. Don't blame FDR, blame the founders. It all started there. And don't forget Lincoln and our own internal struggle over Federal vs. state power. We are never going back in time. Get over it
the fascist ratchet towards authoritarianism.
 
IIRC, the hard drive was lost in the mail when it was being sent to or from Tucker Carlson.

Which makes total sense.
lots of things get lost in the mail these days/
 
Let's be honest. The nominee could be a street sweeper, but if he or she is likely to vote on issues they way we want them to vote, they are perfectly qualified. Complaints about lack of qualification are simply arguments made by those who opposed the nominee, and cone form either side. Ben Sasse's comment about Jackson pretty much bears that out.

"Judge Jackson is an extraordinary person with an extraordinary American story. We both love this country, but we disagree on judicial philosophy and I am sadly unable to vote for this confirmation.

"Judge Jackson has impeccable credentials and a deep knowledge of the law, but at every turn this week she not only refused to claim originalism as her judicial philosophy, she refused to claim any judicial philosophy at all. Although she explained originalism and textualism in some detail to the committee, Judge Jackson refused to embrace them or any other precise system of limits on the judicial role."

Link
 
This is so ****en disgenuous. Guess he can't remember that Amy Barrett was rushed through 30 days prior to the election ............
So sick of all these liars liar.gifliar.gifliar.gifliar.gifliar.gif

 
She’s now Justice Jackson.
 

The Republican party is obsessed with children – in the creepiest of ways​

For all their posturing about defending children from abuse, their record tells another story

Just quoting to post related info:



Article referenced in tweet:

Republican Sexual Predators, Abusers, and Enablers Pt. 1

I took my anger over the Kavanaugh hearing and confirmation and invested it in documenting the Republicans long history of sexual predators, abusers, and those who make excuses for them. There’s a list of about 45 that I began with but they are always provided without documentation, so who knows if it’s true. Well, they are true. I have verified them and provide links. In the course of doing that, I found so many more, though. I am up to 310 and I am not going to stop.

I posted them all on Twitter but realized that is ephemeral and decided to post them here, too. A post of 310 at once would be TL: DR, so I will post 25 per day until I am done. You won’t find David Vitter, Larry Craig, or even Ted Haggard. Sexual hypocrisy, cheating on spouses, and being gay are not the sort of thing I care about. Consent and being of age to consent is the issue.

 
Let's be honest. The nominee could be a street sweeper, but if he or she is likely to vote on issues they way we want them to vote, they are perfectly qualified. Complaints about lack of qualification are simply arguments made by those who opposed the nominee, and cone form either side. Ben Sasse's comment about Jackson pretty much bears that out.

"Judge Jackson is an extraordinary person with an extraordinary American story. We both love this country, but we disagree on judicial philosophy and I am sadly unable to vote for this confirmation.

"Judge Jackson has impeccable credentials and a deep knowledge of the law, but at every turn this week she not only refused to claim originalism as her judicial philosophy, she refused to claim any judicial philosophy at all. Although she explained originalism and textualism in some detail to the committee, Judge Jackson refused to embrace them or any other precise system of limits on the judicial role."

Link
1649374619460.png
 
Back
Top Bottom