Watching The Ketanji Brown Jackson Hearings
I have been watching the Senate confirmation hearings on the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court, both today and yesterday, and as usual I am struck by the Kabuki nature of any and all of these hearings. The outcome is a foregone conclusion -- Jackson is going to be confirmed to the high court -- and it is likely that no senator is going to thoughtfully change his or her vote because of anything said in the hearing room. All Democrats seem to be on board with confirming her, almost all Republicans are going to vote against her, and the only real question is whether one or possibly two Republicans will give President Joe Biden a thin veneer of "bipartisanship" to her nomination. Which is ultimately meaningless, since it doesn't matter how many senators wind up voting for any justice's confirmation, as long as it is a majority of them.
In Jackson's case, she will be replacing a retiring liberal justice, so there will be no change whatsoever in the ideological makeup of the court, which will remain at 6-3 in the conservatives' favor. If Jackson had been nominated due to the sudden death of a conservative justice, the hearing would doubtlessly have been more contentious, but the outcome would likely have been exactly the same: all Democrats voting for her, which would be enough for the lifetime appointment to the high court.
Everyone in the room already knows all of this, of course. But they also know they're all on television, so they all work hard to please their base (the ones with the stamina to sit through congressional hearings) and possibly create a single soundbite that they can use in their political campaigns. Pretty standard stuff, in other words.
Democrats have either been asking mostly softball questions or seeking to inoculate Jackson against Republican attacks. They ask her to flesh out the things Republicans have cherry-picked out of her record, to give her a chance to fully explain the context and her reasoning behind each of them.
Republicans, on the other hand, are trying mightily to paint Jackson as soft on crime (child pornography, in particular), a flaming liberal advocate (especially on racial matters), and a possible supporter of terrorists. None of this is remotely true, of course, but these are the things they've latched onto as perceived weaknesses. Child pornography and terrorism are obviously heinous crimes that are pretty indefensible. Jackson ruled on a number of child pornography cases, and contributed to the defense of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, both as a public defender and later as a private lawyer. As a public defender, of course, Jackson didn't get to pick and choose what cases to take, she was assigned to them. And in both instances where she filed an amicus brief as a private lawyer (once for the Cato Institute and the Rutherford Institute, and once for a group of retired federal judges including seven who were appointed by Republicans), the Supreme Court ultimately agreed with the position Jackson was advocating for. In other words, hers wasn't exactly an extremist position.
Of course, Republicans are trying to get back up on a high horse they've ridden before, that of being the perceived champions of "law and order" and being strict and punitive towards criminals. This is a much harder moral case for them to make these days, since the party has now embraced lawlessness that would have outraged the Republican Party of the 1990s, or 2000s (who would have denounced such a stance as "moral relativism"). Calling an insurrectionist mob attempting to physically attack Congress during the certification of the Electoral College vote for the presidency "legitimate political discourse" simply cannot be squared with morally riding that high horse of "law and order." Turning a blind eye towards all sorts of malfeasance in the Oval Office (including obstruction of justice and an attempt to extort Ukraine into providing political favors) has meant the loss of moral highhandedness, to put it mildly. That hasn't stopped them from trying, however.
On the issue of race and racism, Republicans are trying to tread carefully, knowing the historic nature of the first Black woman nominated in the court's history. Outside the hearing room, they've been either insinuating or saying outright that Jackson is some sort of "affirmative action" choice, which (in their eyes) would mean she was somehow taking the place of some more-qualified White male candidate. Inside the hearing room, they're being more circumspect, instead trying to demonize the term "critical race theory" even more than they already have. This isn't so much an attempt to smear Jackson as it is a continuing effort to use the issue as a centerpiece of their 2022 midterm campaign. Jackson answered that she had never studied the issue in school and that she's never used it in any way in any of the decisions she made as a judge.
The main problem for Republicans in the attempt to paint Jackson as not being as worthy as other nominees is that she comes with absolutely stellar qualifications. She is far more qualified than the Supreme Court nominee who preceded her, in fact. Putting the two women's records side by side clearly shows that Amy Coney Barrett lacked many of the qualifications Jackson possesses. Which is one reason why Republicans are treading so lightly on the issue today, one assumes.
Again, these hearings are nowhere near as contentious as those held for a seat which is switching ideologies on the court. Realigning the ideological makeup of the court is a momentous event which reverberates for decades, at times. Jackson's ascension to the high court will not change the balance at all, so that dramatic tension isn't even present. And since Republicans are not currently in charge of the Senate, there is also no question of them refusing to do their constitutional duty simply because the president is from the opposing party.
All in all, I have been just as impressed by Ketanji Brown Jackson as everyone else. She is smart as a whip, she has sat for hours on end answering very detailed questions about her entire judicial and legal history -- without notes in front of her -- and she has been calm and respectful throughout the entire process. She will be a credit to the Supreme Court when she is sworn in. Which has nothing to do with the fact that she will be a historic justice, the first Black woman to hold such a seat in over two centuries. And the first in a very long time who has experience actually defending clients accused of crimes in court.
So even as I write all of this the Kabuki show goes on, and it will continue tomorrow. Subtle political points will be scored. Politicians will play to their respective bases. Questions will be asked, but the answers will be less important than the feigned outrage of the question itself. The show goes on, for those with the time to view it all.
But at the end of the process, Jackson will indeed be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Her experiences will bring a unique viewpoint to a court that has sorely needed such viewpoints for a while now. Joe Biden fulfilled his campaign pledge to nominate a Black woman to the highest court in the land, and America will be a better place for his choice.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Not having watched, i really appreciate the background and overview. I just laugh at all the nonsense be about gender and race. Bottom line, the president picked a highly qualified candidate be with no apparent skeletons. That's a heck of a lot more than can be said for at least two of trump's three nominees.
FPC
The trouble with history is we usually only get what is left after the history-ectomy.
Damn you, Don Harris! Endless and unvarying and Fredo-level ineffective drek from you. I mean, it's like trudging 'cross the tundra...mile after mile...
And then you lay a little jewel like this on Weigantia.
I'm telling you, Dawg, you are way better at non-OD stuff than OD stuff.
Alas, I don't see you evolving away from your OD crusade and a lot of these little goodies will get lost in the shuffle. Which will be too bad.*smh*
O Kick, where art Thou?
Turning a blind eye towards all sorts of malfeasance in the Oval Office (including obstruction of justice and an attempt to extort Ukraine into providing political favors) has meant the loss of moral highhandedness, to put it mildly. That hasn't stopped them from trying, however.
I maintain that the reason Republicans commit such shameless hypocrisy is because they are first and foremost talking to those that live in the right-wing alternative universe. Any undecideds they pick up are just gravy.
Republicans simply have to continue pushing a narrative that goes back to Newt Gingrich because what's their exit ramp? How does the GOP disavow the insanity? They've pushed trickle down for decades...how'd that work out? Most push the Big Lie and excuse Trump's Insurrection because he's Republican.
If you're Fox News how do you say nevermind?
I also maintain that Trump Derangement Syndrome is solely a Trump supporter affliction because for some reason they still think he's great.
Us bystanders always saw Trump for the know nothing New York douchebag he's always been and, for that matter, what he campaigned as.
Oh, CW, I, too, appreciate you doing the heavy lifting for Weigantia. I'd rather watch this stuff live but it's nice to have you as a go-to option to me doing my civic duty.
And, for that matter, Trump pretty much governed like a know nothing NYC DB as well. Lost 3 million jobs, killed half a million Muricans and trashed our economy.
To put it, er, more locally does anyone here think Michale would ever back down? I can't imagine it.
Republicans sell themselves as the Great Lions of Democracy and the Rule of Law.
But I think Republicans are the Detroit Lions of Democracy and the Rule of Law in that they haven't had a meaningful win in decades.
And I'm from Detroit so I know it when I see it. Heh.
Russ,
You are shown the first ever Trill symbiont successfully merged with a human and then merged with an AI android and all you can focus on is that they are non-binary and identify as them/they ??!! The writers haven’t made how they identify and their sexual orientation anything more than passing footnote in their storyline.
No..
I focus on the fact that they are very VERY boring and add NOTHING to the story line..
I also focus on the fact that their character is VERY inconsistent which is against the Roddenberry Rule..
At the beginning of the show, they made a HUGE deal about how her "pronouns" are they/them.. That blast of virtue signaling lasted all of a couple episodes. Now the character refer's to herself as "I" and "me" and other characters refer to Tal as "her" or "she"..
I am guessing that the virtue signaling didn't focus group very well and they dropped it..
And Gray? My god, is that sandpaper skin an actual alien species or just crappy makeup??? :^/
The breaking point came with the episode about the void..
*****SPOILERS***** ***SPOILERS****
Now their computer has "feelings" and everything it does from here on it will be emotional and suspect... :^/
This is no longer Star Trek but a fever-induced nightmare of a society that simply has no moral foundation...
It's what happens when hysterical progressives get creative control and believes everyone thinks like they do..
Gene Roddenberry is rolling in his grave..
Picard is still decent.. I hold out hope for STRANGE NEW WORLDS..
But Discovery is something I am going to watch when I have nothing better to do.. Like maybe an internet based self-appendectomy... :^/
A Justice who can't even define what a woman is is a Justice who has no business on the SCOTUS..
How can she decide gender related cases if she can't even define the terms involved??
On the plus side, Jackson Brown DID state for the record that being a woman IS biology...
Not psychology...
So, that's a start...
I am holding out hope that Sinema and/or Manchin steps in and BuildsBackBetter this nominee...
JL,
The only "skeletons" in the closets of any of President Trump's nominees were those "skeletons" fabricated by a conspiracy of Big Media and Democrats..
Created out of whole cloth with absolutely NO BASIS in fact or reality..
The FACT that you had an accuser who's OWN WITNESSES said she was frak'ed in the head gives you a PERFECT example of the fantasy nature of the accusations..
And, for that matter, Trump pretty much governed like a know nothing NYC DB as well. Lost 3 million jobs, killed half a million Muricans and trashed our economy.
Actually, factually speaking, more people died under Biden than under President Trump..
And let's not forget that Biden's complete and utter incompetence DIRECTLY lead to the death of 13 brave American troops...
I won't even bother mentioning how awesome President Trump was in engineering US Energy Independence and ensuring gas prices were HALF of what they are currently under Biden's completely incompetent mis-management.
And, of course, there are the THOUSANDS of Ukrainians killed that can be laid at the feet of Biden and Odumbo.. Funny how Putin stayed in his corner when President Trump ran things..
Naaw, you would be hard pressed to make the case that Biden is a better leader than President Trump.. There are simply NO FACTS to support the claim..
:D
As far as Jackson Brown goes??
When all is said and done one fact remains..
Jackson Brown was chosen from just 2% of the available pool...
And she was chosen SOLELY because she is black and she is a woman. Which is ironic, because she is apparently not even intelligent enough to know what a woman is, even though she is one..
But I will agree with ya'all that she IS a "first"...
The is the first Affirmative Action Justice..
Odumbo was the first Affirmative Action President...
Jackson Brown is the first Affirmative Action SCOTUS Justice..
:^/
JL,
Along with other definitions, "history" is one we need to clarify. It generally means something that came beforehand.
Yes.. Since we are talking about it now, Blasey Ford's bullshit accusations that were completely UNSUPPORTED by ANY FACT WHATSOEVER and were used by Blasey Ford to make MILLIONS of dollars and used by Democrats to viciously attack and vilify a decent honest American occurred "beforehand"...
I am not sure what you are trying to say here, other than to give me a perfectly lead-in to expand on the awful and heinous actions of Blasey Ford and Democrats..
Jackson Brown was chosen from just 2% of the available pool...
Why is this relevant??
Because, statistically speaking, it's a near impossibility to obtain a quality candidate when you limit yourself to simply 2% of the selection pool..
The *ONLY* possible thing you can say about Jackson Brown is that she MAY be at the top of 2%...
But where does she rank in the other 98%??? Near the bottom?? In the middle?? At the top??
We'll never know, will we...
Because she was chosen for being a black woman... THAT was the top priority..
THAT was the VERY FIRST parameter looked at..
Black woman...
The VERY DEFINITION of racism and sexism...
That will be Jackson Brown's contribution to the SCOTUS..
:^/
Liz,
For me, the sketchiest of the sketchiest was her claim that she and Biden got it on in a secluded hallway in his senate office building. That was a real hoot!
And yet...
"All women are to be believed"
-The Democrat Party
Of course, we all know what that REALLY means that ALL DEMOCRAT women are to be believed..
Women that are NOT Democrat can be vilified and attacked with impunity..
Thereby proving once again, the political nature of sex assault accusations as made so by the Democrat Party..
Because, statistically speaking, it's a near impossibility to obtain a quality candidate when you limit yourself to simply 2% of the selection pool..
Allow me to give you an example..
Say you have 100 skittles..
98 of those skittles are deadly poison.. 2 are safe to eat..
You must eat one...
How do you like your odds of surviving???
Russ,
Just so we're clear.. I have no problem with the Stamets/Colburn relationship..
Shows with gay characters are a dime a dozen these days.. I am sincerely happy you can find happiness in their story... And if Discovery wants to create a portion of the story that caters to less than 6% of the population, more power to 'em... But they do so risking the attention of the other 94% of possible viewers..
My beef with Discovery is more basic.. It's the overall arc that the progressive agenda is the only agenda worth building a series around.. The constant preachy virtue-signaling at the expense of hard-hitting sci-fi is increasingly annoying..
The Tal/Gray characters are a perfect example of how the writers of Discovery tried to shove gender-bending issues down people's throats.. As I mentioned above, I guess they didn't focus group very well, because their characters have been muted more.. Which is a good thing.. Frankly the best thing Discovery could do is put them both in red shirts, send them to Security and let Trek nature take it's course.
And the latest episode with the computer?? My gods, how utterly banal... It was downright EMBARRASSING to watch.. It's like watching Dr Phil talk about feelings with a phaser in his hand..
I will probably finish the season and I have hopes it gets better... But at least I am watching them from my HTPC and can FFwd thru all the parts that are completely irrelevant to Trek and the actual story...
That means, I get to watch a good solid 8-10 mins of a 50 minute show.... :^/ THAT is how bad it is...
She is far more qualified than the Supreme Court nominee who preceded her, in fact. Putting the two women's records side by side clearly shows that Amy Coney Barrett lacked many of the qualifications Jackson possesses.
This is absolutely completely and utterly correct..
Judge Barrett lacked THE MOST IMPORTANT (to Democrats) qualification..
Judge Barrett is not black...
But this lack of "qualification" says TONS more about Democrats and Biden than it does about Judge Barrett...
Jackson Brown's nomination spits on EVERYTHING that Dr Martin Luther King stood for and held dear...
Dr King would be EXTREMEMLY saddened and disappointed by the actions of Biden and the Democrats..
And, in other news..
The "logic" of the Democrat Party... :^/
And, speaking of STRANGE NEW WORLDS...
https://movieweb.com/william-shatner-wishes-new-kirk-paul-wesley-luck/
Looks promising... I have heard that SNW is going to be more episodic and less serial than Trek's have become..
I look forward to that..
Now, if we can just keep hysterical progressive Democrats from ruining it with their preachy virtue signalling...
The most important factor is to stay true to established Star Trek Canon.. Something Discovery has completely ignored from the get go..
Russ asked before.. If Hunter Biden's laptop was legitimate, why wasn't it investigated??
https://www.newsweek.com/hunter-biden-laptop-scandal-ultimate-american-information-operation-opinion-1690293
Hunter Biden's laptop wasn't investigated because a downright EVIL troika of Democrats, Big Media and Big Tech conspired to not ALLOW it to be investigated..
This has been established as FACT...
It says a LOT about Democrats and Twitter (yea, I know.. It's redundant) that scumbags like Putin and Khamenei are allowed to freely comment on Twitter, but President Trump is not..
I recall the OLD Weigantia where such complete and utter censorship would be condemned on a DAILY basis..
But such is the effect of PTDS.. President Trump Derangement Syndrome... It rots the brain and makes such moral judgements impossible..
Michale,
Haven't had a chance to watch - working day and night, you know.
Why aren't you watching on C-Span?
Why is it that all you can seem to focus on is that fact that she is a Black woman, to the exclusion of everything else about her, including, you know, her judicial philosophy and such? ;)
Your '2%/SOLELY based on race/gender' comments are wholly non-serious.
Speaking of non-serious, Ted Cruz asked her whether she agreed that babies are racist?
I understand he is a serious presidential candidate. Good God. Let me rephrase that ... I understand he is a presidential candidate for 2024, seriously!? Good God.
Guess I'm not missing anything.
I don't have time for any of this nonsense.
By the way, consistently and incessantly off-topic comments are a sign of disprespect. I'm just sayin' ...
Imagine the outcry of Democrats and Weigtantians if President Trump had stated unequivocally that he would only select a white male for one of his selections of a SCOTUS Justice...
If Democrats didn't have double standards, they would have no standards at all...
Hypocrisy.. Not a bug in Democrat programming. It's a feature..
Do you know what disprespect means!? Well, it the disp-parity I'm talking about. That's why I've decided not to pay any attention to this nomination process. So, there!!!
Liz,
Haven't had a chance to watch - working day and night, you know.
Why aren't you watching on C-Span?
I just search on Youtube for -Jackson Brown Confirmation Live- and PBS is usually at the top..
By the way, consistently and incessantly off-topic comments are a sign of disprespect. I'm just sayin' ...
I bounce around a bit when no one is around.. I still gotta be me.. :D
Your '2%/SOLELY based on race/gender' comments are wholly non-serious.
It's completely and 1000% factually accurate AND relevant to the assessment of quality of Jackson Brown... It's virtually a statistical impossibility that you can have the best qualified candidate when you limit yourself to only 2% of the pool..
Go ahead.. Have a skittle.. :D
Speaking of non-serious, Ted Cruz asked her whether she agreed that babies are racist?
It's a fare question because that is what Democrats believe..
I would like to know how she can reconcile her alleged support of cops with Democrats DEFUND, DEMORALIZE, DEMONIZE THE POLICE policies..
That is also a fair question..
Why is it that all you can seem to focus on is that fact that she is a Black woman, to the exclusion of everything else about her, including, you know, her judicial philosophy and such? ;)
Because THAT is what Biden and Democrats focused on first and foremost..
Don't blame me because I simply follow Biden/Democrats lead on what's important here..
The reason I seem to have to define history is that one of the ways to assess credibility of a witness is based on whether they have done or said anything else in the PAST to cast doubt on what they're saying now.
Reade did and said quite a lot in the past that makes her story suspect. Blasey Ford nothing at all. Your doubts are all based on conjecture about her current motivations, not anything she said or did beforehand.
Because THAT is what Biden ... focused on first and foremost..
False.
You hear only what you wish to hear.
That get boring after a while.
Don't blame me because I simply follow Biden/Democrats lead on what's important here..
I blame you for refusing to understand how Biden goes about picking a Supreme.
Go ahead.. Have a skittle.. :D
It is my fervent hope you accept that as the funny joke it was meant as.. :D
Because THAT is what Biden ... focused on first and foremost..
False.
Not false..
"I will choose a black woman as my fist SCOTUS pick"
-Joe Biden
First and foremost, Biden stated for the record that he will ONLY consider black women jurists...
This is well-documented..
Michale[29]
Yeah, I chuckled. Heh.
Michale,
First and foremost, Biden stated for the record that he will ONLY consider black women jurists...
"Biden stated for the record that he will ONLY consider Black women jurists ... who are eminently qualified to sit on the highest court in the land, that is to say as qualitifed or more qualified than any other person in the United States of America."
There, fixed if for ya!
There are a lot more qualified jurists than a pack of Skittles. But if we're bemoaning pre-qualifications narrowing the field, i'd wager the exclusion of anyone who isn't a staunch conservative is nearly as exclusive as race and gender.
Indeed.
@don,
Historerical.
"Biden stated for the record that he will ONLY consider Black women jurists ... who are eminently qualified to sit on the highest court in the land, that is to say as qualitifed or more qualified than any other person in the United States of America."
As were 98% of the pool of jurists..
How would you think Dr Martin Luther King would feel about making a selection for SCOTUS *solely* based on race??
And make no mistake.. Initially, the selection was SOLELY based on race..
JL,
There are a lot more qualified jurists than a pack of Skittles. But if we're bemoaning pre-qualifications narrowing the field, i'd wager the exclusion of anyone who isn't a staunch conservative is nearly as exclusive as race and gender.
uh.. no..
2% of the eligible SCOTUS candidates are black and female..
Do you have any facts to support the claim that only 2% of eligible SCOTUS candidates are conservative??
Michale,
As were 98% of the pool of jurists..
Yeah, but almost every pick to sit on the SCOTUS comes from that group.
Biden wanted to pick a Black woman.
I'm beginning to understand, Mchale.
You think majority rules!
But, that would go agains the foundations of your democracy, right?
Michale,
And make no mistake.. Initially, the selection was SOLELY based on race
False.
What came first - the chicken or the egg?
}}}}And make no mistake.. Initially, the selection was SOLELY based on race{{{{
False.
The facts clearly prove otherwise..
Not only did Biden make such a heinous racist promise to ONLY consider a black woman for a SCOTUS Justice..
That's bad enough..
But Biden made such a racist promise SOLELY for crass political opportunism..
It was a quid pro quo promise made SOLELY for political favors..
That says SOO much about Biden and the Democrats..
You may be beyond hope, Michale ...
... it's funny, Michale, of all of your comments on Biden's SCOTUS pick, you haven't commented on how she is doing at her confirmation hearing. I'm assuming that, like me, you're not watching ...
Liz,
Why is it that all you can seem to focus on is that fact that she is a Black woman, to the exclusion of everything else about her, including, you know, her judicial philosophy and such? ;)
You seem to indicate that my focus on Jackson Brown's race and gender is a BAD thing..
So, by logical extrapolation, you would believe that Biden's initial focus on Brown's race and gender to the exclusion of all else is ALSO a bad thing...
No??
Oh, man oh man.
I feel like I'm back in school ... this time at the front of the class. :(
I've been trying to indicate that your focus on her race and gendert is the ONLY thing you focus on.
Which is the polar opposite to what Biden is focused on.
I seem to be having a problem today with missing or too many letters ... not sure what that means but it ain't good.
Jackson Brown[e]? I'm sorry, were you trying to be funny or are you just missing Sunday nights? :)
I'm told that you were the one who canceled the festivities this past Sunday Night, by the way...
Lindsay Graham is tearing Jackson Brown a new one.. :D
[33]
You would think if that were true you would be able to make a rational argument against it instead of dodges...
Don Harris I told you a couple columns back that Bashi's list of OD objections spoke my mind as well.
As before, you did NOT address each of his points in turn. And as before, you utterly failed to convince anyone. You did not move the needle.
Why are you wasting time when you haven't gotten anywhere for years now?
[46]
Not only did Biden make such a heinous racist promise to ONLY consider a black woman for a SCOTUS Justice..
That's bad enough..
But Biden made such a racist promise SOLELY for crass political opportunism..
It was a quid pro quo promise made SOLELY for political favors..
That says SOO much about Biden and the Democrats..
This is just rich.
Tell me, Michale: is it a FACT that in 2016 Trump pledged to pick his SCOTUS nominees from the Heritage Foundation list? Isn't it a FACT that Trump did so SOLELY for crass political opportunism...? And what FACTS make you believe that America needs another white male SCOTUS Justice way more than it needs the first Black female justice?
... it's funny, Michale, of all of your comments on Biden's SCOTUS pick, you haven't commented on how she is doing at her confirmation hearing. I'm assuming that, like me, you're not watching ...
Oh, I am watching.. At least up until 1300hrs my time..
She dodges, she equivocates, she get's deep into what the definition of 'is' is..
In other words, she refuses to take a stand on anything in a vain attempt to hide her progressive credentials..
By trying to admit nothing, she admits everything..
MC,
And what FACTS make you believe that America needs another white male SCOTUS Justice way more than it needs the first Black female justice?
The simple FACT that picking a SCOTUS Justice on the basis of RACE is racist...
Which is exactly what Biden has done.. His FIRST criteria to consider a SCOTUS Justice was SOLELY based on race and gender.
THEN he Biden looked to experience and expertise..
By doing so, Biden affirmed that Jackson Brown will have an asterisk by her name as the FIRST (and hopefully, LAST) Affirmative Action nominee..
[53]
It has to be the chicken- because eggs don't come. :D
Atta boy, Brother Don! More...give us more!
For the record, I've been pondering that very question for a long, long time. Thanks for the PSA. ;D
MC,
Tell me, Michale: is it a FACT that in 2016 Trump pledged to pick his SCOTUS nominees from the Heritage Foundation list? Isn't it a FACT that Trump did so SOLELY for crass political opportunism...?
I don't think you are understanding the definition of the term "crass political opportunism"...
Biden got political favors from Clyburn in exchange for Biden's racist promise..
What favor did President Trump get from the Heritage Foundation in exchange for President Trump choosing a name from the HF list??
There was no quid pro quo..
With Biden/Clyburn, it was COMPLETELY and TOTALLY quid pro quo...
You are comparing Apples and Eskimos...
Jackson Brown[e]? I'm sorry, were you trying to be funny or are you just missing Sunday nights? :)
Yes.. :D
Can we all agree that Biden's promise to ONLY consider a black woman if he gets to nominate a SCOTUS Justice was completely racist and sexist and utterly inappropriate..
Can we at least agree on that fact??
[60]
By doing so, Biden affirmed that Jackson Brown will have an asterisk by her name as the FIRST (and hopefully, LAST) Affirmative Action nominee..
After Kavanaugh and Amy Covid Barret's nominations I don't think bringing up the subject of asterisks after names helps your cause, yo.
For example, Trump.*
*First President to be Impeached twice and survive because Republicans have lost their balls since Nixon.
*First President to lose 3 million jobs.
*First President to lose the popular vote in two elections, the second by five million votes.
You get my drift...
What favor did President Trump get from the Heritage Foundation in exchange for President Trump choosing a name from the HF list??
Do you mean you don't see how Trump benefited from his promise to HF? Really?
After Kavanaugh and Amy Covid Barret's nominations I don't think bringing up the subject of asterisks after names helps your cause, yo.
The asterisks behind Justice Kavanaugh's and Justice Barret's names are as Democrat based fictional as Blasey Ford's wild and fact-less accusation...
The asterisk after Jackson Brown's name as the first Affirmative Action hire is solely and completely based on fact..
You get my drift...
Yea.. Fantasy unreality based though it may be..
Shall we go over Biden's asterisks??
* First President With Dementia
* First President To Get American Soldiers Killed DIRECTLY by incompetence
* First President To Lose USA Energy Independence...
Biden's asterisks are a LOT longer than President Trump's asterisks.. :D
Do you mean you don't see how Trump benefited from his promise to HF? Really?
By all means.. Enlighten us... :D
Do you mean you don't see how Trump benefited from his promise to HF? Really?
The only ones to benefit were the American people..
And unborn babies..
All in all a pretty damn good outcome..
Personally, any woman who can't define what a woman is has NO BUSINESS being ANY kind of judge, let alone a Supreme Court Judge..
Let's add another * to Biden's name..
* Weakest President Ever To Get Played By Russia...
Michale you're so concerned by Joe Biden keeping his campaign promise to nominate the first Black female to SCOTUS.
Why? Is it because you just don't think Murica is ready for a black female SCOTUS Justice? If that's how you feel, just man up and don't be ashamed to share with us.
WHILE Repugs are great at criticizing and opposing all things Biden they don't present anything in the way of alternatives.
SO here's your chance to dazzle the class: If not this Gal, who do you think Biden should nominate?
"No, you're not seeing the reaction to this in a way that I've seen when, say, when I worked with President Clinton. If you got numbers this bad, you would say, make a pivot. You would look at what's going on with inflation and energy and you'd repivot energy policies you'd… put through the Keystone Pipeline. You would reverse some of these policies and say, 'Hey, we need to balance between energy independence and climate change.' Not all in one direction. Just for starters. You'd have to deal with the immigration issue is, as was on just a few minutes ago, you'd have to deal with crime, and he's looking weak as this war drags on. He is not seen as a strong commander, preventing the loss of innocent lives now. But he seems weak, unable to stop a madman going ahead with naked aggression.
-Clinton Advisor Mark Penn
Biden has a buttload of asterisks after his name..
Especially galling since things were so awesome under President Trump..
Gas was half the price.. Putin stayed in his corner afraid to step out of line and face the wrath of President Trump..
Israel was strong....
Life was good..
Then Biden and the Democrats cheated in the election, conspired with Big Media and Big Tech to hide the facts and then totally frak'ed everything up.. :(
[68]
Yep, that's what you think.
Do you also think Trump would have won in 2016 without making that campaign promise?
Do you also think Trump would have won in 2016 without making that campaign promise?
Which promise? Vowing to name a Supreme Court Justice that had American values at heart??
Hard to say... I am a HUGE fan of the 2nd Amendment as are all patriotic Americans.. It's somewhat of a deal breaker for me if a POTUS says he will frak with that...
As I have said repeatedly, I am not much of an anti-abortion activist, but the Democrat's policies of LET'S KILL BABIES AND BE PROUD OF IT!! SHOUT IT OUT AND CELEBRATE INFANTICIDE really pisses me off...
Did patriotic Americans vote for President Trump because of his promise to select patriotic Constitutionalists??
Probably had a lot to do with it..
Not sure why it's relevant, but.. there ya go..
Russ,
OK I am gonna give Discovery another try..
EP 6 I think.. The one after the Void/Our Computer Has Feelings one...
I'll report back...
********SPOILERS******** ******SPOILERS*********
AND THERE IT IS!!!
Discovery's computer (I refuse to call it by the name given to it) refuses to reveal the location of Species 10-C because it is afraid for the safety of Discovery's crew...
"I'll take WHY WE DON'T GIVE OUR STARSHIP COMPUTERS FEELINGS for 500, Alex!!"
:^/
I am also struck by the similarity of the 29th Century Starfleet using BORG'esque designations...
I don't like Discovery's future.. It scares me...
"I'll take WHY WE DON'T GIVE OUR STARSHIP COMPUTERS FEELINGS for 500, Alex!!"
"Maintenance note. My recording computer has a serious malfunction. Recommend it either be corrected... or scrapped. Compute."
-Captain James T Kirk
:D
[72]
WTF is wrong with you that you don't comprehend how you failed to address each of Bashi's cogent points with a cogent reply?
Great jokes, but all of the sudden you can't or won't read or think straight. Is that why it doesn't matter to you that you've never convinced a single Weigantian? Nutjob!
[75]
Which promise? Vowing to name a Supreme Court Justice that had American values at heart??
The promise I posted in [58]
Tell me, Michale: is it a FACT that in 2016 Trump pledged to pick his SCOTUS nominees from the Heritage Foundation list? Isn't it a FACT that Trump did so SOLELY for crass political opportunism...? And what FACTS make you believe that America needs another white male SCOTUS Justice way more than it needs the first Black female justice?
Hard to say... I am a HUGE fan of the 2nd Amendment as are all patriotic Americans.. .
As am I. I don't own a weapon but the 2nd Amendment is in there for a reason. Speaking of that, is anybody (besides a desperate Beto in 2020) calling for gun confiscation? Or for repealing the 2nd Amendment? My God, do you know how many millions of Democrats are gun owners?
I mean, besides all the armed Antifa and BLM Democrats ;D
MC,
Tell me, Michale: is it a FACT that in 2016 Trump pledged to pick his SCOTUS nominees from the Heritage Foundation list?
Merely promising to choose a SCOTUS Nominee from HF's list is hardly comparable with promising to make a RACE-BASED choice...
I am unsure exactly what you are saying here...
The 2 are absolutely NOT comparable..
Speaking of that, is anybody (besides a desperate Beto in 2020) calling for gun confiscation?
Yes..
Or for repealing the 2nd Amendment?
Yes
Although, to be fair, those calls have diminished IMMENSELY since the 6-3 SCOTUS has made such calls EMBARRASSINGLY obtuse.. :D
But prior to President Trump's naming of 3 SCOTUS Justices, the calls for gun confiscation and elimination of the 2nd were hot and heavy and quite serious..
My God, do you know how many millions of Democrats are gun owners?
Not as many as ya'all like to pretend..
Else Democrats would not be the Party of disarming Americans..
If there are so many Democrat gun owners, why don't the shout down the anti-gun zealots???
Afraid to be seen agreeing with the Right?? :D
[75]
As I have said repeatedly, I am not much of an anti-abortion activist, but the Democrat's policies of LET'S KILL BABIES AND BE PROUD OF IT!! SHOUT IT OUT AND CELEBRATE INFANTICIDE really pisses me off...
Goddammit, Speak. Fucking. English! They are fetuses until (and only if) they're born.
Your anti-abortion views are a religious opinion that, for the record, is not even mentioned in the perfect word of God the Bible.
Freedom of Religion is meaningless unless it means freedom from other people's religion. If you believe that your religion forbids abortion fine, then don't get one. Imposing your religious beliefs on the 60% of us freedom loving Americans who don't believe that Big Government should control women's uteruses is not ever going to happen. Best you'll get is making it harder for poor women in red states, big whoopee.
Anti-vax Repugs say My body, my choice in refusing a public health measure. Don't any of you see the irony?
President Reagan said he would LIKE TO SEE a woman on the SCOTUS.. But he considered male nominees before selecting Sandra Day O'Connor..
President Trump said he would like to pick a woman but he considered other male nominees and selected 2 before settling on Judge Barrett..
Biden SPECIFICALLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY stated that he "WOULD ONLY CONSIDER A BLACK WOMAN FOR SCOTUS"... And he made that vow SOLELY to obtain political support from Clyburn...
No matter how ya'all want to try and spin it or play the whataboutism game...
The simple FACT is.. Biden's nomination process was COMPLETELY and UNEQUIVOCALLY racist and sexist and there is simply NO precedent for such a blatantly unfair nomination selection process in the history of the country..
And Biden's completely RACIST selection process was done SOLELY for the purpose of obtaining political support..
BLATANT quid pro quo...
The ONLY precedent for such political quid pro quo was Democrat Governor Blagovich's political bargaining to fill Odumbo's empty Senate seat..
And I believe that Blago went to jail for that, eh??
Put all the lipstick on Biden's selection process pig you want..
It's STILL blatantly racist and sexist and was done SOLELY for political favors..
Those are the facts and they are undisputed..
Worst of all, you anti abortion folks are rubes!
You've traded this (futile) effort to keep women barefoot and pregnant for Republican serial tax cuts and more polluting without consequences to the rich.
You have screwed everybody else and you're the guys saying that Democrats hate America? You're killing me! You've been straight up played.
MC,
Goddammit, Speak. Fucking. English! They are fetuses until (and only if) they're born.
They are living sentient beings that have their own distinct DNA, their own distinct heartbeat and their own distinct fingerprints.
By *ANY* rational definition of life, they are people..
Your anti-abortion views are a religious opinion that, for the record, is not even mentioned in the perfect word of God the Bible.
Actually, I am as agnostic as they come. I feel that religion is nothing but a crutch for people who can't handle life...
I can assure you that there is NOTHING religious about my feelings about abortion.. :D
Freedom of Religion is meaningless unless it means freedom from other people's religion.
I completely and 1000% unequivocally agree with you on that point..
Anti-vax Repugs say My body, my choice in refusing a public health measure. Don't any of you see the irony?
Absolutely.. I was the first to bring up Democrats MY BODY MY CHOICE when it comes to killing babies, but MY BODY GOVERNMENTS CHOICE when it comes to forcing an experimental vaccine on Americans who don't want it for a virus that has a 99+% survival rate..
But the problem for you Democrats is that it's NOT YOUR body.. It's a BABIES body.. A baby that has their own distinct DNA, their own distinct heartbeat and their own distinct fingerprints.
So while MY BODY MY CHOICE *DOES* apply when it comes to forcing an experimental vaccine on Americans who don't want it for a virus that has a 99+% survival rate..
MY BODY MY CHOICE *DOES NOT* apply to abortion where it's NOT the mother's body we are talking about, but rather a distinct and separate body..
This is the SCIENCE... Something that Democrats CLAIM they adhere to..
But, apparently, ONLY when it's convenient to their political agenda..
Hold that thought Michale, I'll get back to you.
Caddy [83]
Re nomenclature. Are they human fetuses? Would it make a difference if we called them 'Glinks'? Are you implying that not yet being expelled from the womb makes them somehow sub-human? What is your point about the nomenclature thing?
Someone please explain to me how ANY judge can give lenient sentences to a child pornographer who has TENS OF THOUSANDS of child pornography on their computer?? An amount that is obviously an indication of someone who routinely distributes such heinous images...
ANY judge who does that, who gives such lenient sentences should NOT be on the SCOTUS..
Hold that thought Michale, I'll get back to you.
I await with baited breath.. :D
CRS,
Re nomenclature. Are they human fetuses? Would it make a difference if we called them 'Glinks'? Are you implying that not yet being expelled from the womb makes them somehow sub-human? What is your point about the nomenclature thing?
Ironic, considering the episode of ST: Discovery I just watched where the ship's computer was deemed to be a "new life form"....
Should that life form have been killed because it didn't look like a human being???
Russ?? You want to weigh in on this?? :D
DH,
Michale (87)-
Don't hold your breath waiting. :D
Too late.. :D
Again with fetuses being people? If it can breathe and survive on its own, it's a person. If it can't, it ain't. That's been the legal line for as long as we've known how gestation works. If your opinion is based on your own criteria, be it heartbeat, DNA or fingernails, that and five bucks will get you a latte from Starbucks.
The US spends a ridiculous amount of money on the military, and we have a lot of military personnel stationed in eastern Europe. We should divest ourselves of some equipment, and identify a bunch of those people who are willing and able to take up some extraordinary opportunities in the private sector. Meanwhile, Ukrainians need a lot of stuff that can't get to them because there's a war in the way. For the same money we're spending to have people and equipment in Poland or wherever, we could enable some Ukrainians to hire private security for commercial trucks. And other ranks, probably up to about lieutenant-colonel security.
We could do that for a coincidentally-similar amount of money to what we're already spending. Payable to the same people. Plus a little overtime, for them to file the serial numbers off their missile systems.
Again with fetuses being people? If it can breathe and survive on its own, it's a person. If it can't, it ain't.
So an person that is on a ventilator and life support is not a person??
Really?? You want to go with that??
I should point out that even back when abortion was illegal, it was recognized as being substantially different from infanticide.
It doesn't matter whether a fetus is a person or not. It isn't, and no one honestly thinks it is. But we can stipulate that it's not only a person but a particularly admirable ans worthy one. It's called "the famous violinist argument". It's irrefutably correct, and it persuades exactly no one, because exactly no one on the wrong side of the abortion issue is open to considering the question honestly. The whole issue is not worth talking about.
That's all for now.
Russia delenda est
dsws,
The problem being, Putin will see ANYTHING that slows him down as an "escalation" and will respond accordingly... At NATO..
My point being NATO should quit worrying what Putin thinks and simply do the right thing..
Let's speak the truth. And the truth is, we acted too late. Only when our own national security was threatened did we act. Radek's regime murdered over 200,000 men, women, and children, and we watched it on TV. We let it happen. People were being slaughtered for over a year and we issued economic sanctions and hid behind the rhetoric of diplomacy. How dare we? The dead remember. Real peace is not just the absence of conflict, it's the presence of justice. And tonight I come to you with a pledge to change America's policy. Never again will I allow our political self-interest to deter us from doing what we know to be morally right. Atrocity and terror are not political weapons and to those who would use them: your day is over. We will never negotiate. We will no longer tolerate, and we will no longer be afraid. It's your turn to be afraid.
-Harrison Ford, AIR FORCE ONE
No matter WHAT happens, if Putin is thwarted, he is going to attack NATO... Period..
Given this fact, doesn't it make the most sense for NATO to end the war quickly??
Before more people die??
The whole issue is not worth talking about.
Unless you happen to be the baby who is about to be butchered...
I should point out that even back when abortion was illegal, it was recognized as being substantially different from infanticide.
That was before Democrats wanted to #CELEBRATE their baby killing and #SHOUT OUT their abortions..
As with most things political in the here and now, ALL of the problems can be traced back DIRECTLY to Democrats and their uncanny ability to see support for their positions where no support exists..
To clarify, by "on its own" i mean not attached by a cord to female by way of pregnancy.
@dan,
I've brought up that essay before, and you're right, there's no reasoning with unreason.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president-biden-job-approval-7320.html
:D
To clarify, by "on its own" i mean not attached by a cord to female by way of pregnancy.
Ahhh.. OK So you don't really mean breathe on their own and survive on their own..
Except on Tuesday's after 1500hrs on cloudy days??
:^/
Do you see how your political agenda is defining your "science".. :D
By ANY measure of REAL science, a fetus is a person....
Abortion kills that person...
This is scientific fact..
Now if you want to talk POLITICS or Democrat "science" (which is pretty redundant, obviously) OK then...
But REAL science says that a fetus is a living person...
Being able to breathe and survive outside the womb is not so intricate a concept. It's been the dividing line for personhood since before abortion was legal.
[86]
MY BODY MY CHOICE *DOES NOT* apply to abortion where it's NOT the mother's body we are talking about, but rather a distinct and separate body..
And no matter what Fellows if you think Uncle Sam should supervise women's uteruses y'all are anti-freedom Big Government types, hello?
But a fetus is NOT a distinct and separate body from the Mother. That's why English speakers don't call it a baby.
nypoet22 said it best, Again with fetuses being people? If it can breathe and survive on its own, it's a person. If it can't, it ain't. That's been the legal line for as long as we've known how gestation works. If your opinion is based on your own criteria, be it heartbeat, DNA or fingernails, that and five bucks will get you a latte from Starbucks.
[88]
Are you implying that not yet being expelled from the womb makes them somehow sub-human? What is your point about the nomenclature thing?
No one said "sub-human." I said, "fetus" which is the English term for fetuses.
[93]
I await with baited breath.. :D
Awww, don't do that to yourself. You know how flaky us Libtards are.
[101]
My point being NATO should quit worrying what Putin thinks and simply do the right thing..
Let's speak the truth. And the truth is, we acted too late...
And I'll speak the truth that effing "No matter what avoid conflict" Biden has been a pussy regarding Putin. Don't tell the others but that's something we agree on. For the record I betcha you and I agree on a whole bunch of other stuff, too. Keep THAT in the down low, too.
Don,
By not cooperating, do you mean you intend to rain on our parade of tunes on Sunday nights?
[101]
Given this fact, doesn't it make the most sense for NATO to end the war quickly??
Before more people die??
Yup. And does anyone think that, based on Ukraine’s successes against the Rooskie Air Force, that NATO wouldn't kick the fuck out of them?
Elizabeth and all pacifists -- Putin always had the ability to blow up the world if he wanted. But he's fucked Mother Russia so badly that he'd get a bullet in the brain long before he gets to take us all down with him.
Hey, Elizabeth!
You left a post about some calamity in your life and I was getting all anxious about living my Weigantia life without my beloved Board Mother to supervise me.
K, Michale, tell ya what: we can alternate reminding our Brothers and Sisters down here in Weigantia about how well Munich, 1938 didn't actually save any lives considering that 20+ million died in the bad peace is better than no peace aftermath.
[]
I wrote,
Putin always had the ability to blow up the world if he wanted. But he's fucked Mother Russia so badly that he'd get a bullet in the brain long before he gets to take us all down with him.
Michale and others, do you agree with my statement?
@caddy,
Count me in as well in the anti appeasement bandwagon. Diplomacy, as the elder Roosevelt once said, only works if you carry a big stick.
NATO denying membership to Ukraine - which is actually the case, de facto - is hardly appeasement.
even if NATO isn't doing it with appeasement as a goal, that's certainly a very rational way to interpret the events. since denying ukraine NATO membership is one of putin's objectives, if that is a result of him invading ukraine, from the outside it at least appears that his aggression is why he got his way.
even if NATO isn't doing it with appeasement as a goal, that's certainly a very rational way to interpret the events.
No, not rational at all ... a cursory study of history would argue against that sort of interpretation.
In fact, Joshua, it is irrational in the extreme for the US and NATO to push its force structure right up to the doorstep of the Kremlin and then, at the moment of truth, say that Ukraine's potential membership in NATO is so sacrosanct as to be a non-negotiable and worth the destruction of a country and its people.
Which is why this war is so ridiculously unnecessary!
The way that Biden and NATO are doubling down since the war began and doing everything in their power to prolong it instead of working hard to reach the obvious political settlement is beyond ridiculous all the way past inept.