Turning The Ballot Box Against Republicans

@snood,

It is from today's hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.

Sen. Lindsey Graham to Barrett: "One of the reasons you can say with confidence that you think Brown vs The Board of Education is 'super precedent' is you're not aware of any effort to go back to the good old days of segregation by a legislative body, is that correct?"

CBS News posted the clip on their Facebook page.
https://www.facebook.com/CBSNews/videos/408096606866474/

0 Replies

@Region Philbis,

Region Philbis wrote:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkBYHrq-hoA[/youtube]

C’mon, man. Even someone as kneejerk left-wing reactionary as I am can see Lady G was trying to make a flip sarcastic point that Brown is a super-precedent because no one seriously wants to go back to those “good ole days”.

Let’s don’t play the republican’s game of out-of-context clips... they need it because they don’t have any tools based in truth and good policy.

2 Replies

@snood,

imo, something as serious as a judiciary hearing is no place for a flippant remark like that.

save it for the press conference...

1 Reply

@Rebelofnj,

Rebelofnj wrote:

Except Bork's nomination was put to a vote and he was rejected, partly because of his involvement in Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre.
Whereas Garland's nomination was never put into a vote, mainly because of bipartisan politics and nothing regarding Garland's public record.

The mechanics may differ, but both were unjustly rejected when both deserved to be confirmed.

1 Reply

@snood,

snood wrote:

they need it because they don't have any tools based in truth and good policy.

Upholding the Second Amendment is good policy.

0 Replies

@Region Philbis,

Region Philbis wrote:

imo, something as serious as a judiciary hearing is no place for a flippant remark like that.

save it for the press conference...

Maybe so, but it was obviously flippant. From your brief post it could easily be construed that he was longing nostalgically for segregation. C’mon, man - you see that.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

both were unjustly rejected

You previously said Garland's nomination not getting a vote was "justified payback" for Bork being rejected.
Now you are saying both were unjustly rejected.

Plus, Bork seemed to be more controversial than Reagan's other 4 Supreme Court appointees, all of whom conservative leaning (though Kennedy and O'Connor were considered swing votes) and had wider bipartisan support.

1 Reply

@Rebelofnj,

Unjustly rejecting Garland was justified payback for Bork's unjust rejection.

0 Replies

https://cdn.creators.com/218/288595/288595_image.jpg

https://cdn.creators.com/209/288592/288592_image.jpg

0 Replies

@snood,

Quote:

it could easily be construed that he was longing nostalgically for segregation

i wouldn't put it past him...

1 Reply

@Region Philbis,

Region Philbis wrote:

Quote:
it could easily be construed that he was longing nostalgically for segregation
i wouldn't put it past him...

Put it past "them". Biden has a racist record when compared to Graham's.

0 Replies

@Rebelofnj,

Rebelofnj wrote:

Quote:
Dealing an injustice to Merrick Garland rectified the injustice that was done to Mr. Bork.

Except Bork's nomination was put to a vote and he was rejected, partly because of his involvement in Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre.

Whereas Garland's nomination was never put into a vote, mainly because of bipartisan politics and nothing regarding Garland's public record.

.....and, to abort the Trump/Turtle injustices, the court will be expanded to 12. Except, Democrats nominate Justices than revere Justice, Equality, Democracy and the Constitution! Unlike the radical right wing listing bigoted replies.......

1 Reply

If the abominable ACB gets nominated - this will make three Justices on the court that participate in the Gore/Bush Florida recount who added in litigation related to the only presidential contest to be decided by the high court. Bush then nominated all three to the court. Do we have a pattern here?

1 Reply

@BillW,

Quote:

Do we have a pattern here?

Yes we do. I have asked you twice why Barrett is shameful and what she lied about, twice. The pattern is you not answering.

0 Replies

Been in line about a half hour, and in that time another 75-100 people lined up behind me

1 Reply

@BillW,

BillW wrote:

Democrats nominate Justices than revere Justice, Equality, Democracy and the Constitution!

Wrong. Democrats nominate justices who deliberately allow people's Constitutional rights to be violated for no reason, and violating people's Constitutional rights for no reason is hardly justice.

0 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

Been in line about a half hour, and in that time another 75-100 people lined up behind me

Have they told you who they are voting for?

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

I don’t think asking people who they’re voting for while they’re standing in line to vote is a particularly smart idea.

But I can tell you that every last one of the people within my sight (the line was long and went around several corners) who stopped to pick up voter information was picking up flyers at the Democratic table and not the Republican one.

1 Reply

@snood,

snood wrote:

But I can tell you that every last one of the people within my sight (the line was long and went around several corners) who stopped to pick up voter information was picking up flyers at the Democratic table and not the Republican one.

That is due to one possibility: Republican illiteracy

1 Reply

@Ragman,

Lol
That’s a distinct possibility, but in this case I’m thinking it was because most of the early in-person voters there were democrats.

1 Reply

Turning The Ballot Box Against Republicans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know