Trump lost moving on with new year go Biden

[ed4mwf]

I respect your opinion, but the fact remains that she is not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice... The flip side is that the Democrats haven't gained anything, they replaced one radical judge with another. Y'all smear Clarence Thomas, and he's the most constitutionally sound justice currently serving on the court.

"...the fact remains that she is not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice..."
This statement is not a fact. This person is the most qualified nominee recently.
Your racism and lack of understanding /appreciation for education will have you forever lost in errors of judgement on this subject (and most).

Remove the term 'black woman' from her description and you have:

A Harvard grad and Harvard Law grad who graduated Magna Cum Laude and Cum Laude respectively.
(You natural racist tendencies will say affirmative action. However graduating with honors leading the class prove that woman was right where she belonged)

She clerked (research, studying and writing legal opinions) for not one, not two, but three judges at the Federal Circuit, the the Federal Appeals level, then the Federal Supreme Court level under Breyer.

***STOP: If she would have went into corporate law, or academia at this point, she would be more qualified that many that have worn that robe. However, there is more:

She went into private practice for a few years with a couple of firms.
She became Special Counsel to the US Sentencing Commission
She was a Federal Public Defender before the US Appeals Court
She went back into private practice as an Appellate Specialist.

She was approved by a full Senate voice vote to the US District Court for DC.
She was approved by a bipartisan Senate vote to the US Appeals Court for DC (also known as the 'mini' Supreme)

She is well educate, much learned and has worn the robe on the highest courts, yet, you want to disqualify her because she is black.
This is why you are racist. Which you seem to not even know the definition on that. Biden's statement is supportive and uplifting, your statement is the definition of racism, negative and group based.

Her nomination was supported by cops:

FOP National President Patrick Yoes Statement on Nomination of Kentaji Brown Jackson to SCOTUS

Today, President Biden nominated Kentaji Brown Jackson to be the next Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States, and I wanted to provide the FOP’s perspective on this nominee as the confirmation process begins.

fop.net

The hardest bar association in country (but you know the constitution better than them I'm sure)

Ketanji Brown Jackson Qualifications for Supreme Court | New York City Bar Association

The New York City Bar Association has concluded that Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is Highly Qualified to be a Justice of […]

www.nycbar.org

Former prosecutors:

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article259682065.html

The US Senate twice before:

U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 117th Congress - 1st Session

www.senate.gov

The US Senate now:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/kbj/

You can prove me wrong (not really) by going to the current court, who was more qualified than her on their day of nomination - not counting Alito or Sotomayor, which I'm sure you're against one of them.
Your racism and ignorance won't allow you to do that. They key for all of us to watch, is how you pivot away from proving your statements.

 

[TnC93]

"...the fact remains that she is not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice..."
This statement is not a fact. This person is the most qualified nominee recently.
Your racism and lack of understanding /appreciation for education will have you forever lost in errors of judgement on this subject (and most).

Remove the term 'black woman' from her description and you have:

A Harvard grad and Harvard Law grad who graduated Magna Cum Laude and Cum Laude respectively.
(You natural racist tendencies will say affirmative action. However graduating with honors leading the class prove that woman was right where she belonged)

She clerked (research, studying and writing legal opinions) for not one, not two, but three judges at the Federal Circuit, the the Federal Appeals level, then the Federal Supreme Court level under Breyer.

***STOP: If she would have went into corporate law, or academia at this point, she would be more qualified that many that have worn that robe. However, there is more:

She went into private practice for a few years with a couple of firms.
She became Special Counsel to the US Sentencing Commission
She was a Federal Public Defender before the US Appeals Court
She went back into private practice as an Appellate Specialist.

She was approved by a full Senate voice vote to the US District Court for DC.
She was approved by a bipartisan Senate vote to the US Appeals Court for DC (also known as the 'mini' Supreme)

She is well educate, much learned and has worn the robe on the highest courts, yet, you want to disqualify her because she is black.
This is why you are racist. Which you seem to not even know the definition on that. Biden's statement is supportive and uplifting, your statement is the definition of racism, negative and group based.

Her nomination was supported by cops:

FOP National President Patrick Yoes Statement on Nomination of Kentaji Brown Jackson to SCOTUS

Today, President Biden nominated Kentaji Brown Jackson to be the next Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States, and I wanted to provide the FOP’s perspective on this nominee as the confirmation process begins.

fop.net

The hardest bar association in country (but you know the constitution better than them I'm sure)

Ketanji Brown Jackson Qualifications for Supreme Court | New York City Bar Association

The New York City Bar Association has concluded that Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is Highly Qualified to be a Justice of […]

www.nycbar.org

Former prosecutors:

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article259682065.html

The US Senate twice before:

U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 117th Congress - 1st Session

www.senate.gov

The US Senate now:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/kbj/

You can prove me wrong (not really) by going to the current court, who was more qualified than her on their day of nomination - not counting Alito or Sotomayor, which I'm sure you're against one of them.
Your racism and ignorance won't allow you to do that. They key for all of us to watch, is how you pivot away from proving your statements.

There's the prodigal *******....

The fact remains that she is not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice...

You see racism where it clearly doesn't exist. Nice try.

 

[ridgelyfan]

The fact remains that she is not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice...

explain why

 

[ed4mwf]

There's the prodigal *******....

The fact remains that she is not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice...

You see racism where it clearly doesn't exist. Nice try.

4 months later and nothing has changed and you are as predictable as ever. Called you out ahead of time.
You are unable to explain why ALL that I've listed above, plus the endorsements and support from different experts and practitioners as well as the US Senate 3 times- make her 'not qualified'.
Your proof or expertise beyond your hate is...

 

[James4767]

 

[ed4mwf]

explain why

No can do Katmandu.
The racism is mind blowing.
This person could not tell you what the Constitution says about justices, nor the background of ANY of the justices before looking it up.
He likes the corrupt one on the court, who was appointed to the court because of race AND politics after serving a little over year as a judge yet, Thomas was qualified.

Before he brings up this new ******* ******* their obsessed with, remember:
Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz is under investigation for baby sex trafficking and other perversions.
Republican Congressman Jim Jordan has been accused by 8 individuals of ignoring sexual misconduct by his buddy on the team of wrestlers.
Republican candidate for the US Senate (and former GOP state Supreme Court of AL) Roy Moore, initiated sexual encounters with girls as young as 14 and 16 while he was in his early 30s. They still rallied behind him.
Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert was sentenced as a serial baby molester.

And just on Friday, we see there is a ring of baby perverts, and they are REPUBLICANS
A former GOP staffer and Republican National Committee aide who admitted to being part of a ring that traded baby pornography involving babies was sentenced Thursday to more than 12-and-a-half years in prison Thursday.
Ruben Verastigui, 29, received the 151-month sentence from U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta during a hearing held via video conference, according to an announcement from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C.

I'm just sick of these loud mouth, bad spelling, sexless scumbags, or republicans.

 

[Veganho]

View attachment 4976122

lol

 

[TnC93]

4 months later and nothing has changed and you are as predictable as ever. Called you out ahead of time.
You are unable to explain why ALL that I've listed above, plus the endorsements and support from different experts and practitioners as well as the US Senate 3 times- make her 'not qualified'.
Your proof or expertise beyond your hate is...

She's not qualified because like you, she has a perverted and incorrect view of the constitution... The weak minded, such as yourself, need people like her to tell you what to think... I don't need political hacks to tell me what the constitution says, my interpretation of it is correct.

 

[ridgelyfan]

She's not qualified because like you, she has a perverted and incorrect view of the constitution

incorrect how exactly?

The weak minded, such as yourself, need people like her to tell you what to think... I don't need political hacks to tell me what the constitution says, my interpretation of it is correct.

what does this mean? you think courts shouldn't exist?

 

[SCBlknNsty]

The weak minded, such as yourself, need people like her to tell you what to think... I don't need political hacks to tell me what the constitution says, my interpretation of it is correct.

Pompous drivel.

 

[TnC93]

Pompous drivel.

Confidence is NOT arrogance.

 

[SCBlknNsty]

She's not qualified because like you, she has a perverted and incorrect view of the constitution... The weak minded, such as yourself, need people like her to tell you what to think... I don't need political hacks to tell me what the constitution says, my interpretation of it is correct.

Confidence is NOT arrogance.

No it isn't; the condescending insult of differing opinions is. The assumption that ONLY you have the correct interpretation is egotistical. And I see no reason to accept the opinion of one who hasn't even reached the level of 'political hack' to tell me the definition of the constitution, especially in light of those passages that contradicted the stated intent, or those amendments passed AFTER the fact to resolve it's inadequacies in striving for a "more perfect" union.

 

[TnC93]

No it isn't; the condescending insult of differing opinions is. The assumption that ONLY you have the correct interpretation is egotistical. And I see no reason to accept the opinion of one who hasn't even reached the level of 'political hack' to tell me the definition of the constitution, especially in light of those passages that contradicted the stated intent, or those amendments passed AFTER the fact to resolve it's inadequacies in striving for a "more perfect" union.

I agree about the condescending insult of any differing opinions, also the wild speculations of one's employment, salary, home, and wife is way worse, yet I saw no condemnation of those who have engaged in that from you...

The constitution was designed to be a limitation of the federal government. You see that very strongly in the bill of rights... However, the constitutional amendment process was perverted in the 16th, 17th, and 18th amendments, only one of which was repealed, when in fact all three need to go.

It's not condescending to understand the spirit in which the constitution was created by the founders.

 

[ridgelyfan]

It's not condescending to understand the spirit in which the constitution was created by the founders.

it's condescending to declare that you understand best, better than any judges or legal scholars or lawmakers in the world

what exactly are you claiming here? do you have a ouija board that lets you talk directly with james madison's and thomas jefferson's ghosts?

 

[ridgelyfan]

this list look familiar to you cons?

I notice "cult of tradition" and "rejection of modernism" in the constitution chat here, I notice "fear of difference" "contempt for the weak" and "machismo" with how people talk about LGBT+ , I notice "appeal to a frustrated middle class" and "selective populism" around gas prices and declaration that everyone who voted for biden is out of touch, I notice "obsession with a plot" in damn near everything you cons talk about

1. "The Cult of Tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by Tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.
2. "The Rejection of modernism", which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.
3. "The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
4. "Disagreement Is Treason" – Fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.
5. "Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
6. "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
7. "Obsession with a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society (such as the German elite's 'fear' of the 1930s Jewish populace's businesses and well-doings; see also antisemitism). Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
8. Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak." On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.
9. "Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to not build a military *******. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.
10. "Contempt for the Weak", which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate Leader who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by *******.
11. "Everybody is Educated to Become a Hero", which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, "[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death."
12. "Machismo", which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality."
13. "Selective Populism" – The People, conceived monolithically, have a Common Will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the Leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of "no longer represent[ing] the Voice of the People."
14. "Newspeak" – Fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.

 

[TnC93]

it's condescending to declare that you understand best, better than any judges or legal scholars or lawmakers in the world

what exactly are you claiming here? do you have a ouija board that lets you talk directly with james madison's and thomas jefferson's ghosts?

The constitution is not at all a complicated document, to think that you need to be a judge or some sort of lawyer to understand it is laughable.

 

[ed4mwf]

Good Pivot. I was wondering how you were going to weasel out of explaining how this jurist and scholar doesn't belong on the court in light of her accomplishments and recognitions.
You, the guy who told us the Missouri Constitution over-rides the US Constitution (I screenshot that ******* it was so unbelievable so don't lie), decided to go Constitutional on us.
You might want to skip the first part, it's a little insulting and I know how that sting makes it hard for you to read through the tears.

I agree about the condescending insult of any differing opinions, also the wild speculations of one's employment, salary, home, and wife is way worse, yet I saw no condemnation of those who have engaged in that from you...

That's cause that speculation is not so wild. You lack introspect and still can't see how transparent you really are. College is not for everyone, I get it, but just because you chose a different, you feel the need to push back against academia and intelligence. Your viceral disregard for education, counts you out when commenting on educated issues.
From that, one can easily interpret your lifestyle from the things you value and the county in Missouri you live in. Not a whole lot of mystery there.
From there, you've told us that your wife is the same women you've been with since high school. almost 30 years with you. It's doesn't take Dr Phil to assess that.

The constitution was designed to be a limitation of the federal government. You see that very strongly in the bill of rights...

Actually, the US Constitution was written to STRENGTHEN the central government.
Poppycock you say? Where am I getting these crazy ideas? Read on...
You may remember the states sending delegates to Philly back in the summer of 1787 for something called a Constitutional Convention.
Why would we need such a thing if we were operating under the Articles of Confederation (OG Constitution) ?
That document made states almost sovereign and left us with a very weak central government. We had a ******* load of trouble raising an army for the Revolution, and was in deep debt over it.
So, the result of that Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in the hot summer of 1787 in what we now call Independence Hall was the US Constitution - almost. it still had to be ratified by states which took until 1789.
You may remember me explaining the list of essays printed in newspapers and magazines across the states at the time to being support for the new centralized form of government we'll be switching to.
Those essay were written by John Jay, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton (yes the Puerto Rican one that sings well), all under nom de plumes. The collection of essays is knowns as The Federalist Papers and it worked. The Constitution was ratified in 1789.

The Bill of Rights were gratuitous to please some of those who had constituents like you. They were unneeded. Those were areas left to the states to decide.

So wrong on both accounts.

 

[ed4mwf]

However, the constitutional amendment process was perverted in the 16th, 17th, and 18th amendments, only one of which was repealed, when in fact all three need to go.

This is where your ignorance and parakeeting become obvious.
Those amendments went through the same process as others and not only passed Congress with a super majority, but was approved by 3/5ths of states legislatures.
If you know the Constitution as you say you do, what the hell are you talking about the process was perverted?
You don't like those amendments, and thus you want to 'vilify' them. Federal Income Tax (16), direct election of the Senate(17) and Prohibition(18) all passed the same process created in 1787, to first pass the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Was it perverted then?
Why do you hate America and Americans?

It's not condescending to understand the spirit in which the constitution was created by the founders.

It certainly isn't, but it's foolhardy to believe you yourself have a fucking clue.

 

[TnC93]

This is where your ignorance and parakeeting become obvious.
Those amendments went through the same process as others and not only passed Congress with a super majority, but was approved by 3/5ths of states legislatures.
If you know the Constitution as you say you do, what the hell are you talking about the process was perverted?
You don't like those amendments, and thus you want to 'vilify' them. Federal Income Tax (16), direct election of the Senate(17) and Prohibition(18) all passed the same process created in 1787, to first pass the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Was it perverted then?
Why do you hate America and Americans?

It certainly isn't, but it's foolhardy to believe you yourself have a fucking clue.

Oh, Ed, I've truly missed your presence here! It's so humorous the way you try to pass yourself off as knowing anything about the constitution, then you make it crystal clear that you have less than a preschooler's understanding of it!!

Way to miss the point of what I was saying, my point still stands... If you want to be educated in the field of the constitution, reach out, I can and will certainly help you!

 

[daba52]

Oh, Ed, I've truly missed your presence here! It's so humorous the way you try to pass yourself off as knowing anything about the constitution, then you make it crystal clear that you have less than a preschooler's understanding of it!!

Way to miss the point of what I was saying, my point still stands... If you want to be educated in the field of the constitution, reach out, I can and will certainly help you!