***Official Political Discussion Thread***

As an initial matter, she answered tons of questions. And the questions she avoided were properly avoided as a Justice should not signal how they would rule on a particular issue.

To directly answer your question: Because she is a competent, knowledgeable, jurist. The American Bar Association gave her its highest rating.
Yes, the ABA gave her the highest rating BUT the ABA viwes a person's "professional qualifications" and does not take into consideration their "philosophy, political affiliation or ideology" when making its determinations. If you interview me for an open position, and my resume has all the experince and skills for the job, but during the interview I didnt asnwer any of the questions, you calling me back for a second interview?
 
Yes, the ABA gave her the highest rating BUT the ABA viwes a person's "professional qualifications" and does not take into consideration their "philosophy, political affiliation or ideology" when making its determinations. If you interview me for an open position, and my resume has all the experince and skills for the job, but during the interview I didnt asnwer any of the questions, you calling me back for a second interview?

Yes, if you wouldn’t answer questions about your religious views and how they would play into you doing your job (which you probably have never been asked) then that wouldn’t have an impact on a call-back, from me.

Have you ever had an interview where they asked how your personal religious views would impact your performance on the job?
 
There’s no defending this Supreme Court nomination. These people can’t get together to send 400 bucks to poor Americans but can rush this process. If you’re backing this, you HAVE to be a *****


the climate change question being “political” is an absolute joke. 30 some years ago, cigarettes being deadly was also “political”.
 
Yes, if you wouldn’t answer questions about your religious views and how they would play into you doing your job (which you probably have never been asked) then that wouldn’t have an impact on a call-back, from me.

Have you ever had an interview where they asked how your personal religious views would impact your performance on the job?
Engaging in good faith just isn't in your bones. The performance of an accountant likely won't be affected by their religious views. The decisions made by a Supreme Court Justice who is a devout follower of any religion should pose questions -- especially given statements that she has made in the past, organizations and causes that she is tied to. Refusal to answer those questions is entirely different than an average joe, but you know this. You just don't want to engage in a good faith discussion about it, as usual. If this were a devout Muslim then we would hear all sorts of xenophobic tropes about a Justice bringing Sharia Law to the court.
 
Engaging in good faith just isn't in your bones. The performance of an accountant likely won't be affected by their religious views. The decisions made by a Supreme Court Justice who is a devout follower of any religion should pose questions -- especially given statements that she has made in the past, organizations and causes that she is tied to. Refusal to answer those questions is entirely different than an average joe, but you know this. You just don't want to engage in a good faith discussion about it, as usual. If this were a devout Muslim then we would hear all sorts of xenophobic tropes about a Justice bringing Sharia Law to the court.

If you heard that about a devout Muslim, it would be wrong, just as it is wrong in this case. Wouldn’t it?

You are a lawyer.

You are fully aware that judges have a duty to apply the law to the facts. Unless you are implying that her personal religious views render her incapable of doing that, then the entire discussion is irrelevant.

A good faith discussion, from you, is acknowledging that there are ethical implications to her signaling how she plans to rule on particular issues. Surely you are familiar with the “Ginsburg Rule.” Especially as it relates to issues that are currently being litigated.

RBG also chose not to comment on such issues at her hearing.

The only reason I responded to the poster the way I did is because he asked would “I” hire someone who did not answer questions. Instead of you addressing him asking me that, you went to my response being in bad faith—yet his question was in the same realm (an average Joe hiring process).
 


Woulda thought dems woulda learned from years ago

But if they and the media don’t learn from this

1602785315378.gif
 
The Democrats need to start fighting dirty back. They always rolling over taking it up the rear.
There is literally nothing they can do in this situation. They are not rolling over, they don't have veto power.

People need to listen to Dems when they say people gotta vote, especially in Midterms.

People can't keep demanding the Dems stop the GOP, yet don't show up to the polls in sufficient number to give them power.

The 2014 midterm was one of the lowest turnout elections in recent history. That election gave the GOP the Senate and made Mitch the Majority leader.

If Dems held on to the Senate, we would probably have a liberal Supreme Court right now.
 
This is the way to do it. A perfect transparent letter about someone coming down with it and the timeline. The complete opposite of the president. No one in the President's administration would ever write a statement like this. All they want to do is deflect and obfuscate the public.

These dudes didn’t even call people after the president and numerous other people tested positive

couldn’t even tell the public when he last tested negative to enable everyone to be well aware of who was put at risk
 
If you heard that about a devout Muslim, it would be wrong, just as it is wrong in this case. Wouldn’t it?

You are a lawyer.

You are fully aware that judges have a duty to apply the law to the facts. Unless you are implying that her personal religious views render her incapable of doing that, then the entire discussion is irrelevant.

A good faith discussion, from you, is acknowledging that there are ethical implications to her signaling how she plans to rule on particular issues. Surely you are familiar with the “Ginsburg Rule.” Especially as it relates to issues that are currently being litigated.

RBG also chose not to comment on such issues at her hearing.

The only reason I responded to the poster the way I did is because he asked would “I” hire someone who did not answer questions. Instead of you addressing him asking me that, you went to my response being in bad faith—yet his question was in the same realm (an average Joe hiring process).
I am 100 percent implying that her religious views MAY render her incapable of applying the law to facts, based on what I have seen and read. And I think it is entirely a fair question. Will her extreme religious views allow her to act in the interests of the people who she is ensure ensuring of equal justice under law of. It's hard for me to believe so when she has ties to the People of Praise religious community — which opposes abortion, gay rights and marriage equality, and which believes that men are leaders of their families. It's even harder when I see that she has signed on to a open letter that to Catholic Bishops that states "We give witness that the church’s teachings — on the dignity of the human person and the value of human life from conception to natural death; on the meaning of human sexuality, the significance of sexual difference and the complementarity of men and women; on openness to life and the gift of motherhood; and on marriage and family founded on the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman — provide a sure guide to the Christian life, promote women’s flourishing, and serve to protect the poor and most vulnerable among us.”

So yes, I believe that her religious views may render her incapable of ensuring equal protection under the law of women, LGBTQI people, poor people, and Black people. None of which you seem to give a single **** about.

Spare me talking about good faith from the poster in this thread who engages in bad faith arguments to nearly bannable lengths on a daily basis. I may have missed the full back and forth of you and another poster because it's hard to keep up with your semantic ******** that pollutes this thread.
 
Remove the filibuster
Expand the Supreme Court
Pack the federal courts
Give DC statehood
Allow Puerto Rico to hold a referendum to decide between statehood or independence
Federalize election processes for executive and legislative branches
Make election day a national holiday
Crack down hard on partisan gerrymandering
End felony disenfranchisement
End Citizens United

If Dems win all 3 branches it's time to take off the ******* kid gloves and stop playing cute with Republicans.
We know, unequivocally, what they're about. Do everything in your power to cripple them for decades.
 
That's the thing it's been 4-5 years of Trump's M.O. Strut out a famous black face then dip on them, you'd have to be stupid to not recognize that. Steve Harvey get his housing initiative off the ground yet?

Steve Harvey
Jim Brown
Kanye West
HBCU leaders

:smh:

Wouldn't be surprised if this had something to do with Cube working with the orange clown

 
Back
Top Bottom