Republicans on the board: Would you vote for Judge Jackson on the Supreme Court?

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
47,019
20,865
1
So just to be clear here Laffy. Creating unverified sexusl assault allegations that supposedly happened 30 years ok and holding those allegations until right before the vote is acceptable. But questions regarding the Judicial Principles to an individual seeking a Judicial confirmation?
1. No member of Congress "created unverified "sexusl" (or sexual) assault allegations." Women who claimed that Kavanaugh and/or his associates assaulted them made such allegations. You may well believe those allegations are unfounded, but the fact IS that the Republicans who controlled the Senate Judiciary Committee opted for a one day dog and pony show that cut off presentation of evidence, and was intended only to put a fig leaf over their decision to ignore such allegations. If Kavanaugh and his supporters were so sure that these allegations were without merit, they could and should have allowed a meaningful examination of them.

2. The last sentence of your post, above, does not make English or rhetorical sense. If you changed "to" to "of" and added the words "are not" at the end of the sentence, it would make sense (although "Judicial Principles" did not merit initial capital letters). But even then, it is not responsive to my comment concerning Merrick Garland, and the fact that he was not even allowed Senate confirmation hearings, as the absence of hearings meant that he was never asked any questions, either regarding his judicial principles or anything else.
 
Last edited:

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
47,019
20,865
1
I can also give you video tape of him telling the jan 6th crowd to march peacefully...yeah that hasnt gone away...despite you being in denial.
It's pretty funny that you use the word "denial" in the context of Trump's January 6, 2021 speech, because I have always conceded that he included (along with his twenty odd exhortations to "fight") a sentence about marching peacefully and patriotically to the Capitol. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly brayed about the "marching peacefully and patriotically" statement, while COMPLETELY AND CONSISTENTLY refusing to acknowledge his twenty odd exhortations to fight, all of which were in that same speech. You go, Mountaineer!
 

ao5884

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2019
7,157
6,945
1
1. No member of Congress "Created unverified "sexusl" (or sexual) assault allegations." Women who claimed that Kavanaugh and/or his associates assaulted them made such allegations. You may well believe those allegations are unfounded, but the fact IS that the Republicans who controlled the Senate Judiciary Committee opted for a one day dog and pony show that cut off presentation of evidence, and was intended only to put a fig leaf over their decision to ignore such allegations. If Kavanaugh and his supporters were so sure that these allegations were without merit, they could and should have allowed a meaningful examination of them.

2. The last sentence of your post, above, does not make English or rhetorical sense. If you changed "to" to "of" and added the words "are not" at the end of the sentence, it would make sense (although "Judicial Principles" did not merit initial capital letters). But even then, it is not responsive to my comment concerning Merrick Garland, and the fact that he was not even allowed Senate confirmation hearings, as the absence of hearings meant that he was never asked any questions, either regarding his judicial principles or anything else.
1, Until You prove they are they are assumed to be false....One does not have to prove a negative. Feinstein Held the accusations that were not con firmed until she could get the max effect from the accusation. IT was a Partisan circus meant to delay the appoint ment further since we had to deal with democrat temper tantrums repeatedly. The Democrats have a history of this bud.....
2. Barack Obama Nominated Merrick Garland in accordance with the constitution. The Senate chose not to vote on that nomination also in accordance with the constitution...they are not required to vote.



3. Even if we ignore that the current nominee had to pace a race and sex check to be considered. When an individual is seeking a Judicial appointment. Questions regarding that nominee's judicial principles and ideology are absolutely relevant.....Thats why Justice Barret And Kavanaugh were asked the same type of questions. What else ya got :cool::cool:
 

ao5884

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2019
7,157
6,945
1
It's pretty funny that you use the word "denial" in the context of Trump's January 6, 2021 speech, because I have always conceded that he included (along with his twenty odd exhortations to "fight") a sentence about marching peacefully and patriotically to the Capitol. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly brayed about the "marching peacefully and patriotically" statement, while COMPLETELY AND CONSISTENTLY refusing to acknowledge his twenty odd exhortations to fight, all of which were in that same speech. You go, Mountaineer!
I'm not denying anything. I have never said that trump did not use that language. I said that He used the same language as other politicians across the political spectrum. I have also said that they all were engaging in Rhetoric....You and lots of leftwards here want a double standard to be used. If you want to say that what trump said is criminal and he should be jailed for saying what he said fair enough....but don't then turn around and say that other politicians like Obama, Clinton, Schumer, Waters Kaine ETC shouldn't be in the adjacent jail cells.
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
47,019
20,865
1
1, Until You prove they are they are assumed to be false....One does not have to prove a negative. The presumption of a criminal defendant's innocence under the Constitution is not quite the same as saying that allegations are presumed to be false. Such allegations are typically investigated, and a criminal trial follows thereafter, at which all relevant evidence is presented, witnesses are cross examined, and the trier of fact (either a judge or a jury) renders a verdict. A Senate confirmation hearing need not be conducted in the same manner as a criminal trial, but the one day "trial" that occurred in the context of Kavanaugh's nomination was an absurd farce. It occurred only because the GOP Senate majority realized that Kavanaugh would be confirmed under a sizeable cloud if no examination of the subject allegations occurred, so they slapped together that one day farce in order to provide a fig leaf of cover for him.

2. Barack Obama Nominated Merrick Garland in accordance with the constitution. The Senate chose not to vote on that nomination also in accordance with the constitution...they are not required to vote. Is this the best you can do? Under the circumstances, I think it is. There was nothing consistent, fair or equitable in denying Garland confirmation hearings and a vote. Particularly not when Coney Barrett was nominated so much later in the process yet received both confirmation hearings and a vote. What you are in effect saying is that the Senate GOP majority had the power to accord disparate treatment to these two nominations, and elected to do so. Fine, but we all know that the day will come when there is a Republican president and a Democratic Senate majority. What comes around goes around.

3. Even if we ignore that the current nominee had to pace a race and sex check to be considered. When an individual is seeking a Judicial appointment. Questions regarding that nominee's judicial principles and ideology are absolutely relevant.....Thats why Justice Barret And Kavanaugh were asked the same type of questions. What else ya got :cool::cool: I never suggested that it was improper for Judge Jackson to be grilled. In fact, I said just the opposite in an earlier post in this thread. It comes with the territory. I DO find it pretty amusing that you White Nationalists continue to bray about Biden imposing a "race and sex check" here. As if that was some novel development. As if race and gender were not a relevant consideration in every single Supreme Court nomination that has ever been made. For most of this country's history, only white males were nominated to the Court. You think race and gender criteria were not being applied in all of those nominations?! If so, I have a bridge to sell you.

See my replies, above, in red type face.
 

ao5884

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2019
7,157
6,945
1
See my replies, above, in red type face.
1. Again A negative does not have to be proven....The onus is on the person that made the accusation.

2. Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the President (Which happened) The senate decides if that person gets the job (they said no). Perhaps you would like to point out where in the constitution would i find a requirement to have a vote. You wont find it.

1. Just because something happened in the past, It does not make it OK to use a racist process. Its hilarious that here you are accusing others of being white nationalists and at the same time defending an action that is textbook racism. This woman's skin and sex were used as QUALIFICATIONS. If you don't understand how unbelievable. Its insulting to the citizenry, and its insulting to her....this is a prime example of why people ay the democrats are the party of racism in reality. What did MLK jr....Say we should not judge people by? Guess what President Biden did the opposite....and you are defending it. Stop being Racist
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
47,019
20,865
1
..this is a prime example of why people ay the democrats are the party of racism
AO: I know, right?! I hate it when people "ay" that.

If you are wondering why I mocked you, look at your preceding post, and note the fact that it simply regurgitates the same points you made in a prior post without responding to the arguments I made in an intervening post.

I love the fact that you exhort me to "stop being racist" when you have made it clear that you are adamantly opposed to a black woman serving on the U.S. Supreme Court. Get the log out of your eye ...
 

ao5884

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2019
7,157
6,945
1
AO: I know, right?! I hate it when people "ay" that.

If you are wondering why I mocked you, look at your preceding post, and note the fact that it simply regurgitates the same points you made in a prior post without responding to the arguments I made in an intervening post.

I love the fact that you exhort me to "stop being racist" when you have made it clear that you are adamantly opposed to a black woman serving on the U.S. Supreme Court. Get the log out of your eye ...
That's because my arguments are sound. Would you care to cite the clause within the constitution that requires the senate to vote regarding an appointment? The constitution was followed to the letter in regards to Garland. I never said opposed a black woman from serving. I said that using her race as a qualification is racist....which it is if you defend that action you are defending a racist action and in fact you are racist. So which is it Laffy is it OK to use a person's skin color as a qualification or is it not OK? You can't have it both ways.
 

Latest posts