Biden for Prez

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

I don't disagree with the political agenda point. That is why elections have consequences. They should be qualified and support their agenda though I don't agree with biden's agenda at all. Saying you are going only pick from around 6% of the population is not a good ideas unless it happens to work out on merit.

Thats a tired racist argument. Trump picked from a minority, 3 times, dont recall your horror.
Why dont you say specifically why the candidate, you dont know, is under qualified. You cant. Fool.

Originally Posted by 95sn

Thats a tired racist argument. Trump picked from a minority, 3 times, dont recall your horror.
Why dont you say specifically why the candidate, you dont know, is under qualified. You cant. Fool.

Didn't Trump pick a black female for a high end Judge post and the democrats including Schumer voted against her?

I did not say anyone was unqualified. I think saying you are only going to pick from 6% of the population and even less of a percent of population of judges is not really the thing to do. If he finds one that is a top end jurist, then so be it. I think it is a mistake for any president to say they are going to pick X color or gender. It limits you from picking the absolute best person.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Didn't Trump pick a black female for a high end Judge post and the democrats including Schumer voted against her?

I did not say anyone was unqualified. I think saying you are only going to pick from 6% of the population and even less of a percent of population of judges is not really the thing to do. If he finds one that is a top end jurist, then so be it. I think it is a mistake for any president to say they are going to pick X color or gender. It limits you from picking the absolute best person.

Thats the point. You cant say someone is unqualified, there is no pick yet.
The other day you tried to say his potential pick is under/less qualified. Of course, all have more experience than trumps lady pick and i dont recall you explaining how her qualifications were a little light. Was she the best? Was Kavanaugh the best possible choice? Youre clueless. Everyone on the short list is MORE than qualified. All Yale/Harvard/Princton law school. You are not qualified to shine their shoes.

Originally Posted by 95sn

Thats the point. You cant say someone is unqualified, there is no pick yet.
The other day you tried to say his potential pick is under/less qualified. Of course, all have more experience than trumps lady pick and i dont recall you explaining how her qualifications were a little light. Was she the best? Was Kavanaugh the best possible choice? Youre clueless. Everyone on the short list is MORE than qualified. All Yale/Harvard/Princton law school. You are not qualified to shine their shoes.

I said no such thing. I said it is not a good idea to automatically limit a choice to only 6% of the population and more than likely even less percentage of qualified judges. Only thing I have seen on qualifications is of potential people on a short list, they have very limited experience to date. Maybe there are others, but that is all I know.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

I said no such thing. I said it is not a good idea to automatically limit a choice to only 6% of the population and more than likely even less percentage of qualified judges. Only thing I have seen on qualifications is of potential people on a short list, they have very limited experience to date. Maybe there are others, but that is all I know.

limited experience? What is that? What is reasonable experience?
On the short list, all have more experience than Justice Barrett. Im feeling like, you dont know anything at all. Just what you have been told to say. Like a parrot.

Originally Posted by 95sn

limited experience? What is that? What is reasonable experience?
On the short list, all have more experience than Justice Barrett. Im feeling like, you dont know anything at all. Just what you have been told to say. Like a parrot.

Give us your short list. Seems like you speak like you know all. Give us the list there gaspumper. Lay it out.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Give us your short list. Seems like you speak like you know all. Give us the list there gaspumper. Lay it out.

I did that 3 days ago. When I corrected you. Did you already forget?
Not to mention, been in every newspaper across the country. Did FOX forget?


01-28-2022 2:31 PM
95sn
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier View Post
From what I have seen those on the short list have not even been a judge for a year.

You mean bash like bring out false claims of rape?
No, it isnt what you have seen. It is only what you have been told by your "Fair and Balanced" single source.
The short list
Brown Jackson is since 2013 Fed Appeals Court Judge.
Kruger, CA Supreme Court Judge since 2015
Childs, is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, serving in that role since 2010
Ifill,is an American lawyer. She is a law professor and president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.[1] She is the Legal Defense Fund's seventh president since Thurgood Marshall founded the organization in 1940. Ifill is also a nationally recognized expert on voting rights and judicial selection.[2] In 2021, Time named her one of the 100 most influential people in the world on its annual Time 100 list.
Abrams Gardner, is a U.S. District Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. Prior to being appointed to the bench, she was an Assistant United States Attorney, Since 2014.

FYI, Trumps pick Barrett has less experience than all of them.
I mean BASH, like I just did to you.
Thanks for playing.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Didn't Trump pick a black female for a high end Judge post and the democrats including Schumer voted against her?

I did not say anyone was unqualified. I think saying you are only going to pick from 6% of the population and even less of a percent of population of judges is not really the thing to do. If he finds one that is a top end jurist, then so be it. I think it is a mistake for any president to say they are going to pick X color or gender. It limits you from picking the absolute best person.

Regan did it. He committed to selecting the first female supreme court justice as part of his 1980 campaign and followed through with OConor in 1981.

There are many qualified judges out there and there isn't a ranking system. He has just narrowed the field to a black woman. His case is there never has been one out of the hundreds of justices in US History. Now, if the person is unqualified, I hope issues are raised.

Originally Posted by skiboarder

Regan did it. He committed to selecting the first female supreme court justice as part of his 1980 campaign and followed through with OConor in 1981.

There are many qualified judges out there and there isn't a ranking system. He has just narrowed the field to a black woman. His case is there never has been one out of the hundreds of justices in US History. Now, if the person is unqualified, I hope issues are raised.

I agree in general. Reagan was also a life long democrat so maybe he did not shed all that race and gender baiting for votes persona.

Of the people I have read about (and it is very limited on what I have read about it), the people on the short list have very limited experience. I would expect them to be challenged appropriately and not have some partisan shills come out and say they were raped by them at a party when they were teens in a place they don't remember.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

I agree in general. Reagan was also a life long democrat so maybe he did not shed all that race and gender baiting for votes persona.

Of the people I have read about (and it is very limited on what I have read about it), the people on the short list have very limited experience. I would expect them to be challenged appropriately and not have some partisan shills come out and say they were raped by them at a party when they were teens in a place they don't remember.

Holy Crap! Now not even Regan isn't even republican enough for you.

Originally Posted by skiboarder

Holy Crap! Now not even Regan isn't even republican enough for you.

I love Reagan. However he was indeed a life long democrat and made some life long democrat thinking mistakes like amnesty. Pandering to gender for a nomination. He simply could have just nominated her instead of pandering. When you pander to race or gender, all you are doing is cheapening their accomplishments. It makes it look like you could have had someone better, but we need to settle for this instead. I don't care if it is a Republican or one of you demorats.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

I love Reagan. However he was indeed a life long democrat and made some life long democrat thinking mistakes like amnesty. Pandering to gender for a nomination. He simply could have just nominated her instead of pandering. When you pander to race or gender, all you are doing is cheapening their accomplishments. It makes it look like you could have had someone better, but we need to settle for this instead. I don't care if it is a Republican or one of you demorats.

You know what else cheapens your accomplishments... If you are picked for a political agenda, just like how every judge is picked.

Only complaining about cheapening when your political agenda is threatened also cheapens your argument. Notice how the narrative went from "elections have consequences" to "your reasons cheapen accomplishments" when the tables turned. Most people are too stupid to notice. So don't feel bad if you missed it.

Originally Posted by skiboarder

Regan did it. He committed to selecting the first female supreme court justice as part of his 1980 campaign and followed through with OConor in 1981.

There are many qualified judges out there and there isn't a ranking system. He has just narrowed the field to a black woman. His case is there never has been one out of the hundreds of justices in US History. Now, if the person is unqualified, I hope issues are raised.

Regan was wrong if he announced his decision, prior to any vetting, based on gender. Why is this so hard to understand

Originally Posted by dougr

Regan was wrong if he announced his decision, prior to any vetting, based on gender. Why is this so hard to understand

No sorry, sorry your team and the players on it are the little people. Why not just skip the "we are nominating a black women" and just nominate the person you want! BTW, the black women, who gets into the position will always know they may have been seated just because they are black and female.

just like if I hired a little person on the bases of them being little. Why not grow up pick the person on the merit not their color. and if its a black women, great! They would have earned it based on their dedication and merit, not on the color of their skin, BUT TOO LATE everyone now knows they were nominated for being black. Kinda sad, as it strips the hard work and effort they achieved

Racism, its easy to see.