Boyle5150 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 Just now, SFLUFAN said: My goal is quite simply this: tis the content of your character and you have been judged!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted July 9, 2018 Author Share Posted July 9, 2018 1 minute ago, Boyle5150 said: tis the content of your character and you have been judged!! Yeah, look where that got him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyle5150 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 Just now, SFLUFAN said: Yeah, look where that got him. Death comes to us all (currently), but some will be revered for what they accomplish for others, and the Dr. will be revered for all time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyle5150 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 8 minutes ago, stepee said: I wouldn’t worry much about it, pretty sure he is drunk and looking for a drinking buddy. Really stepee?! "The problem is not that the majority in power are white men. The color of their skin is not the problem, their ideology is." To say otherwise is racist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentWorld Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 6 minutes ago, Boyle5150 said: thinking otherwise is peak black liberalism?? Are you fucking drunk? oh you edited your post, but that edit doesn't work. nobody is saying that the supreme court should be dominated by black people... but here you are totally ok with a supreme court dominated by white people. and not just white people but white men specifically as a majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted July 9, 2018 Author Share Posted July 9, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 Well he said in 2006 that a right to abortion exists under stare decisis, so I can't complain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyle5150 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 10 minutes ago, SilentWorld said: oh you edited your post, but that edit doesn't work. nobody is saying that the supreme court should be dominated by black people... but here you are totally ok with a supreme court dominated by white people. and not just white people but white men specifically as a majority. I don't care which color or sex dominates the SC, as that has no bearing on jurisprudence, I care about their ideology. You are the one who is fixated on the color of their skin, and that is racist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris- Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 Your argument hinges on the notion that there are no qualified minority/female candidates, and if that's the case, how do you know that to be a fact? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyle5150 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 6 minutes ago, Chris- said: Your argument hinges on the notion that there are no qualified minority/female candidates, and if that's the case, how do you know that to be a fact? I never said any such thing. Show me where? My argument hinges not on skin color or sex, but on qualifications and ideology. Why is this so hard for some of you to understand. The* dismissal of people simply because of race and sex is both racist and sexist, and that includes "OLD WHITE MEN" Go back and re-read who is basing the qualifications based on race and sex. Get back to me with your findings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyle5150 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 ftr, I want the most liberal Justice(') to occupy our SCOTUS, and I don't give two shits what color or gender they are, however, if you want to discredit someone for being white, then you are a racist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris- Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 4 minutes ago, Boyle5150 said: I never said any such thing. Show me where? My argument hinges not on skin color or sex, but on qualifications and ideology. Why is this so hard for some of you to understand. Your dismissal of people simply because of race and sex is both racist and sexist. You said the notion that the Supreme Court should be more inclusive is racist; it's only racist if the assertion is that race should supersede qualification. If there are qualified minority or female candidates, there's nothing racist or sexist about preferring their nomination for the sake of a more inclusive Supreme Court. And there are, doubtlessly, qualified minority and female candidates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyle5150 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 2 minutes ago, Chris- said: You said the notion that the Supreme Court should be more inclusive is racist; it's only racist if the assertion is that race should supersede qualification. If there are qualified minority or female candidates, there's nothing racist or sexist about preferring their nomination for the sake of a more inclusive Supreme Court. And there are, doubtlessly, qualified minority and female candidates. I said no such thing. I said that excluding someone for the sake of the color of their skin is racist. And you are absolutely correct that there are qualified minority and female candidates that I would argue are more qualified than some of the current justices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris- Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 You literally just posted that SilentWorld's thinking on a more inclusive SCOTUS was racist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyle5150 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 Just now, Chris- said: You literally just posted that SilentWorld's thinking on a more inclusive SCOTUS was racist. No I didn't! Please quote where I said being inclusive is racist. I said dismissal of someone based on race is racist. If you want to dismiss a white candidate based on that person being "straight white male" then you are racist and sexist, PERIOD! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris- Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 And those are the same thing in this instance. If you have equally qualified candidates, and you select the minority over the straight white man for the sake of representation, you are simultaneously being more inclusive while dismissing the latter on the basis of his gender and race. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted July 9, 2018 Author Share Posted July 9, 2018 35 minutes ago, Jose said: Well he said in 2006 that a right to abortion exists under stare decisis, so I can't complain. Which has got to be the most asinine reasoning possible for any legal decision. I am so glad I'm not in the legal profession as I'd probably have been disbarred by now for mocking my colleagues whenever they dared suggest that "precedent" is a valid argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 1 minute ago, Chris- said: And those are the same thing in this instance. If you have equally qualified candidates, and you select the minority over the straight white man for the sake of representation, you are simultaneously being more inclusive while dismissing the latter on the basis of his gender and race. I think there is a difference between the pro-diversity position and one that is explicitly antagonistic towards “old white men”, even if the end result in the selection of a SCOTUS justice is the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyle5150 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 Just now, Chris- said: And those are the same thing in this instance. If you have equally qualified candidates, and you select the minority over the straight white man for the sake of representation, you are simultaneously being more inclusive while dismissing the latter on the basis of his gender and race. All things being equal, sure. I never said otherwise. However, if you follow from where this started about "old straight white male" there in lies the problem. Dismissal of a person based on age, race and gender is the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairslinger Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 1 minute ago, Boyle5150 said: All things being equal, sure. I never said otherwise. However, if you follow from where this started about "old straight white male" there in lies the problem. Dismissal of a person based on age, race and gender is the problem. So by my count, out of 113 Justices over 200+ years 3 have been non-white, and 4 have been women. And one of those women is also one of the non-whites.(Which, by the way small sample size because 3 of the women were nominated by Democrats, but the one female nominated by a Republican was also vital in joining Kennedy to save Roe in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey). So that makes 107 out of 113 white men. But yeah, the real problem is white men facing discrimination. Reminds me of people saying, "Well I am not going to vote for Hillary just because she's a woman!!!"" Yeah, because electing people just because they're a woman is the defining fucking struggle of our time. I swear, I am not even that big of a proponent of identity politics, but your lack of awareness on the reality of white as a "default" in this society is just staggering. It is easy to say that identity has no effect on ideology when you've never had your very right to exist be the subject of hot button political debate. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentWorld Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 18 minutes ago, Boyle5150 said: All things being equal, sure. I never said otherwise. However, if you follow from where this started about "old straight white male" there in lies the problem. Dismissal of a person based on age, race and gender is the problem. If you cook your wife spaghetti for 8 days in a row and on the nineth day she says “I hope we don’t have spaghetti again” you would be completely unreasonable to conclude that she doesn’t like spaghetti. SCOTUS is, and always has been, dominated by white men. That’s a pretty obvious problem, IMO. That doesn’t make me racist to point that out, nor does it make me racist to hope it changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaladinSolo Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 So Barret isn't in DC and is at home, so prolly not her. The other 3 are being driven around DC like a shell game or some crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairslinger Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 1 minute ago, PaladinSolo said: So Barret isn't in DC and is at home, so prolly not her. The other 3 are being driven around DC like a shell game or some crap. I am thinking it's Cavanaugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaladinSolo Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 Murkowski and Collins declined to attend this shit show, along with all the red state dems. Between Hardiman and Kavanaugh as far as i can tell no one seems to even be mentioning the 3rd guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 Kavanaugh has been the betting favorite for Trump’s second SCOTUS pick from the day Gorsuch was selected. The Federalist Society seems to have pushed him to those who matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 33 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said: So Barret isn't in DC and is at home, so prolly not her. The other 3 are being driven around DC like a shell game or some crap. Reports are that all 3 were told they were being driven to an undisclosed location, but 1 is actually being driven to the White House where they will realize their selection once the car door opens. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 2 minutes ago, osxmatt said: Reports are that all 3 were told they were being driven to an undisclosed location, but 1 is actually being driven to the White House where they will realize their selection once the car door opens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 Is that real? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 Just now, CitizenVectron said: Is that real? Does it matter? It’s indistinguishable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaladinSolo Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 There is definitely some leg pulling going on WSJ reported a while go that allies of Hardiman told them they were told to begin promoting him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 4 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said: Is that real? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaladinSolo Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 Well its basically Kavanaugh, Hardiman is in DC for a pre-planned meeting, Kethledge and Barret are at home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 And Kavanaugh is the worst choice, correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted July 10, 2018 Author Share Posted July 10, 2018 Just now, CitizenVectron said: And Kavanaugh is the worst choice, correct? All of them are Federalist Society/Heritage Foundation approved jurists so they are practically interchangable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.