That I can remember when liberals were against race-based hiring decisions
I’m so old
- Thread starter Bitter Creek
- Start date
I tell you, the idea that Biden may appoint the first black woman to the Supreme Court really has you guys on the right bothered.
Why not a Hispanic woman, white woman or for that matter a black man? The only people concerned with race and gender are you leftist. All I care about is getting a well-qualified and deserving judge on the bench. If CNN is correct on the list of those being considered let's just say I am extremely disappointed.
What a time to be alive.
You’re the racist one.
I thought it was illegal to make hiring decisions based on race. I know when I was hiring and firing people, race could never enter the discussion but now Biden is hiring a SCOTUS Justice based on race and gender?
Hopefully this is all just speculation and Biden releases a list of judges being considered that includes people of all races and genders. He can pick a black woman if he wants but at least act like you are following the laws us peasants are required to follow.
Hopefully this is all just speculation and Biden releases a list of judges being considered that includes people of all races and genders. He can pick a black woman if he wants but at least act like you are following the laws us peasants are required to follow.
I don’t care about the race or gender of the appointment
it’s Biden and his supporters that do
🤣 🤣
Why lie?
I'll make one prediction that I know I will be right on regarding the potential nominee....
Whoever Biden selects as his nominee, @2012Bearcat won't like that nominee and will find everything he can wrong with the nominee. He will never admit the nominee is well-qualified and deserving of the position.
Biden isn't going to release any list of who he is considering.
Do you have any clue how this process works?
Did I say you did?
I simply said, the idea that Biden may appoint the first black woman to the Supreme Court really has you guys on the right bothered.
Lot of overcompensation now occurring on this thread in response to a simple statement by me.
Just noting who was the first one to call another poster a racist on this thread.
You said it so softly though, it was really kind of hard to hear.
I didn’t say anything. This is a message board. You can’t hear shît.
why are you being so simple? Of course we will hate her, we assume she is a liberal. She is Harvard law, oh boy get your diversity scorecard out. Where did she grow up? What’s her background? What religion is she? Can we find out things that matter?
Why not conjoined oriental transgender twins?
The time has come.
Now when confirmed, which twin would adjudicate? Also, would it be acceptable for the other twin to work a crossword puzzle or sleep?
These are questions I want answered.
The time has come.
Now when confirmed, which twin would adjudicate? Also, would it be acceptable for the other twin to work a crossword puzzle or sleep?
These are questions I want answered.
The court was 33% jewish just two years ago, does that play into this?
It's not a requirement but to my recollection Presidents have released lists in the past. I know Trump made his public; he ran on it. Obama list was out before he nominated the two activist and Garland.
Is it even legal for a President to announce he is only considering a certain race and gender for the SCOTUS? I have no idea but coming from the business world making hiring decisions based on race was a definite no no.
According to Johnathan Turley, it isn't. Before you lefty wingnuts go over the ledge, he's one of yours.
Did I say that you said that I did?
did I even suggest I would be bothered by having a AA Female on the SCOTUS?
I’ll make it simple for you as to what I am concerned about since you missed it: I’m concerned about the process using race and gender to disqualify candidates
Exactly, which makes his comment "If CNN is correct on the list of those being considered let's just say I am extremely disappointed" pointless and without any weight. Of course he is going to be extremely disappointed. He has been extremely disappointed ever since Americans kicked Trump's *** to the curve.
I agree...
So, religious diversity matters, but not racial and gender diversity?
Did they release a list during their selection process when they were actually President?
It is not illegal.
that depends. Religion is a choice, so that distinction matters. Gender matters because men and women are biologically different. Race could matter but I don’t know how important it is to her.
the sad thing is, they should only be considering what the constitution says. Leftists now just make up what feels good to them that day.
Yes, you are concerned about a process that encourages diversity. Therefore, you turn the positive into what you perceive to be a negative.
You have made that clear now.
Are you purposely being obtuse for kicks or just stupid? How would Obama have released his list when he nominated Garland if he wasn't President? I swear you leftist have absolutely zero common sense and no critical thinking skills.
If it's not illegal it's just another example of rules for thee but not for me. Not a very good look if you ask me but then again leftist embrace their hypocrisy instead of being embarrassed by it.
Speaking of the Constitution I have a question for you. When a SCOTUS Justice is considering a case should they try to determine what the founder's intent was or should they take their own interpretation?
No, I don't remember. That is why I am asking. Stop jumping to so many **** silly conclusions about what you think I am up to.
I don't recall Obama releasing a list of nominees he was considering during the selection process that ultimately gave us Garland. Did he do this?
I remember discussing the list when Garland was nominated. Garland was one who had a questionable position on the second amendment.
Your question is flawed because it fails to understand there are numerous theories of constitutional interpretation (which an individuals' acceptance of will lead them to make their own interpretation according to the theory they hold).
It would be better for you to ask if I am a textualist (form of originalism and part of strict constructionism), an intentionalist (another form of originalism), a pragmatist, a living constitutionalist, or a natural law theorist. If you would like me to answer this, I would be happy to.
Last edited:
Similar threads
