I’m so old
- Thread starter Bitter Creek
- Start date
Tell your mom to stop vacuuming.
Please, explain tk me what I'm failing to understand. How is what you referenced related to making our Supreme Court look more like the country by encouraging racial and gender diversity?
Last edited:
I'm with you.
Just brainstorming. By the time we finish loading the highest court of the land with a punch list of oddities, the old carny freak shows will have nothing on us!
Who could be our bearded lady? Oops, forgot about Sodomeyor.
You are either blind or a liar
I’ll let you decide which you would like for me to call you
RBG would not have met Biden’s qualifications for the appointment
Sotomayor would not have met Biden’s qualifications for the appointment
Breyer himself would have most certainly not have met Biden’s qualifications for the appointment
Sotomayor would not have met Biden’s qualifications for the appointment
Breyer himself would have most certainly not have met Biden’s qualifications for the appointment
I just get a kick out of how triggered and unintentionally hilarious you are. So does my wife.
Underrated post, even at 10/10.
And both RBG and Sotomayor were partly picked to encourage gender diversity on the Court. Goodness, RBG was a lead advocate for gender diversity her entire life!
I would consider myself a living constitutionalist with a respect for pragmatism. I believe the Constitution is a dynamic document, evolving and adapting to new circumstances (circumstances that the founders could no way have foreseen). I also do believe weight should be given to judicial precedent, however, that weight should not be all-controlling.
I don't believe can we objectively arrive at the founder's intent on many of the legal questions we are confronted with today. I think such an attempt will always end in subjectivity, with individuals pushing forth their "own interpretation" of what they "think" the founders thought or would do. Not to mention that many of founders held a number of explicit and implicit biases that have been rejected today.
I think the living constitutionalist approach I briefly outlined is the best. And if one is concerned about the founders, here is what Thomas Jefferson had to say on this topic:
"But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Thomas Jefferson
I like this quote by Woodrow Wilson too:
"Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop. All that progressives ask or desire is permission - in an era when "development," "evolution," is the scientific word - to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine" - Woodrow Wilson
Last edited:
AC dropping facts:
The only black member of the Supreme Court was harassed, slandered, and defamed by confirmed racist Joe Biden before Biden voted against him.
The only black member of the Supreme Court was harassed, slandered, and defamed by confirmed racist Joe Biden before Biden voted against him.
Certainly not surprised you are a living breathing document guy. Makes it easy for your kind to pervert the intent of the Constitution and further your desires of an all-powerful and encompassing Federal government, something the Constitution and the founders were explicitly against.
Is Woodrow Wilson one of your progressive heroes?
Does anyone else find it weird that the self proclaimed "prosecutor" posts on a message board all day? I don't see the board's actual confirmed prosecutor posting here all day. Just sayin.
And yet would not have passed Biden’s Smell Test
the supreme’s are in place to protect against things like racist hiring practices. How ironic is it that Biden wants to filter people out based upon race and gender.
It's weird how he is unable to grasp such a simple concept.
Was Biden's opposition to Justice Thomas based on his race? Or was it based on Thomas; positions and the content of his character?
Last edited:
Well, being as how Pedo Joe has a long history of racism, one can only assume he was doing his usual racist shit. Shrug.
Show us all then where Biden attacked Thomas for being black and how Thomas' race had anything to do with Biden's opposition to his nomination.
Last edited:
Yes, because they already (or do) sit on the Court. A black American woman has never set on the Court. RBG and Sotomayor helped to break barriers for women. And I have no doubt both of them would welcome a black American woman to join them.
Breaking down racial and gender barriers. This is a good thing. Sorry it offends you so much.
Using your leftist standards any opposition to a black person is racist or is that only when a Republican opposes? With the double standards leftists have it's hard to keep it all straight.
That has never been my standard.
You really like to construct strawmen to argue against. This shows your inability to reason and engage in an honest and meaningful conversation.
It's unconscionable to defend a man with a history of racism like Joe Biden.
Show us all then where Biden attacked Thomas for being black and how Thomas' race had anything to do with Biden's opposition to his nomination.
If it is so clear, then it shouldn't be hard for you to, once again, show us where Biden attacked Thomas for being black and how Thomas' race had anything to do with Thomas' race.
Go ahead.
Using your same standard, it sure is. In this very thread you have implied people are racist because they wonder in amazement that race is the deciding factor in this nomination. We fully believe race should be a non-factor in everything but when we bring that up we are accused of being racist by the mentally impaired and dishonest.
No one is advocating for "perverting" the intent of the Constitution. Did Brown v. Board of Education (1954) pervert the intent of the Constitution? Should we have gone back and tried to discern what the founding fathers thought about public school segregation? And if we could have come to a consensus on what they thought, should we have applied their constitutional views on race segregation in determining the outcome of Brown v. Board of Education?
The Constitution was meant to be a living document. Not a dead relic from a bunch of dead white guys from 1798 (almost 225 years ago).
There are things I like about Wilson and things I don't like. He was essentially the father of modern American liberalism. His domestic accomplishments were impressive and still have an impact today. There are also aspects of Wilsonianism, his foreign policy approach, that I like. Commitment to encouraging democracy around the world, international bodies to resolve conflicts and prevent war (his League of Nations idea was brilliant and led to the development of the UN), and the freedom of the seas, among other things.
However, I don't like his record on civil rights and race relations. I think his record on these issues will always keep him from being labeled a great President. He was clearly an above average President though, and I would rank him in the top 10 of Presidents.
Last edited:
Where I have implied this?
I simply stated it appears that the possibility of Biden nominating the first black woman to the Supreme Court has really got a number of you on the right bothered. I made an observation, that is all.
You, and some other posters, are the ones bringing up the racist term all the time. I have invoked it once on this thread.
I'm so disappointed in you.
To feign ignorance at this point is intentional.
Biden is, and has always been, a racist.
Clarence Thomas stated that the overblown circus was a high tech lynching of a conservative black man.
The tip of the spear in the hearing was Joe Biden.
I think you're playing this as being intentionally obtuse.
The last thing racists like Biden wants is for intelligent prominent black people like CT to wander off the Democratic plantation.
"If you don't vote for me, you're not black!"
You gave the "opinion "of Thomas of the process. That isn't evidence though of what I asked. Did Thomas claim Biden personally was racist? Did Thomas claim Biden opposed him because he was black? Any real evidence, once again, of Biden attacking Thomas for being black and how Thomas' race had anything to do with Biden's opposition to his nomination?
So again,
You argue like every bitch I ever dumped.
Similar threads
