That’s not really true. Before the election, even, Trump published two lists of judges that he considered to be ideal candidates for advancement in the judiciary. Now, certainly I agree that Trump did not generate those names himself – but neither did Fox and Friends. And those judges are certainly not unqualified.
They may not be the type of judges you want, of course, but you cannot argue they are unqualified.
Can you?
Okay, maybe I was too broad, but by my lay observations, a very wide variety of interpretations claim to be textual. They’re all still just interpretations.
Yeah, I remember when I had my first beer…:rolleyes:
Vox suggests a way Democrats can shut down all business in the Senate:
McConnell has proven that there are no consequences for violating the norms of the Senate.
Is it too early to discuss impeachment of Supreme Court justices?
jayjay, that’s twice you’ve sideways swiped at people, here. Stop it.
Everyone else has behaved fairly well. Let’s keep it that way.
This got me thinking back to a few years ago. I’m pretty sure some of the folks in this topic probably regret being gong ho about filibuster reform. Because now, instead of ensuring they get someone they can somewhat accept, they’re likely to get someone they find onerous.
Of course, I’m not complaining in this instance.
for…what?
For having the unmitigated gall to disagree with Pleonast?
This wouldn’t happen. White liberals are too craven to engage in a boycott. If white liberals were smart (but they aren’t), they’d repeat the following over and over again: “Trump’s next nominee will gut Roe” and “Trump’s next nominee will gut Obergefell”. It’d never happen, though. If white liberals in Congress didn’t stand up for DACA kids didn’t stand up for brown children separated from their families at the border, didn’t stand up for Flint (the lead pipes still haven’t fucking been replaced*), they sure as hell aren’t going to stand for women or gay people.
White liberal cowardice is real. The White House hints at a Trump-Putin summit.
Think about it. The Trump campaign is being investigated for collusion with Russia and Trump decides to hold a summit to collude right in front of our faces. White liberals say nothing. It’s unbelievable.
To white liberals who are sad about Kennedy’s retirement: do not be. This is ugly side of the America that Dubois, Baldwin, and Coates have repeatedly warned about. The ugly side that white folks claimed up and down didn’t exist. Remember Biden’s “I mean these are good people, man! These aren’t racists. These aren’t sexists.” Blessed Be the Fruit, Biden. Blessed Be the Fruit. Want my advice? Switch parties. Become a Republican. It’s not a request, it’s a warning: when the Republicans finish coming after the minorities, they will come after political opponents next. If you haven’t noticed, that’s you.
*White folk can put a man on a moon, split the atom, send probes into interstellar space, eradicate diseases through vaccination, sculpt the earth by creating dams and canals, build devices that generate power from water, wind, and solar, but do not know or have the capacity to use the levers of federal power to quickly replace the pipes in the city. smh. It’s analagous to Superman claiming he can’t screw in a light bulb.
Neither was Marbury v. Madison, but you don’t see white folk burning down court houses. Since white folk are about being textual, does this mean we look forward to the dismantling of the right to vote? I am looking at this white folk document and I’m not seeing not a damn line about the individual right to vote. What say you? If we’re about textual, do we get abolish the right to privacy? I sure as hell don’t see anything in the constitution about a right to privacy. Do you? Will we go ahead and dismantle the right to travel (not in the constitution), the right to marry (not in the constitution), the right to have children (not in the constitution), the right to a fair trial (not in the constitution), the right to purchase goods and services (not in the constitution), rights of conscience (not in the constitution), and the presumption of innocence (not in the constitution)?
White folks wouldn’t strain to be consistent here. White folks just want to dismantle roll back woman’s rights, roll back gay and lesbian rights, roll back affirmative action, roll back regulations on the environment, etc. Let them; we deserve the government we elect.
That’s not as powerful a weapon as the author seems to think. A senator who has the floor cannot be interrupted by another against his consent for a quorum call. One senator cannot take another off the floor to suggest the absence of a quorum, and a quorum call is not in order when the senator holding the floor declines to yield for that purpose. So the idea that Democrats can simply tie up Republican senators for days or weeks with repeated quorum calls is misplaced.
Moreover, it’s a doubled-edge sword. At least one Democrat must remain in the chamber to gain the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. The Republicans, even sans McCain, can field fifty members. If the sole Democrat stays, he counts towards quorum. If he leaves, then the quorum call may be ended by unanimous consent.
Do you have any clue how odious your habit is of always and forever talking about “white folk”? Or is it that you just don’t care?
I have recently learned that a good number of our community members do not, in fact, find it odious (which is, itself, rather disheartening).
Please elaborate. What have you learned? Where and how have you learned it?
Here, start reading at the top of the page.
I going to put in an early guess and say it will be Margaret_A._Ryan
She’s military, she’s respected, she’s a fairly reliable constitionalist, and she’s a she.
She ticks all of Trump’s boxes because he thinks in terms of wrong-footing his enemies. If there’s going to be a fight for a Supreme Court nomination, he’d love to make you fight to oppose a female decorated military veteran.
She’s also fairly young, which means his influence will last a long time. They’ll be talking about Trump’s influence on the court for decades after he’s gone. He’d like that.
I understand your point of view but, yeah, I don’t really care. This is a Great Debates folder, is it not? If you have issues with my assertions, rebut them point-by-point.
The reason you find it odious is because hearing “white folks” triggers you. It is a trigger because white folks (even the white liberals) worship at the altar of individualism. Briefly, the ideology of individualism states that we’re exceptionally unique (to those even in our social group); individualism further states that there are no intrinsic barriers to success and that any failure is a consequence of one’s personal effort or character. According to the ideology of individualism, race is irrelevant. Reading the phrase “white folks” cause internal friction because I’m breaking the cardinal rule of individualism - I am generalizing. I’m comfortable generalizing because white folks are predictable. Don’t believe me? Ask* any* person of color: we know you better than you know yourselves. But, listen, I do understand that my generalizations may cause defensiveness for white folks whom I am generalizing, given how cherished the ideology of individualism is cherished in our culture.
But, listen, I’ll do you a favor and won’t post in this thread. Hope this helps.
You make a lot of race-based generalizations.
One is too many.