Thoughts on SCOTUS picks??? (Page 5/5)
randye JUN 30, 07:43 PM
What a MAGNIFICENT session of the Supreme Court this has been.

For many decades the Left has used the courts to try to achieve what they can't and couldn't at the ballot box.

The federal courts and the Supreme Court of the United States were never meant to create law and the Left's use of the courts to circumvent our representative government and the will of the people stands as proof positive of their absolute contempt for American citizens and our Constitution.

If I had to pick just one recent decision as a favorite it would have to be West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, because it has such far reaching and long lasting consequences.

That decision will affect every government agency filled with unelected bureaucrats that have formerly believed that they are entitled to interpret and even make laws as they alone see fit which is a power NOT explicitly given to them by the Congress.

Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, HUD, Interior, OSHA, Transportation, Treasury, etc., (CDC & FDA), have too long been used as, and behaved like, their own legislative and judicial bodies and their power will finally be reigned in dramatically.

DOWN WITH BIG GOVERNMENT

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 06-30-2022).]

Wichita JUN 30, 11:56 PM
This is how the left views SCOTUS. Yeah! They have no sense of history at all!

rinselberg JUL 01, 12:37 AM
The "LEFT", of course, being reduced to whoever it was at Good Morning America that omitted the word "female" from a Twitter message, and from the title of a YouTube video.

Maybe it was two different people.

For just one or maybe two people--oh, wait, maybe there were six other Good Morning America editors and production assistants that could have corrected the omission—so these roughly eight individuals that are the "LEFT" have an incredibly high profile for such a small group of people. Such a high profile that they've become commonly known as the "LEFT". Known by just that brief, single word. That's high profile, for any group to be known by just a single and otherwise very common word.

Or is there actually more to the LEFT than just those eight (roughly) editors and production assistants at Good Morning America?

But I'd just assume that there's hardly a person among the conjecturally very large cohort of the LEFT that actually realizes that Ketanji Brown Jackson is the first female black Supreme Court justice, not the first black Supreme Court justice—because it would be crazy not to.

This omission of the word "female" at Good Morning America was reported on Fox News, where there has never been a captioning error of this kind, in more than umpteen continuous years of daily broadcasting and publishing.

"Good Morning America finally deletes tweet praising Justice Jackson as 'the first Black Supreme Court justice'"
Lindsay Kornick for Fox News; June 30, 2022.
https://www.foxnews.com/med...-black-supreme-court

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-01-2022).]

williegoat JUL 01, 07:37 AM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

The "LEFT", of course, being reduced to whoever it was at Good Morning America that omitted the word "female" from a Twitter message, and from the title of a YouTube video.

Maybe it was two different people.

For just one or maybe two people--oh, wait, maybe there were six other Good Morning America editors and production assistants that could have corrected the omission—so these roughly eight individuals that are the "LEFT" have an incredibly high profile for such a small group of people. Such a high profile that they've become commonly known as the "LEFT". Known by just that brief, single word. That's high profile, for any group to be known by just a single and otherwise very common word.



Oh, come on now...the LEFTISTS were just being WOKE.

[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 07-01-2022).]

blackrams JUL 01, 08:42 AM
Personally, I couldn't care less about the sex or racial profile of the newest jurist, all I really care about is the qualifications and the attitude of that jurist, I'm all about a SCOTUS that's strictly interprets the Constitution and hands down decisions on the constitutionality of the laws set down by Congress. SCOTUS is not a legislative body. Nor were they ever intended to be.

Would I have picked the latest jurist if I had that authority? Hard to say. There's no doubt in my mind she is qualified technically. Her record on the decisions she's made would give one a huge indication.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 07-01-2022).]

82-T/A [At Work] JUL 01, 10:30 AM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

The "LEFT", of course, being reduced to whoever it was at Good Morning America that omitted the word "female" from a Twitter message, and from the title of a YouTube video.

"Good Morning America finally deletes tweet praising Justice Jackson as 'the first Black Supreme Court justice'"
Lindsay Kornick for Fox News; June 30, 2022.
https://www.foxnews.com/med...-black-supreme-court





I was as perplexed as anyone last night when I saw that tweet and made many comments of my own. I thought about it, and I really don't think it was someone forgetting to put female. I truly think in this case, it was a young person working the week that most people are taking a long week off for 4th of July, and just didn't know any better.

If I'm being completely honest... I'm ~40, and I usually consider myself to be pretty knowledgeable on things. More so than most of the country, which you can take to mean however you want. 15 years ago, I don't think I was really aware of there being a black US Supreme Court justice... or the sex and or race of any of them for that matter. Nor did I really fully understand exactly what the Supreme Court did above and beyond a "nominal" understanding of civics and the checks and balances.

Maybe it was different when Thurgood Marshall was on the bench, but they just don't really teach things like this today. You know I hate to put it this way Rinse... but things are so politicized today. I still feel like you and I could sit down and have a beer and shoot the **** about anything... but with most people in this world today, politics has become a driving wedge. Clarence Thomas is NOT a benefit to the Democrat party's politics... and anyone who has a significant lean in this area will be very unlikely to want to teach their students this fact. It's also something that they very often leave out in the media and the news.

This isn't the first time I've seen something like this... I remember just 6 months ago, everyone (including Schumer) was making comments about "6 old white men" deciding the fate of some law. He was including Clarence Thomas in that... and across the board, all the other politicians echoed that too.


I think at the end of the day, the young staffer that pushed out this Tweet, literally didn't know we'd already had... not one, but two black SCOTUSes.
Wichita JUL 01, 10:54 AM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
I was as perplexed as anyone last night when I saw that tweet and made many comments of my own. I thought about it, and I really don't think it was someone forgetting to put female. I truly think in this case, it was a young person working the week that most people are taking a long week off for 4th of July, and just didn't know any better.

If I'm being completely honest... I'm ~40, and I usually consider myself to be pretty knowledgeable on things. More so than most of the country, which you can take to mean however you want. 15 years ago, I don't think I was really aware of there being a black US Supreme Court justice... or the sex and or race of any of them for that matter. Nor did I really fully understand exactly what the Supreme Court did above and beyond a "nominal" understanding of civics and the checks and balances.

Maybe it was different when Thurgood Marshall was on the bench, but they just don't really teach things like this today. You know I hate to put it this way Rinse... but things are so politicized today. I still feel like you and I could sit down and have a beer and shoot the **** about anything... but with most people in this world today, politics has become a driving wedge. Clarence Thomas is NOT a benefit to the Democrat party's politics... and anyone who has a significant lean in this area will be very unlikely to want to teach their students this fact. It's also something that they very often leave out in the media and the news.

This isn't the first time I've seen something like this... I remember just 6 months ago, everyone (including Schumer) was making comments about "6 old white men" deciding the fate of some law. He was including Clarence Thomas in that... and across the board, all the other politicians echoed that too.


I think at the end of the day, the young staffer that pushed out this Tweet, literally didn't know we'd already had... not one, but two black SCOTUSes.



Wasn't it Biden that said, "You ain't black" if you voted against Democrats to a black person?

82-T/A [At Work] JUL 01, 11:20 AM

quote
Originally posted by Wichita:

Wasn't it Biden that said, "You ain't black" if you voted against Democrats to a black person?



Hahah, yeah...


rinselberg JUL 01, 11:45 AM
"If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me [Joe Biden] or [for] Trump, then you ain't black."

That was Joe Biden, towards the end of May, 2020, and before he had picked Kamala Harris as his running mate.

He said it at the end of an interview with the black radio talk show host Charlamagne.

It came across as a kind of "off the cuff" remark from Biden, right after Charlamagne said that they were out of time and that the radio broadcast was moving on to the next guest or topic. It's possible that Biden framed it as if he were speaking privately to Charlamagne, like an "open microphone" or "hot microphone" moment. It didn't come across as a carefully pre-meditated remark. But I think it would be just as reasonable to say that it was a pre-meditated or calculated remark from Biden, that Biden wanted to present as if it were a more spontaneous or "off the cuff" kind of remark. So a faux or an imitation of an off the cuff kind of remark. As if Biden were thinking to himself, "This isn't an off the cuff kind of remark, but I'm going to pretend that it's an off the cuff kind of remark."

There's speculation among astronomers and astrophysicists that if it were possible for a human explorer to penetrate the Event Horizon and then approach the Inner Horizon of a Supermassive Black Hole (I was just watching this on TV), he (or she) would see a kind of replay of the entire history of the Cosmos, but reversed in time. Like looking at a video recording in "R" or reverse mode.

YouTube functions in kind of the same way. So if anyone wants to review this particular Biden moment and remark:



Biden, by the way, has just trolled the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, over the newly reported decision by Turkey to accommodate the desire of Finland and Sweden to become NATO countries. Biden said that instead of the "Finlandization of NATO", Putin's invasion of Ukraine has brought about the "NATO-ization of Finland."

A "good one" from Biden, or from someone on Biden's staff. (The ventriloquist?)

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-01-2022).]

82-T/A [At Work] JUL 02, 11:55 AM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

"If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me [Joe Biden] or [for] Trump, then you ain't black."




To Joe I say...