• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

the official new supreme court thread - Very political

That is hilarious.

Gotta love Al Franken playing a senator years before he got to actually be a senator.
 
PhDeac said:
That is hilarious.

Gotta love Al Franken playing a senator years before he got to actually be a senator.
Click to expand...

…playing a Senator asking for advice on how to sexually harass a young lady decades before he resigned for groping a a young lady.
 
PhDeac said:
That is hilarious.

Gotta love Al Franken playing a senator questioning an accused sexual harasser years before he got to actually be an accused sexual harasser.
Click to expand...

Fact check complete.
 
PhDeac said:
46 out of 57 Senate Dems. Democrats could have tanked Thomas, but they didn't.
Click to expand...

And what's the rationale behind not one Senate Dem (out of 47) voting to confirm ACB?

Too many adopted kids? Too catholic?
 
Colonel Angus said:
And what's the rationale behind not one Senate Dem (out of 47) voting to confirm ACB?

Too many adopted kids? Too catholic?
Click to expand...

Because the Republicans did not hold themselves to the same standard they held the Democrats to just 4 years before, making a mockery of the process. Republicans said let the voters decide on Scalia's seat even though he died in February 9 months before an election, but rushed through Amy through while voting had already started in some states. I would argue her inability to follow case law, but that's my own opinion.

Do you really not remember any of this?
 
TimmyClutch said:
Because the Republicans did not hold themselves to the same standard they held the Democrats to just 4 years before, making a mockery of the process. Republicans said let the voters decide on Scalia's seat even though he died in February 9 months before an election, but rushed through Amy through while voting had already started in some states. I would argue her inability to follow case law, but that's my own opinion.

Do you really not remember any of this?
Click to expand...

All he remembers is that they mean, dirty Dems made Kanaugh cry.
 
I couldn’t care less about the race and sex of the next SCOTUS justice, but it’s identity politics, and it undermines the nominee, for Biden to say “I’m going to name a Black female.” Just name the person you want. We’ll figure it out if they’re a Black female.
 
This country is almost 250 years and there has never been a Black women on the supreme court. It would be a big fucking deal, as they say, for that to happen. It's a good thing for a President to come out and say that an important job is going to go to a group that has never had representation at that job.
 
WakeBored said:
I couldn’t care less about the race and sex of the next SCOTUS justice, but it’s identity politics, and it undermines the nominee, for Biden to say “I’m going to name a Black female.” Just name the person you want. We’ll figure it out if they’re a Black female.
Click to expand...

And if everybody was like you and didn’t care about the race and sex of justices, we’d have several Black women justices by now. Clearly they care. That’s why almost all of them have been white men.

The only way it “undermines” the nominee is if you don’t think a Black woman could do the job as well as a white man.
 
SC DEAC said:
This country is almost 250 years and there has never been a Black women on the supreme court. It would be a big fucking deal, as they say, for that to happen. It's a good thing for a President to come out and say that an important job is going to go to a group that has never had representation at that job.
Click to expand...
And for the first 100 years of that...they were literally enslaved
 
birdman said:
That sounds like a problem with UNC then and the way they interpret and apply the law, not with congress’ law.
Click to expand...

Tell me you have no idea what you are talking about without telling me you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Tobacco Road said:
Since no one is disputing, can you state exactly what the wrong is and what the fix should be?
Click to expand...

The problem: Discrimination against people on the basis of their race.
Your solution: Discriminate against other people on the basis of their race.
The fix: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
 
Milhouse said:
let the free market work it out
Click to expand...

It seems unkind to pretend that isn't the inevitable result after graduation. The primary point of a professional education is to prepare graduating students for the markets in which they are about to enter. I don't share your preordained conclusion that Constitutionally-safer economic-based preferences are incapable of spreading opportunities. In fact, I think they would be better tools.

Student A: A first generation American whose parents didn't go to college who presents an otherwise qualified application should get in, especially if the broader application demonstrates that they performed responsibilities in their family and community that demonstrate an ability to contribute to the broader good.

Student B: A second generation college graduate who presents a qualified but unremarkable application may be less deserving of the opportunity.

Why don't you think our colleges and universities can determine which of these two students is more deserving, without taking into account their skin color?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top