Supreme Court Nominee

[Samm]

@FreeAndClear

@WuWei

Jackson did take the bait.

May be. She could have just smiled back in silence i guess.

And said “Well, bless your heart.”

[Samm]

@PeterGriffin

@Samm

The fact that a few Republicans voted against him no more proves he was a “radical right-wing nut” than a few Republicans voting for a Democratic nominee proves that they are a conservative, or even a moderate.

Did you read what I wrote? He was DOA coming out of committee and yes Robert Bork extremely right wing and extremely on the fringes of conservatism, judicial precedence and America in general. He was a ■■■■■■■ loon who’s nomination was a reward for being Nixons loyal hatchet man. If you think he’s not too radical then it’s probably because you don’t know what his beliefs were, and that’s by design from the DJ’s that inform the GOP. Bork put his horrific vision of America in the book “Slouching Towards Gomorrah”. Go read it and then we can have an informed discussion on Robert Bork. All this is “poor Republicans always the victim” schtick.

Your opinion was noted. Move on.

[Samm]

@PeterGriffin

Robert Bork is not a victim; Republicans pretend he wax so they get to play victim. Nobody smeared him, nobody told lied about him, just let him get up there and talk about his regressive views of the Constitution.

Bork believed that art, images and speech he found offensive were not covered under the 1st Amendment, women were not covered under the Equal Protection Clause. He worked in service to break up antitrust laws. So, so much more that put him far far outside of any stream of jurisprudence.

He was an extremist, he had his confirmation hearing and he was not confirmed. Instead we get the least qualified nominee in history, a porn aficionado with an apparently crazy wife that is deep influential in Republican politics and who only knows how deep ol’ Silent Clarence is into the QAnon. His Republican activist wife is in it up to her eyeballs and trying to help seize power while he’s making rulings on Dec 6.

Anyways, Bork is just another excuse for Republicans to play victim. He had his shot, he was found lacking and didn’t get the job.

Seems that you had BDS before you got TDS.

[Samm]

@Supreme_War_Pig

@PeterGriffin

Robert Bork is not a victim; Republicans pretend he wax so they get to play victim. Nobody smeared him, nobody told lied about him, just let him get up there and talk about his regressive views of the Constitution.

Bork believed that art, images and speech he found offensive were not covered under the 1st Amendment, women were not covered under the Equal Protection Clause. He worked in service to break up antitrust laws. So, so much more that put him far far outside of any stream of jurisprudence.

He was an extremist, he had his confirmation hearing and he was not confirmed. Instead we get the least qualified nominee in history, a porn aficionado with an apparently crazy wife that is deep influential in Republican politics and who only knows how deep ol’ Silent Clarence is into the QAnon. His Republican activist wife is in it up to her eyeballs and trying to help seize power while he’s making rulings on Dec 6.

Anyways, Bork is just another excuse for Republicans to play victim. He had his shot, he was found lacking and didn’t get the job.

Well, hold on.

We was savaged in the press and floor speeches, but the hearing themselves were cordial.

Well bless your heart.

[DougBH]

Nothing silly about asking the definition of a woman. If there are laws involving equal rights for women or that womens sports are to be supported, how are the various transgenders to be treated? Recent instances of this should make the reasoning behind the question obvious.

If she believes that the definition depends on the individual case or the intent of the legislature fine, then just say so.

[FreeAndClear]

@DougBH

Nothing silly about asking the definition of a woman. If there are laws involving equal rights for women or that womens sports are to be supported, how are the various transgenders to be treated? Recent instances of this should make the reasoning behind the question obvious.

If she believes that the definition depends on the individual case or the intent of the legislature fine, then just say so.

Of course there isn’t anything silly. In the right setting any question doesn’t sound silly.

[DougBH]

Just smeared publicly, and that is ok?

Who the heck remembers the hearings? Nobody. You would have to go back and read the transcripts.

The Kavanaugh hearings were a disgrace. It was already known that there was no substantiating evidence to support evidence of an alleged sexual attack in high school, and yet that junk was brought out anyway.

And wanting to know the basis for making several judgements in actual court cases is a smear? That is exactly what hearings are for. Just explain the reasoning, if one can.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

Bork wasn’t smeared, but his hard right jurisprudence was attacked.

Kavenaugh was smeared. But thankfully he handled it with grace and aplomb.

[WuWei]

And Brandon compared GOP behavior to Jackson with…

Your President is a liar.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@WuWei

And Brandon compared GOP behavior to Jackson with…

Your President is a liar.

What? What did he say about their behavior?

[WuWei]

@Supreme_War_Pig

@WuWei

And Brandon compared GOP behavior to Jackson with…

Your President is a liar.

What? What did he say about their behavior?

He compared it to Kavanaugh’s hearing.

[WuWei]

I said “compared it to”. I should have said “confused it with”.

I knew it wouldn’t be easy, but I knew the person I nominated would be put through a painful and difficult confirmation process. But I have to tell you, what Judge Jackson was put through was well beyond that. There was verbal abuse. The anger. The constant interruptions. The most vile, baseless assertions and accusations.

Link

Lies.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@WuWei

@Supreme_War_Pig

@WuWei

And Brandon compared GOP behavior to Jackson with…

Your President is a liar.

What? What did he say about their behavior?

He compared it to Kavanaugh’s hearing.

Well, she was calm and composed. Kavenaugh threw a temper tantrum, complete with lies, crying, and threats.

In both instances, the Senators put on a clown show.

So, no. Truth, but not without exaggeration.

[WuWei]

Well, she wasn’t accused of being a serial rapist in front of her daughters.

You going to defend this?

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@WuWei

Well, she wasn’t accused of being a serial rapist in front of her daughters.

You going to defend this?

I believe that I called the senators a “clown show”.

I can use harsher language if you’d like.

[WuWei]

@Supreme_War_Pig

@WuWei

Well, she wasn’t accused of being a serial rapist in front of her daughters.

You going to defend this?

I believe that I called the senators a “clown show”.

I can use harsher language if you’d like.

You did, both sets? Equally?

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@WuWei

@Supreme_War_Pig

@WuWei

Well, she wasn’t accused of being a serial rapist in front of her daughters.

You going to defend this?

I believe that I called the senators a “clown show”.

I can use harsher language if you’d like.

You did, both sets? Equally?

No, that goes to the exaggeration I referenced. But it wasn’t a lie.

[WuWei]

@Supreme_War_Pig

No, that goes to the exaggeration I referenced. But it wasn’t a lie.

Oh but it is a lie.

Verbal abuse - lie
Anger - lie
Vile - lie
Baseless - lie

Interruptions - no more than anybody else.

He’s a liar.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@WuWei

Verbal abuse - lie

That’s the one I’d write down to exaggeration, but they did try to put her pedo-adjacent.

@WuWei

Anger - lie

I assume you missed Graham’s hissy fit, as well as the collective stomping out in petulance after the vote? Nevermind the purposeful delay and voting from the cloak room

@WuWei

Vile - lie

I promised you stronger language: that is hyperbole

@WuWei

Baseless - lie

Implying that she is pedo-adjacent and soft on crime? Baseless.

[WuWei]

Ketanji Brown Jackson made 'mathematically absurd claim' on Black newborns:...

Good pick.