Post Right Wing looniness here

It is fundamental to my way of thinking that Republicans are making two major mistakes:

1) Claiming Biden stole the election
2) Failure to unequivocally repudiate the events of Jan 6.

If they would stop acting like this, then the light would shine brightly on the Beto's, AOC, Crew et al so all can see their extremist views. Instead they are allowed to operate in a way that makes them almost seem like the solution.

 

This is true because the Left sees BLM as combatting on behalf of a sacred moral imperative while the January 6 "militia" are seen as threats to our supposed Democracy.

The phrase "By any means necessary" was canonized long ago, but not for white Republicans.

 

If January 6th was based in reality that a democratic election was actually stolen, would anybody here disagree with it?

 

It would be arguable from a historical standpoint (the Civil War and the Revolution itself).

BUT THERE IS NO PROOF.

 

I agree. I am just pointing out that if the government stops representing the constitution, it should be stopped.

 

When has the government stopped representing the constitution? Like actually stopped representing all the way through the SCOTUS? No, your interpretation of the constitution doesn't count, nor does mine.

 

Plus we lost joefan. Pour one out.

 

Democrats are for stopping free speech, setting mandates and limiting 2nd amendment rights. All of that is a recipe for a revolution.

 

If the GOP had let him be impeached after 1/6 they would be done with him. Mistake.

 

Well the GOP is for corporate socialism, book burning, and they have trolled the lower middle class whites to think they’re issues are one and the same as the billionaires.

 

In the ultimate crap on the constitution, Biden is placing race limits on his selection. Imagine if I post a job on Indeed tomorrow, and I say "We want the most qualified candidate, but they need to be white." Don't be a hypocrite. The democrat party leaders are race baiters.

 

Interesting, give a few specific examples. That is a MSNBC or CNN soundbite.

 

None of that opinion has been deemed a violation of the constitution by any court and allowed to remain in place. Democracy was working...until a rebellious crowd chose to threaten Congress by mounting an assault on the building to stop the ratification of our electoral college vote.

 

There's been quite a bit already and it's barely started. When this is all said and done even you and Deez will know that it happened.

 

Are you really saying it is not a violation of the constitution unless a politically appointed court says so? Good grief.

 

Violations of the constitution are a matter of opinion ——-unless they are said to be so by the SC and those opinions are subject to who happens to be on the court

so what is constitutional is always in flux.

it has been so at least since the reign of The Great Emancipator

as that constitutional scholar HUD Bannon so perceptively noted “the law should be interpreted leniently. Sometimes I lean one way and sometimes I lean the other “

 

I'm certain @Mr. Deez will correct me if I'm wrong but the Constitution doesn't have many rules for SCOTUS nominees. In fact, Biden could choose to nominate the idiot Don Lemon (no law degree) for SCOTUS if he wanted. So, choosing to select an AA Woman is well within the constitutional authority of the POTUS. They have the authority, as defined by the constitution specifically, to use whatever criteria the choose.

 

The SCOTUS is the arbiter of what is constitutional, not the @theiioftx. Yes, that's the way our Constitution was setup. I do see the irony of your claim of defining what is constitutional that doesn't actually follow the constitution. You might want to step back and maybe reread the constitution.

 

Well corporate socialism is all the rage. Too big to fail. The Trump tax cuts is exhibit A. You would also love the irony of Oklahoma politicians bragging to their constituents about the infrastructure for their district….that they voted against. Red states are passing legislation that will, ironically, see some lefty get the Bible removed from libraries. CRT. Lol. ALEC is highlighting that state legislators don’t know how to use edit/replace in Word.

 

Thankfully, the RNC knows the J6 committee and the charges against the non-violent protestors are political in nature. While I agree the ones who rioted should be heavily prosecuted, too many are still rotting in jail or were given jail sentences that did nothing but come in after being invited inside the Capital. Kudos to the RNC for censuring those 2 clowns. The most alarming part is that Pelosi has used the courts to keep 14,000+ hours of videotape of J6 under lock and key. What are you hiding, Madam Speaker?

 

Garmel,
You called Pelosi Madam Speaker. I have about 10 names for her. None are Madam Speaker.

 

So selecting someone solely based on race or gender is not a problem? Got it.

 

Solely?

 

That’s what poopy pants is doing. Someone who is male or not black need not apply. Honestly this progressive crap is setting the country back on race relations.

 

Which party nominated the first black female for the Supreme Court? Which POTUS rejected her as a Senator?

 

iis
Think you'll get an honest answer?

 

OK, I'm probably not going to please anybody here again. I agree with Husker, so The Eye isn't going to like my answer. However, Husker probably isn't going to like why I agree with him. Article III, Section 1 puts no qualifications on federal judges. Yes, Don Lemon could be a judge. (FYI - Robert Jackson (chief US prosecutor at Nuremberg and SCOTUS justice) didn't have a law degree.)

Does current constitutional jurisprudence bar discrimination on the basis of race by the federal government? Yes. Bolling v. Sharpe held that the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment implies an equal protection requirement and therefore makes it illegal for the federal government to discriminate on the basis of race. Furthermore, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act applies to federal employment, and I'm not aware of any statutory exceptions for presidential appointees (though I'm open to correction on that). Either way, the federal government cannot discriminate on the basis of race.

So why do I think SH is right? Two reasons. First, both parties have informally accepted that these rules don't apply to presidential appointees even if the law says nothing about that. They reserve for themselves the right to single out whatever group they want to be seen as favorable to and have their picture taken next to a representative of that group. The Supreme Court has never directly addressed the issue, and I honestly doubt anyone would be able to make the case stick if he or she tried to sue.

Second, even if that informal arrangement didn't exist, Bolling v. Sharpe was wrongly decided. There is no equal protection requirement on the federal government, and here's what's wrong with implying one through the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment has an identical due process clause. If you hold that due process assumes an equal protection element, you nullify the actual equal protection clause that's in the Fourteenth Amendment. We don't interpret laws in a way to make other language in the law have no effect.

Accordingly, regardless of what Chief Justice Warren said in the '50s, at least constitutionally the federal government can discriminate on the basis of race. It shouldn't, and it should make doing so illegal and has under Title VII. So why isn't Biden's action illegal under Title VII? Because Article II, Section 2 gives him plenary authority to nominate federal judges, and if we applied Title VII to him, it would violate Article II, Section 2.

So yeah, he can pretty much discriminate on the basis of race in nominating someone for the Supreme Court.

 

Using a 'Relic of the Jim Crow era' to shoot her down, no less.

Good memory by ii's, I'd forgotten the story behind her derailment

Remembering the Black woman Biden blocked from the Supreme Court | American Enterprise Institute - AEI

The following month, when Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced her retirement, Brown was on Bush’s shortlist to replace her. She would have been the first Black woman ever nominated to serve as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. But Biden appeared on CBS’s “Face the Nation” to warn that if Bush nominated Brown, she would face a filibuster. “I can assure you that would be a very, very, very difficult fight and she probably would be filibustered,” Biden said.

 

That is why I am so cynical and totally unimpressed by people who say, "I am a Liberal" and do so in the manner that THEIR politicians are good hearted people fighting the people's fight. It is so naive.

 

I think those who have him on double-secret probation are terrified that they will lose their own base in the next election if they stand up to him.