Breyer resigning, Biden to nominate USSC justice. (Poll)

[Slade3200]

If I were president of all Americans, and I were to say openly that I want a white person in a job as a preference, then the black's who would be against such a thing being said, along with the leftist, and many democrat's would go slam out of their mind's on such a thing. It's time to start calling this bull crap out, because if it's not right for white people, then it's not right for black people either... Enough of the stupidity already, and let's move the nation forward with character, skill, and hard work.

This is true because whites have always been the majority who have held power and oppressed others. It would be wildly inappropriate for you to call for a white only anything.

 

[Slade3200]

Who is the person in charge, making this pick?

Biden??

Or who has his ear?

Obama on one side, Susan Rice on the other?

Preference, politically goes directly to identity politics......not content of character.

Yes, Joe Biden, the president

 

[Delldude]

Unfortunately we don’t have a color and gender blind society. There is a history of oppression and reminisce of that prejudice everywhere.

Democrats were a bitch until they realized a political advantage.

 

[Slade3200]

Democrats were a bitch until they realized a political advantage.

Ok and…

 

[Delldude]

Yes, Joe Biden, the president

You can prove that?

 

[Slade3200]

You can prove that?

Yes, refer to the US constitution please

 

[woodwork201]

They can make a decision based on their perspective and understanding of the law. That’s all they can do. Right now most of the court has the white perspective. What it doesn’t have is a black female perspective which is Bidens whole point

At least 6 of the current 9 justices have clearly ruled based on their political wishes, knowing full well that their actions are in violation of the Constitution. Probably with a bit of research I'd find 8 of the 9 have done so. For most, throughout history, their rulings have had very little to do with their understanding of the law.

 

[woodwork201]

Why are you playing the game of absolutes?! It’s a weak tactic. We are talking about SCOTUS, a court comprised of 9 people. One that has NEVER had a black female perspective. That’s the reality

The only perspective that matters is an understanding of the Constitution.

 

[Slade3200]

The only perspective that matters is an understanding of the Constitution.

That’s your opinion

 

[beagle9]

Unfortunately we don’t have a color and gender blind society. There is a history of oppression and reminisce of that prejudice everywhere.

That's why we have law's that punish anyone found discriminating against a person of any color..... This is instead of us engaging in color preferences which is against the law if found to be active in society....... We should always be dealing in character, skill, and one's intent or actions found in society, and we should always be basing our preferences solely upon those very things in society, and not instead basing them upon one's color ever.

This stuff has been settled by law, but for some reason we keep returning to the bull crap over and over again. It's redundant.

 

[Slade3200]

That's why we have law's that punish anyone found discriminating against a person of any color, otherwise so instead of us engaging in color preferences over character, skill, and one's intent or actions found in society, we should be basing our preferences solely upon those very things only in society, and not instead basing them upon a color ever. This stuff has been settled by law, but for some reason we keep returning to the bull crap over and over again. It's redundant.

Yup, those laws were a good start

 

[beagle9]

This is true because whites have always been the majority who have held power and oppressed others. It would be wildly inappropriate for you to call for a white only anything.

Regardless of your feelings or the past, these things are settled by law, and it makes it wrong either way. So you thinking that black's should have special privileges based on skin color because of the past is ridiculous, just as well as unlawful in the spirit of the laws that were passed for everyone who is American in this supposed new color blind society, otherwise that uses character over a color now, and this should go for any color of an American.

 

[beagle9]

Yup, those laws were a good start

We just need to apply them for all Americans equally, and in the spirit of the law's. The law's aren't supposed to be preferential or of preference based upon a color, but were constructed to do away with preference being based upon a color, and instead we are to focus on one's character and action's in one's life.

 

[Slade3200]

Regardless of your feelings or the past, these things are settled by law, and it makes it wrong either way. So you thinking that black's should have special privileges based on skin color because of the past is ridiculous, just as well as unlawful in the spirit of the laws that were passed for everyone who is American in this supposed new color blind society, otherwise that uses character over a color now, and this should go for any color of an American.

Laws are nice and all but there’s also a reality that actually exists in our society that needs to be understood and considered as we progress. Making new laws does not dismiss and excuse generations of oppression. That’s doesn’t get erased by some ink on paper and a vote.

 

[JimH52]

At least 6 of the current 9 justices have clearly ruled based on their political wishes, knowing full well that their actions are in violation of the Constitution. Probably with a bit of research I'd find 8 of the 9 have done so. For most, throughout history, their rulings have had very little to do with their understanding of the law.

The high court has been politicized for years. The US is on a slippery slope careening to the death of our democracy.

 

[Delldude]

Yes, refer to the US constitution please

That doesn't say who has his ear. I have Obama on one and Suzie on the other.
I'll give you this on his possible Scotus pick. Last night he said he was looking for a candidate basically cast from the Breyer mold. If so, that would be good. Time will tell. I know the leftist radicals are doing their best to persuade him to go the activist route. That has already been shown in many of his actions over the past year. There is heavy influence.
Obama doesn't approve of the left radicalism, he said so sometime ago as a bad turn for the dems. With that said, Bidens statement on a Breyer type replacement tells me Obama has his ear.....biggly.

 

[beagle9]

Laws are nice and all but there’s also a reality that actually exists in our society that needs to be understood and considered as we progress. Making new laws does not dismiss and excuse generations of oppression. That’s doesn’t get erased by some ink on paper and a vote.

Sorry, but it's been settled, now the law is to be followed and not some emotional bull crap that is used as an excuse these days.

 

[Slade3200]

Sorry, but it's been settled, now the law is to be followed and not some emotional bull crap that is used as an excuse these days.

It’s settled in your mind… let me ask. Are you a black person?

 

[Slade3200]

That doesn't say who has his ear. I have Obama on one and Suzie on the other.
I'll give you this on his possible Scotus pick. Last night he said he was looking for a candidate basically cast from the Breyer mold. If so, that would be good. Time will tell. I know the leftist radicals are doing their best to persuade him to go the activist route. That has already been shown in many of his actions over the past year. There is heavy influence.
Obama doesn't approve of the left radicalism, he said so sometime ago as a bad turn for the dems. With that said, Bidens statement on a Breyer type replacement tells me Obama has his ear.....biggly.

It doesn’t matter who has his ear. He can give anybody he wants his ear. The choice is his, that’s what the constitution says. I’m also hoping for the most moderate candidate. I’m not a fan of activists on either side

 

[woodwork201]

That’s your opinion

No; that's the Constitution - written in the Constitution. It's called the Supremacy clause.