One More Democrat Lie: Counterfeit Constitutional Scholars.

[PoliticalChic]

Imagine…..the Democrat Justice favors racial discrimination.



1.Censorship, inimical to America’s heritage, is essential to advancing the Democrat agenda. The explanation is that in debate, conservatives eat Democrat’s lunch. This thread is a perfect example: no dunce, er,….Democrat….will be able to articulate any cogent disagreement. And we will see that the Democrats only put their boot-lickers on the Court. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

2. “…the U.S. Constitution Forbids Government From Racial Discrimination​

… Ketanji Brown Jackson claimed that the Constitution doesn’t require government to act in a “race-neutral” manner. Instead, she declared that government is constitutionally authorized to make people “equal” by taking “race-conscious” actions.



3. In an October 4th hearing for a case called Merrill v. Milligan, an attorney for the State of Alabama argued before the Supreme Court that it would be unconstitutional to draw U.S. congressional district boundaries based on race. This is because the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids states from denying “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”





4. Challenging the attorney, Jackson insisted that Alabama should be forced to draw its congressional districts in a way that will give black people more voting power. In support of this position, she asserted:

• “I don’t think we can assume that just because race is taken into account that that necessarily creates an equal protection problem” because the framers of the 14th Amendment adopted it “in a race conscious way.”
• The framers were “trying to ensure” that former slaves “were actually brought equal to everyone else in the society.”
• “That’s not a race-neutral or race-blind idea in terms of the remedy. And even more than that, I don’t think that the historical record” shows the framers “believed that race neutrality or race blindness was required, right?”
• The framers passed “the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which specifically stated that citizens would have the same civil rights as enjoyed by white citizens. That’s the point of that Act, to make sure that the other citizens, the black citizens, would have the same as the white citizens.”
• The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was enacted so that “other citizens have to be made equal to white citizens, and people were concerned that that didn’t have a constitutional basis, so they enacted the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Yes, the U.S. Constitution Forbids Government From Racial Discrimination - Just Facts



Of course, if you are an imbecile….er, Democrat, your response is “…duh…yup…yup….”

 

[Donald H]

Of course, if you are an imbecile….er, Democrat, your response is “…duh…yup…yup….”

Don't you ever get tired of acting like the mean little girl?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Imagine…..the Democrat Justice favors racial discrimination.



1.Censorship, inimical to America’s heritage, is essential to advancing the Democrat agenda. The explanation is that in debate, conservatives eat Democrat’s lunch. This thread is a perfect example: no dunce, er,….Democrat….will be able to articulate any cogent disagreement. And we will see that the Democrats only put their boot-lickers on the Court. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

2. “…the U.S. Constitution Forbids Government From Racial Discrimination​

… Ketanji Brown Jackson claimed that the Constitution doesn’t require government to act in a “race-neutral” manner. Instead, she declared that government is constitutionally authorized to make people “equal” by taking “race-conscious” actions.



3. In an October 4th hearing for a case called Merrill v. Milligan, an attorney for the State of Alabama argued before the Supreme Court that it would be unconstitutional to draw U.S. congressional district boundaries based on race. This is because the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids states from denying “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”





4. Challenging the attorney, Jackson insisted that Alabama should be forced to draw its congressional districts in a way that will give black people more voting power. In support of this position, she asserted:

• “I don’t think we can assume that just because race is taken into account that that necessarily creates an equal protection problem” because the framers of the 14th Amendment adopted it “in a race conscious way.”
• The framers were “trying to ensure” that former slaves “were actually brought equal to everyone else in the society.”
• “That’s not a race-neutral or race-blind idea in terms of the remedy. And even more than that, I don’t think that the historical record” shows the framers “believed that race neutrality or race blindness was required, right?”
• The framers passed “the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which specifically stated that citizens would have the same civil rights as enjoyed by white citizens. That’s the point of that Act, to make sure that the other citizens, the black citizens, would have the same as the white citizens.”
• The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was enacted so that “other citizens have to be made equal to white citizens, and people were concerned that that didn’t have a constitutional basis, so they enacted the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Yes, the U.S. Constitution Forbids Government From Racial Discrimination - Just Facts



Of course, if you are an imbecile….er, Democrat, your response is “…duh…yup…yup….”

How the Hell is she on the Supreme Court????

 

[PoliticalChic]

How the Hell is she on the Supreme Court????

Well.....that's where good little Democrat boot-lickers go to retire to the good life.

There's another one who believes one race is smarter than another and one who hates free speech.

 

[Pete7469]

Wasn't the meat puppet faggot supposed to be such a "scholar" and had a "job" at some prestigious "university" that he didn't really do any actual work teaching anyone anything?

UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama (The Meat Puppet Faggot), especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like TMPF, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, TMPF was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

So like I said, These worthless or even malignant leftist are given "jobs" that require no results, little if any actual work and provide titles bed wetters can use to bloviate about their status as "intellectuals" when any objective person of even average intelligence can clearly see that they're jabbering retards with bullshit credentials.

.

 

[Pete7469]

How the Hell is she on the Supreme Court????

How the fuck did obozo get elected to POTUS?

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. “The fatal flaw in Jackson’s argument is her counterfactual leap from the framers’ reasons for enacting for the 14th Amendment to their “remedy.” The facts, detailed below, show that the framers witnessed governments treating people differently based on race, and their remedy was to ban them from doing that.

Origins of the 14th Amendment

Less than a year after the Civil War ended in 1865, the Louisiana Democratic Party passed a resolution stating:

• “we hold this to be a Government of white people, made and to be perpetuated for the exclusive benefit of” whites.
• “people of African descent cannot be considered” citizens of the United States.

“there can, in no event, nor under any circumstances, be any equality between the white and other races.” Yes, the U.S. Constitution Forbids Government From Racial Discrimination - Just Facts

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wasn't the meat puppet faggot supposed to be such a "scholar" and had a "job" at some prestigious "university" that he didn't really do any actual work teaching anyone anything?



So like I said, These worthless or even malignant leftist are given "jobs" that require no results, little if any actual work and provide titles bed wetters can use to bloviate about their status as "intellectuals" when any objective person of even average intelligence can clearly see that they're jabbering retards with bullshit credentials.

.

"Among the lies about himself Obama consistently repeats is that he was a constitutional law professor.

Lie one: Obama was never a professor; he was a lecturer. He did not have the qualifications to be a professor. Obama never published a single law paper. He was hired by the University of Chicago when they learned he had been given a book contract on race and law directly after graduating from Harvard. There was no book – just the contract, which he later reneged on. This is not the normal level of accomplishment for a University of Chicago professor or even lecturer.


Lie two: Obama did not specialize in the Constitution. Obama cared about and taught only one subject: race. One course was about race in the Constitution. It is on this flimsy basis that he attempts to pawn himself off as a constitutional scholar.

As the New York Times explains, Obama the lecturer taught three subjects only: "race, rights and gender."

His most traditional course was in the due process and equal protection areas of constitutional law. His voting rights class traced the evolution of election law, from the disenfranchisement of blacks to contemporary debates over districting and campaign finance. …His most original course, a historical and political seminar as much as a legal one, was on racism and law…

[In] one class on race, he imitated the way clueless white people talked. "Why are your friends at the housing projects shooting each other?" he asked in a mock-innocent voice. ...

Mr. Obama was especially eager for his charges to understand the horrors of the past, students say. He assigned a 1919 catalog of lynching victims, including some who were first raped or stripped of their ears and fingers, others who were pregnant or lynched with their children, and some whose charred bodies were sold off, bone fragment by bone fragment, to gawkers. … "Are there legal remedies that alleviate not just existing racism, but racism from the past?" Adam Gross, now a public interest lawyer in Chicago, wrote in his class notes in April 1994.

In what even some fans saw as self-absorption, Mr. Obama's hypothetical cases occasionally featured himself. "Take Barack Obama, there's a good-looking guy," he would introduce a twisty legal case.

Liberals flocked to his classes[.] … After all, the professor was a progressive politician[.]

Lie three: Obama calls himself a constitutional law prof to imply that he loves the Constitution. Obama gives the lie to this himself. He is on record – literally, a radio interview done when he was a lecturer – slamming the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution because they never tried to invent a right to "redistribute wealth" – a failing he describes as a "tragedy of the civil rights movement." Obama laments the constraints on government power (what we would call liberty) imposed by our Constitution. Obama himself contrasts following the Constitution with being a community organizer, creating "coalitions of power," which could "redistribute wealth" and create "economic justice."

Read more: Here's what 'constitutional scholar' Obama really taught at law school
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. “In response to this and other racist measures adopted by Southern Democrats, a bloc of Congressmen called the “Radical Republicans” passed a federal civil rights law in 1866 over the veto of Democratic President Andrew Johnson. This law required that people “of every race and color” be given “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens….”



To guarantee that this civil rights law was constitutional, the Radical Republicans fought for and secured passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868. Among other provisions, the amendment changed the Constitution to forbid states from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” or denying “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Yes, the U.S. Constitution Forbids Government From Racial Discrimination - Just Facts




And that applies to white folks today.....someone should tell the Democrats.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Among the lies about himself Obama consistently repeats is that he was a constitutional law professor.

Lie one: Obama was never a professor; he was a lecturer. He did not have the qualifications to be a professor. Obama never published a single law paper. He was hired by the University of Chicago when they learned he had been given a book contract on race and law directly after graduating from Harvard. There was no book – just the contract, which he later reneged on. This is not the normal level of accomplishment for a University of Chicago professor or even lecturer.


Lie two: Obama did not specialize in the Constitution. Obama cared about and taught only one subject: race. One course was about race in the Constitution. It is on this flimsy basis that he attempts to pawn himself off as a constitutional scholar.

As the New York Times explains, Obama the lecturer taught three subjects only: "race, rights and gender."

His most traditional course was in the due process and equal protection areas of constitutional law. His voting rights class traced the evolution of election law, from the disenfranchisement of blacks to contemporary debates over districting and campaign finance. …His most original course, a historical and political seminar as much as a legal one, was on racism and law…

[In] one class on race, he imitated the way clueless white people talked. "Why are your friends at the housing projects shooting each other?" he asked in a mock-innocent voice. ...

Mr. Obama was especially eager for his charges to understand the horrors of the past, students say. He assigned a 1919 catalog of lynching victims, including some who were first raped or stripped of their ears and fingers, others who were pregnant or lynched with their children, and some whose charred bodies were sold off, bone fragment by bone fragment, to gawkers. … "Are there legal remedies that alleviate not just existing racism, but racism from the past?" Adam Gross, now a public interest lawyer in Chicago, wrote in his class notes in April 1994.

In what even some fans saw as self-absorption, Mr. Obama's hypothetical cases occasionally featured himself. "Take Barack Obama, there's a good-looking guy," he would introduce a twisty legal case.

Liberals flocked to his classes[.] … After all, the professor was a progressive politician[.]

Lie three: Obama calls himself a constitutional law prof to imply that he loves the Constitution. Obama gives the lie to this himself. He is on record – literally, a radio interview done when he was a lecturer – slamming the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution because they never tried to invent a right to "redistribute wealth" – a failing he describes as a "tragedy of the civil rights movement." Obama laments the constraints on government power (what we would call liberty) imposed by our Constitution. Obama himself contrasts following the Constitution with being a community organizer, creating "coalitions of power," which could "redistribute wealth" and create "economic justice."

Read more: Here's what 'constitutional scholar' Obama really taught at law school
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

He had no idea about Judicial Review! I'm willing to bet someone else took the bar exam for him

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. “Counter to Jackson, when Republican Senator Jacob Howard introduced the 14th Amendment, he explained that it “abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another.” Driving that point home, he stated:

It establishes equality before the law, and it gives to the humblest, the poorest, the most despised of the [human] race the same rights and the same protection before the law as it gives to the most powerful, the most wealthy, or the most haughty. That, sir, is republican government, as I understand it, and the only one which can claim the praise of a just government. Without this principle of equal justice to all men and equal protection under the shield of the law, there is no republican government and none that is really worth maintaining.

Unlike a pure democracy which operates under majority rule, a republican government is one that is designed to protect the rights of all people. Thus, it has constitutional provisions to prevent majorities from trampling the rights of minorities. Howard’s words, along with the very text of the 14th Amendment, show that it added such a provision to the Constitution by banning government from racial discrimination.”
Yes, the U.S. Constitution Forbids Government From Racial Discrimination - Just Facts

 

[PoliticalChic]

‘Equity’ is the new Democrat term for racism.





8. “Equality v. Equity

When pressing her point, Jackson twisted the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “equal protection of the laws” into the notion that people should be “brought equal” or “made equal.” This is the leftist view of “equity,” which demands that people be treated unequally so they have equal outcomes.



In the words of Kamala Harris, “there’s a big difference between equality and equity,” and “equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place.” This often entails unequal treatment under the law, which is explicitly forbidden by the 14th Amendment.







Contrary to Jackson’s claim that the 14th Amendment doesn’t require “race neutrality,” it plainly does.”



Yet the Democrat Party today has as a main aim and agenda, anti-White racial discrimination…..and, BTW, anti-Semitism, as well.



You Democrats must stop being anti-America buffoons…..and putting anti-America buffoons on the Court.

 

[Pete7469]

‘Equity’ is the new Democrat term for racism.





8. “Equality v. Equity

When pressing her point, Jackson twisted the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “equal protection of the laws” into the notion that people should be “brought equal” or “made equal.” This is the leftist view of “equity,” which demands that people be treated unequally so they have equal outcomes.



In the words of Kamala Harris, “there’s a big difference between equality and equity,” and “equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place.” This often entails unequal treatment under the law, which is explicitly forbidden by the 14th Amendment.







Contrary to Jackson’s claim that the 14th Amendment doesn’t require “race neutrality,” it plainly does.”



Yet the Democrat Party today has as a main aim and agenda, anti-White racial discrimination…..and, BTW, anti-Semitism, as well.



You Democrats must stop being anti-America buffoons…..and putting anti-America buffoons on the Court.

The bed wetters will never undo the things that make them intolerable. They will NEVER be patriotic. They will NEVER give up on perversion. They will NEVER give up division. Hatred and envy is the foundation of their philosophies.



.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The bed wetters will never undo the things that make them intolerable. They will NEVER be patriotic. They will NEVER give up on perversion. They will NEVER give up division. Hatred and envy is the foundation of their philosophies.



.

Agree....


"They hate conservatives. They hate our country. They hate the American flag. They hate police. They hate traditional values. They hate rural voters. They hate rural America. They hate working class people. They hate those without college degrees. They hate anything not situated in urban America."
Intolerance: Oh, So This Is Why Around Half Of Liberals Can't Stand Being Around Trump Supporters


But there are more of them than of us.

 

[The Duke]

Agree....


"They hate conservatives. They hate our country. They hate the American flag. They hate police. They hate traditional values. They hate rural voters. They hate rural America. They hate working class people. They hate those without college degrees. They hate anything not situated in urban America."
Intolerance: Oh, So This Is Why Around Half Of Liberals Can't Stand Being Around Trump Supporters


But there are more of them than of us.

I disagree. There are NOT more of them than us. They have the media and some politicians, but their numbers are very few compared to the rest of America. They're the smallest dog with the loudest bark that runs away yarping if the big dog flexes.
There is a problem with the "New Red Guard" they've indoctrinated through the public and even some private school system curriculums. The numbers of the indoctrinated conditioned ones are vastly greater than those behind the scenes instigating it all.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I disagree. There are NOT more of them than us. They have the media and some politicians, but their numbers are very few compared to the rest of America. They're the smallest dog with the loudest bark that runs away yarping if the big dog flexes.
There is a problem with the "New Red Guard" they've indoctrinated through the public and even some private school system curriculums. The numbers of the indoctrinated conditioned ones are vastly greater than those behind the scenes instigating it all.

Let's put it this way:
Control of the schools allows them to indoctrinate and turn out thousands of brain dead Democrat voters who cannot explain or defend what they vote for.



"Over the past several decades, the progressive Left has successfully fulfilled Antonio Gramsci’s famed admonition of a “long march through the institutions”. In almost every Western country, its adherents now dominate the education system, media, cultural institutions, and financial behemoths." Is this the end of progressive America?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I disagree. There are NOT more of them than us. They have the media and some politicians, but their numbers are very few compared to the rest of America. They're the smallest dog with the loudest bark that runs away yarping if the big dog flexes.
There is a problem with the "New Red Guard" they've indoctrinated through the public and even some private school system curriculums. The numbers of the indoctrinated conditioned ones are vastly greater than those behind the scenes instigating it all.

Let's wait for the election:

The polls may be right or they may be wrong......we've seen both occur.

But for me, it will not be a win unless ther is a ............



....Shellacking: like this one->
“On Election Day 2010, the Democrats suffered massive losses at every level. They lost 63 seats in the House and control of the chamber. They lost six Senate seats. They suffered a net loss of six governorships. With special elections and party switches, Democrats lost 720 legislative seats; 26 legislatures were under full GOP control. Combined with the statehouse losses, it meant that the political levers in key states — Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin, Arizona and North Carolina — were totally in GOP hands. Republicans also gained six attorney general slots, the implications of which would become clear with each passing year as they brought a tsunami of lawsuits against key Obama programs. “
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/05/12/2010-elections-politics-effects/


If it isn't worse than that it should be considered a failure.
Every Democrat should be sent packing.



It's either the Democrats.....or America.

 

[Viktor]

How the Hell is she on the Supreme Court????

She was Uncle Jojo's nominee and, like good little lapdogs, the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, approved her. They would not dare to vote against a Black woman. Holy shit!

 

[The Duke]

She was Uncle Jojo's nominee and, like good little lapdogs, the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, approved her. They would not dare to vote against a Black woman. Holy shit!

Yeahbut, that one isn't out to uphold The Constitution at all, which is the Supreme Court's function.

 

[Viktor]

Yeahbut, that one isn't out to uphold The Constitution at all, which is the Supreme Court's function.

The goal of Liberal Democrats is to twist everything to get what they want.