Because according to stupid liberals comparing qualifications to Garland is racist?
Padmanabhan Srikanth "Sri" Srinivasan[1] (/ˈsriː ˌsriːniˈvɑːsən/; born February 23, 1967) is an Indian-born American jurist and attorney serving as the Chief United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[2][3] The United States Senate confirmed Srinivasan by a vote of 97–0 on May 23, 2013. Before his confirmation, Srinivasan served as Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States and argued 25 cases before the United States Supreme Court. He has also lectured at Harvard Law School.
In 2016, Srinivasan was considered by President Barack Obama as a potential nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States after the passing of Antonin Scalia in 2016.[4] President Obama nominated Merrick Garland instead.
In one of the dumber statements I have seen, a particular man of the cloth suggested that it was racist to only consider those who are the most qualified, because they will obviously be of some sort of race and therefore you would be disqualifying the other races who do not have a similarly qualified candidate. Almost as if "qualifications" are not the main driver to why people are picked for jobs, but rather race should be the first factor.
Imagine if you decided that it was unfair for an NBA team to pick the most qualified player with their first round draft choice, because it would somehow be considered unfair to people of other races? Perhaps that first round draft choice of the NBA draft should be of Japanese or Ecuadorian descent. After all, the NBA is just a game (not the United States Supreme Court) and if there is somewhere that we can afford to have the employees reflect the basic racial makeup of the country, you'd think it would be a better experiment in the NBA than the nation's top court.
I have a hint for the religious scholar in question. There are ultimately many, many very qualified candidates who have years of experience on the appellate courts and other qualifications that should put them on a short list for the USSC. Not all of these people are going to be White males and many (like Srinivasan) will represent a nationality or race that is not currently included on the USSC. But by not allowing a process to actually consider everyone, it becomes much more difficult to get both someone with the highest qualifications and someone who is racially diverse.
This is why you have people like Lindsey Graham pushing a home state District Court Judge as the pick, in spite of her having no appellate court experience and in spite of her lacking in other qualifications. You are reduced to picking and choosing from a very very reduced pool here and it becomes embarrassing when you consider someone like Srinivasan cannot be considered because he is of Indian/Asian descent rather than a black women.
81 comments:
Ch said:
'In one of the dumber statements I have seen, a particular man of the cloth suggested that it was racist to only consider those who are the most qualified, because they will obviously be of some sort of race and therefore you would be disqualifying the other races who do not have a similarly qualified candidate. Almost as if "qualifications" are not the main driver to why people are picked for jobs, but rather race should be the first factor.'
________
I am the man of the cloth here referenced, but I do not see it as dumb to consider that WOMEN should sometimes occasionally be considered for a seat on the Court (which was done by Reagan), and BLACKS should sometimes occasionally be considered for a seat on the Court (which was done by both Democratic and Republican presidents), and a BLACK WOMAN could very well now be considered for a seat on the Court, as our present president has stated he will do.
I consider all those considerations, including the one now being made, to be a worthy attempt to bring greater balance to the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
But I believe it has been said or insunuated that I am racist for thinking that.
I think, howevedr, it may be racist not to think that.
I think it's high time that the NBA picks Peter Dinklage as a center, and it's a travesty, miscarriage of justice, and blatantly racist, sexist, and dwarfist for him NOT to be selected.
Old & busted: Approving of black women on the USSC
New hotness: Openly pandering to black women under consideration for the USSC.
President Joe Biden has pledged to nominate the first black woman to the Supreme Court, but he seems to have forgotten about the time he filibustered a black woman judge’s nomination to America’s second-highest court for two years.
Way back in 2003 through 2005, when Joe Biden was still a Democrat senator from Delaware, President George W. Bush nominated Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, but due to her conservative views, Joe Biden and the Democrats filibustered her nomination, blocking a final vote on her confirmation. Bush nominated Brown for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2003 after she served as a justice on the California Supreme Court since 1996; she did not get confirmed until June 8, 2005.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/01/30/biden-filibustered-black-woman-judges-nomination-two-years/
Anyway, fun to see people who froth at the mouth at the mention of Clarence Thomas, backed the filibusters of Janice Rogers Brown & Miguel Estrada, & attacked Amy Coney Barrett for her religion & for adopting black children, now pretending to be the paragons of a diverse bench.
https://twitter.com/baseballcrank/status/1487456597756497929?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1487456597756497929%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Fpolitics%2F2022%2F01%2F30%2Fbiden-filibustered-black-woman-judges-nomination-two-years%2F
You know, Ch, there was a time in this country when no black, no matter how qualified, could play on a white baseball team.
Was that racist? Of course it was. No matter how qualified, no black would be allowed to play on a white baseball team.
I can assure you there was a time when no black, no Catholic (until 1834), no Jew (until 1916), no southern European, no woman (until recently) would have been even considered for a position on the Court, no matter what their qualifications were.
If anyone doubted the contempt White Democrats, Black Democrats, and the mainstream media hold for Black Americans, I would refer you to President Biden's announcement regarding his Supreme Court nominee and their giddy reaction.
Every president before Biden had proudly professed that each of their nominees for the Court was the most qualified jurist available in America. With his declaration that his next nominee to the Supreme Court will be a Black woman chosen because of her race and gender, not her qualifications, President Joe Biden reinforced a 220-year Democrat Party message to everyone in the world: Do not be confused -- Black people remain inferior. They cannot achieve because of merit. I, your benevolent master, gave this to you. Black people, I don’t owe you a damn thing. You owe me.
As expected, instead of confronting Biden for tainting what should be a historic occasion with racism, paternalism, and disrespect toward a Black woman who obviously deserves respect, the mainstream media verified their complicity in this plantation line of thinking by celebrating the process.
To say, “I am going to nominate the most qualified candidate was too easy.” Even if it was propaganda. Proclaiming that a Black woman had “earned” this nomination would have made this a truly joyous occasion. But no. The President had to make a point. Joe Biden is an almost eighty-year-old politician from a slaveholding state. This was old plantation White master talk. He had to let it be known that, in his opinion, no Black woman would ever be qualified for this position.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/01/democrat_contempt_for_black_americans_.html
Roger you don't seriously believe Biden is better than Trump
And you seriously believe trump won the election!!!!! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!
, now pretending to be the paragons of a diverse bench.
The hand maiden cunt coney will be pushing her religion down the throats of all Americans with her biased views......yeah that's the ticket as Clarence was a lying whore nd Estrada was never a judge and not really qualified!!!!
Blogger Honest, decent, truth telling Reverend said...
You know, Ch, there was a time in this country when no black, no matter how qualified, could play on a white baseball team.
And apparently you long for that time, pederast. Approving as you are of Slow Joe telling every Black Female jurist in America that he plans on using affirmative action STRAIGHT UP to elevate them to the highest court in the land.
A self-respecting black woman would slap him across the face and tell him to shove his nomination up his old demented ass.
We'll see just how many subject themselves to the pander.
I am the man of the cloth here referenced, but I do not see it as dumb to consider that WOMEN should sometimes occasionally be considered for a seat on the Court (which was done by Reagan), and BLACKS should sometimes occasionally be considered for a seat on the Court (which was done by both Democratic and Republican presidents), and a BLACK WOMAN could very well now be considered for a seat on the Court, as our present president has stated he will do.
And 76% of Americans and 72% of minorities think you are wrong!
Can you tell us why they disagree with you, Reverend?
Are they racist, stupid, or what?
I think it's a simple question.
Are you capable of answering?
Or just going to toss around red herring.
You know, Ch, there was a time in this country when no black, no matter how qualified, could play on a white baseball team.
Was that racist? Of course it was. No matter how qualified, no black would be allowed to play on a white baseball team.
So you believe that Joe Biden is being racist because he is telling all men and most all women that they cannot play on the USSC regardless of how well qualified they are. Just because of their sex and color?
Because it sounds like you are either calling Joe a racist or possibly you believe that it was okay to only pick a certain race to play baseball?
Hmmmmm...
Which is it Reverend?
Was it okay for baseball to only include whites?
or is it sexist and racist for Joe to just include black women?
And 76% of Americans and 72% of minorities think you are wrong!
Really Lil Schitty????? The poll was whether all should be considered for the seat.....but you think choosing a black women....which is part of ALL is just you looking for an argument and interpreting the poll based on your bias!!!!! Biden made a promise just like trump did with his taxes and growing the gdp which he failed!!!! Yes it is politically motivated just like trump pushing the cunt through in record time!!!!!!
Time to watch a SpaceX launch.......expecting a good sonic boom based on trajectory!!!
Somebody really should read him his Miranda rights. He has the right to remain silent.
He's not a very smart man, he's a very arrogant man, like you have become Scott.
Scott seriously believe Trump is better than Sleepy Joe!
And you seriously believe Trump won the election!
You are not as smart as you think you are, because you believe that Trump won the election.
It was wrong never to include a black for consideration on white baseball teams, no matter how qualified.
It was wrong to never include a Catholic or a Jew or a black or a woman for consideration for a seat on the Supreme court, no matter how qualified.
Ch doesn't really believe Trump won the election. That's what makes his lying about it even more insidious.
You are not as smart as you think you are, because you believe that Trump won the election.
Joe Biden is President which means he won the election Roger.
You are just not quite bright enough to understand what I have been saying all along... so you just oversimply it to the degree where someone like yourself (400 points lower than me on the SAT) can understand it.
It's okay.. you were dumber to begin with. While I keep my brain active in my job every day (even getting paged on weekends) - you eat your mashed potato goulash and breaded processed meat surprise and watch game shows with the fifth Beatle.
Difficult to stay sharp under your circumstances!
What Ch has been saying all along is that a case can be made that the 2020 election was not absolutely perfect.
Yes, and that same case can be made about every election we have ever had.
But it was unassailably legitmate.
And Ch knows that.
It was wrong to never include a Catholic or a Jew or a black or a woman for consideration for a seat on the Supreme court, no matter how qualified.
But it's okay to not consider an Asian or Indian man to the USSC, huh?
As long as you are a stupid old white man pandering"
Not sure I am picking up on your nuance here.
Still racism by any definition of the term.
Like I said, Reverend... your opinion is in the minority because it is a stupid undefendable opinion. Likely you hold it because you are incapable of disagreeing with dementia Joe no matter how dumb he gets.
Now tell me why I and why 76% of Americans and why 72% of minorities believe he should consider all genders and races? Are we all racist? Are we all stupid?
Or are we smart enough not to just fall in line with a tired old racist white man who is pandering?
Scott thinks Sleepy Joe is a racist, because the FBI is investigating the white people who were trying to get Trump elected President by Mike Pence, who hates white people too.
That's okay Reverend.
We understand it now. We are just not smart enough and too racist to fall in line with the tired old racist white President who is attempting but failing miserably to pander...
I guess since you have no other explanation.
We can go with that one.
Go ahead and spin on, Ch.
You know you have no real case.
Scott thinks Sleepy Joe is a racist, because the FBI is investigating the white people who were trying to get Trump elected President by Mike Pence, who hates white people too.
I think Joe is a Racist because he demanded as Beau and Hunter were growing up that he didn't want them going to school with black bussed kids because it would create a "racist jungle."
Just go back to when he said that Obama was the first well spoken black man in politics.
And yeah... not considering an Asian or Indian because of race is racist.
Dayum great launch......had it directly overhead when stage separated and got first time view of the retro slowing!!!!!!!! Almost look like it would land right here, but they stuck the landing again....sonic boom shook the house!!!!!!!! One of the benefits living near the cape....great light show!!!!
I found Ch's next Trump
Marjorie Taylor Greene claims traitor Lindsey Graham isn’t a real ‘friend’ to Trump
Tom Fenton
One of Donald Trump’s biggest remaining supporters in Washington DC, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, blasted Senator Lindsey Graham on Sunday for his critique of the former President.
Mr Trump recently stated that he would look to pardon the 6 January insurrectionists if re-elected, a move which Senator Graham labelled as “dangerous” during a Sunday morning appearance on CBS.
“I don’t want to send any signal that it was OK to defile the Capitol,” Mr Graham said. “There are other groups with causes that may want to go down the violent path if these people get pardoned.”
However, Ms Greene, a far-right Republican from Georgia, hit back at her fellow party member on the social media app Telegram.
“Lindsey Graham has done nothing about J6 (6 January),” Green wrote on Telegram, before adding that Graham “didn’t care about election fraud in the 2020 election” and “refused to object on J6 to Joe Biden’s electoral college votes.”
“He doesn’t care about our justice system being completely violated by Democrats in their political war against Republicans and President Trump,”
You have said the same thing.
LMAO at you Scott
Scott thinks he is a racist rodent bastard who hates white women! Like the one Reagan nominated for the Supreme Court!
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) told reporters that it’s “far beyond time” for a Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court, Politico reports.
The Democrats and Doctor Fauci are trying to castrate you.
WARNING: Male Fertility Concerns Cited for Merck’s COVID-19 Antiviral, Molnupiravir
The FDA granted emergency use authorization for Merck’s COVID-19 oral antiviral, molnupiravir, on December 23, 2021.
A review of the EUA fact sheet for molnupiravir revealed alarming statements for prospective users, especially for sexually active men.
In section 8.3, titled “Females and Males of Reproductive Potential,” the FDA advises men to use a reliable method of contraception during treatment and for at least three months after the last dose.
The FDA admits the risk beyond three months is currently unknown. Studies investigating the potential for molnupiravir to affect offspring of treated males
Contraception
Females
Advise individuals of childbearing potential to use a reliable method of contraception correctly and consistently, as applicable for the duration of treatment and for 4 days after the last dose of molnupiravir [see Warnings and Precautions (5.1)].
Males
While the risk is regarded as low, nonclinical studies to fully assess the potential for molnupiravir to affect offspring of treated males have not been completed. Advise sexually active individuals with partners of childbearing potential to use a reliable method of contraception correctly and consistently during treatment and for at least 3 months after the last dose of molnupiravir. The risk beyond three months after the last dose of molnupiravir is unknown. Studies to understand the risk beyond three months are ongoing.
While ivermectin has a better safety profile than Tylenol, molnupiravir showed horrendous side effects in animal trials.
Well Roger...
Dementia truly has gotten the better of you if you believe that I have actually stated "the same thing".
I have actually never said a word about anything Lindsey Graham has said on the subject nor have I said anything specific about Mike Pence attempting to block the certification of the votes. In fact, surrounding the legality of whether Pence had any authority to do something is not anything I even had a great deal of interest in to be honest. I certainly have never made an argument that he had such authority and I certainly never argued that he should use it.
100% of my issues with the election has to do with statistical anomalies that have been broken down into various counties that had large discrepancies from the other similar counties in those states or surrounding states.
In the past year plus there has been much clarity provided to the subject including the ballot harvesting schemes in Georgia, the massive amounts of dark money provide to heavy Democratic areas in Wisconsin that was supposed to be used for Covid, but instead was (likely illegally) used for election activities.
Not to mention the issues with mail in ballots in Maricopa as well as some counties having near zero percent mail in ballot rejection (eg: Georgia when they generally had reject rate of 7% or higher in previous elections). And there are still alleged counting schemes and other reports of things that have never been fully explained.
But I believe that these new election laws will help mitigate much of this and prevent much of what we saw in 2020. There will not be any counties in Georgia still counting three days later. They will be accepting poll workers from other counties who have finished. We will know how many ballots they have to count within an hour after the polls close. We will likely have very accurate results long before the next morning. Much to the horror of those Democratic election officials.
Get ready to call Reagan a political opportunist who pandered to sexist gender politics, Ch:
Reagan's White House made sure the president stuck by his promise to name a woman to the Supreme Court — they knew the politics would help too
Brent D. Griffiths
Jan 27, 2022, 4:52 PM
Conservatives have attacked Biden for sticking by his promise to name a Black woman to the Supreme Court.
But President Reagan did virtually the same thing Biden is now doing.
The history of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's nomination is worth a closer examination.
________
Some conservatives are upset. Legal commentators and pundits are aghast that President Joe Biden would stand by his commitment to naming a Black woman to the Supreme Court.
A few also point out that Biden made his promise in the heat of the presidential campaign. Based on multiple reports, it's likely Biden's hastily made vow during a Democratic primary debate wrapped up the endorsement that helped springboard him to the White House.
There's just one problem. If Biden is being "woke," misguided, or corrupting the supposedly pure process of selecting Supreme Court nominees, then he's not alone. President Ronald Reagan went by the same playbook.
OH DEAR!
Reagan's own words, news accounts, and the private memos his aides authored at the time make abundantly clear that both the conception and later commitment to the historic vow to name the first-ever woman to the Supreme Court was about more than just high-minded idealism.
One top Reagan advisor told the president that delivering on his pledge to nominate a woman to the highest court "would be a good political move."
"It will strengthen our base among women and probably among men also," the aide wrote.
So this was about politics, too. And the parallels don't end there.
Renee Knake Jefferson, who co-wrote a book about women considered for Supreme Court nominations, said Reagan also considered naming a Black woman.
OH MY! FANCY THAT!
"This is a long time coming and to the extent that anyone is suggesting that any of the Black women who would be selected wouldn't be chosen but for the fact Biden made this campaign pledge that rings very hollow to me," said Jefferson, who is also a law professor at the University of Houston and co-author of "Shortlisted: Women in the Shadows of the Supreme Court." "Black women have been eminently qualified for a lifetime."
____
Reagan had some problems. As governor of California, his record of appointing women to the bench was anemic compared to President Jimmy Carter's historic pace of naming women and people of color to federal courts. It didn't help matters that Reagan opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, while first lady Rosslyn Carter and her husband took up the cause to finally push the ERA to ratification.
"Reagan had to offer something in order to earn the vote of women who would care very deeply about that stark contrast," Jefferson said.
Reagan knew he needed to do something to show women that they wouldn't be forgotten in his White House. He acknowledged to reporters that he was lagging behind with female voters, though he disputed whether that was linked to his opposition to the ERA. At a news conference defending his record on October 15, 1980, Reagan made the commitment that would later lead to a historic moment.
"I am announcing today that one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can possibly find, one who meets the high standards I will demand for all court appointments," Reagan told reporters midway through a speech that began with him declaring that it was untrue that he was "somehow opposed to full and equal opportunities for women in America."
SO VERY SORRY TO POINT THIS OUT TO YOU, CH.
I KNOW IT DAMAGES YOUR IMAGE OF YOUR HERO REAGAN.
BUT THIS IS KNOWN AS CRITICAL POLITICAL THEORY, HO HO!
IF REAGAN COULD SAY:
"I am announcing today that one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can possibly find, one who meets the high standards I will demand for all court appointments,"
WHY CAN'T BIDEN SAY (as he has):
"I am announcing today that the first Supreme Court vacancy in my administration will be filled by the most qualified black woman I can possibly find, one who meets the high standards I will demand for all court appointments."
To object to that word black marks one as racist, Ch.
5:48 IS THE USUAL CH SPIN.
Nothing he says there has legal legs.
Ch is just another Cowardly Trumpet
He is not alone.
Donald Trump can’t be killed because the rest of the Republican party is unwilling to take on the political pain required to kill him.
This has been the fundamental, painfully obvious political reality for nearly seven years now. And yet some Republicans and conservatives who claim to be professional politicos remain willfully ignorant of it.
The “no pain, no gain” maxim was on display this weekend when Sen. Susan Collins (R-Concerned) was asked on ABC’s This Week whether she would support Donald Trump if he ran in 2024. She demurred, leaving the door open to the possibility of having faith in a Trump resurrection, while providing some perfunctory lip service to the notion that there were other people she might prefer, but whom she—of course—did not name. She was rewarded a few hours later with the former president attacking her for not having given his coup attempt a full-throated endorsement.
Now keep in mind a few things about Susan Collins:
Less than a year ago Collins voted to convict Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial, putting her support behind an article of impeachment that would have barred him from ever again holding federal office.She’s not up for election again until 2026.She has possibly the most independent brand of anyone in the Republican caucus.She won her last election in a surprisingly comfortable fashion.
And despite all of that, the good senator still isn’t willing to endure whatever political blowback might come from simply saying that she won’t support Trump in a hypothetical 2024 run.
If someone as politically safe as Collins won’t stick her neck out, what hope is there that a meaningful group of others will find the mettle not just to privately hope for an alternative but to wage a vigorous, scorched-earth campaign on behalf of the alternative?
Collins’s political caution in the face of Trump is just the latest example in six years of the Republican Groundhog Day. These establishment politicians have, at certain times, been willing to stick a toe in the water of Trumpian criticism or even try to offer him a nudge off the dais. But when the opportunity presented itself, rather than shoot ghostface in the head and risk blood splattering back on their face, these Republicans let him live to spook another day.
This was true in 2015 and 2016 when Trump’s Republican primary opponents—aside from Jeb, who was the least suited of them all to level an effective attack—were too scared to criticize him until they were on the brink of elimination. And some of them not even then. (Hi Chrissy!)
It was true in the 2016 general election, when the party wasn’t willing to suffer the down-ballot losses that would have ensued if they had stuck with the initial post-Access Hollywood opposition to having him as the standard bearer.
It was true in the first impeachment when every Senate Republican except Mitt Romney knew exactly how bad the Ukrainian drug deal was but passed the buck to voters anyway, hoping the people would send Trump packing.
It was true in the second impeachment, when 17 Republican senators had the ability to banish him from federal office permanently but instead made a calculation that the party couldn’t survive the voter backlash. So they made sternly worded speeches while letting Trump off the hook.
It was true when Lindsey Graham was getting shouted down for his Trump apostasy in an airport terminal and then tucked his tail and returned to his dominant’s golf cart.
And it was true this weekend when Good Republican Dan Crenshaw showed up to Trump’s pro-insurrection rally in Texas on Saturday and Double Plus Good Republican Susan Collins sat down with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday.
Amid all those moments of choosing there have been sporadic bouts of courage from a handful of Republicans who really were willing to risk their careers. But they have been the exceptions that proved the rule.
Unless and until the gods of the actuarial tables intervene, excising Trump from the GOP was always going to require political pain. Cancer doesn’t get removed without surgery and chemo and the treatment sucks. And when push comes to shove, the craven Republicans who know better have never been willing to face the red devil.
TRUMP IS THE BIGGEST CURSE THAT HAS EVER COME ALONG TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
THAT, AND THEIR ABJECT FAILURE TO LIVE UP TO THEIR ANTI SLAVERY, ANTI RACISTIC LINCOLNIAN ROOTS.
So Reverend...
If your argument is soooo intelligent and correct.
Why does 76% of the American public and 72% of minorities reject it?
Are they stupid or racist or what?
Reverend...
Can you tell me why Srinivasan should be eliminated for consideration because he is the wrong type of minority?
After all, he was one of Obama's leading choices back in 2016. Certainly if Obama thought he was ready for the USSC in 2016, there is nothing that should have disqualified him since.
Obviously our President tells us that Srinivasan is not qualified because he has a penis and is of Indian descent. Seems kind of bigoted, huh?
My argument is indeed intelligent because it is unassailably correct.
And it more than answers your shallow question.
And it more than answers your shallow questions.
U.S. News
Republican Lawmaker Shares Quote From neo-Nazi in Bid to Slam Fauci
The quote, which was misattributed by Congressman Thomas Massie to French philosopher Voltaire, was coined by neo-Nazi Kevin Alfred Strom
Ben Samuels
Washington
Jan. 31, 2022 5:55 PM
WASHINGTON – A Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives has come under fire for tweeting a quote from a noted white supremacist Holocaust denier – and falsely attributing it to the French philosopher Voltaire. The quote was invoked in an attempt to criticize President Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser, Dr. Anthony Fauci.
Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, tweeted: "You mustn't question Fauci, for he is science," and then he shared an image that read: "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize. – Voltaire."
The quote was actually first uttered in the early 1990s by American neo-Nazi Kevin Alfred Strom, who in 2008 was convicted on child pornography charges. The quote has often been falsely attributed to Voltaire, and others have gotten into trouble for sharing it in the past, including actor John Cusack in 2019.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks extremist activity, describes Strom as "arguably the only true intellectual remaining in the American neo-Nazi movement following the 2002 death of National Alliance founder William Pierce." The Alabama-based organization called Strom a "bookish yet dogmatic neo-Nazi whose predilection for child pornography ultimately ruined his efforts to claim his former master's legacy."
The Kentucky Jewish Council said it was embarrassed to see a member of Congress from its state sharing an ill-researched hateful post.
‘These comparisons are increasingly dangerous’:
John Cusack slammed after posting 'pro-Palestinian' meme with neo-Nazi quote
"This is sadly not the first time [Massie] has tweeted blatant antisemitism that originated with white supremacists," it said, adding that Massie does not care that the quote "originates with a white supremacist who called for violence against the Jewish people."
In August, Massie compared COVID-19 restrictions to the treatment of prisoners in Nazi concentration camps during the Holocaust, tweeting an image of a raised fist with a tattooed number. He later deleted the tweet.
He is one of six Republican members of Congress to make such comparisons, joining like-minded Republican candidates for state and national offices, state party leadership, state-level lawmakers and Fox News pundits.
Holocaust studies experts warn that the use of Holocaust imagery to compare coronavirus health measures to the Nazis’ policies has reached new levels in recent weeks and could help spread antisemitism and Holocaust denial.
This is going to drive him crazier
The timeline for getting Pfizer's COVID vaccines to kids under 5 could move to early March, Pfizer board member and former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb told CBS News Sunday.
Why it matters: Getting vaccines approved for the youngest children would not only be a relief for worried parents, but could help protect against disruptive school and daycare closures.
Driving the news: Previously, Gottlieb said vaccines could get out by late March at the very earliest, depending on regulatory approval.
But, he said, that timeline was based on the fact Pfizer expanded clinical trials on kids in December to three doses, instead of two, based on regulators' recommendation.
What he's saying: "Previously, we had data showing that the childhood vaccine for six months to four years wasn't as protective against infection as the adult vaccine. That's the reason they pushed it out," Gottlieb said.
"But now, if the goal of the vaccine is to get baseline immunity into the kids to prevent bad outcomes and you're really not using the vaccine as a tool to prevent infection in the first place, two doses could do that," he said. "I think that may be why federal health officials are rethinking this."
Because it happening under Sleepy Joe Biden
My argument is indeed intelligent because it is unassailably correct.
So do you believe that Justices like Srinivasan agree that they should not be considered for the position because they are the wrong sex and wrong minority? After all he has worked his butt off for years and years as an appellate judge. Was a top choice of the last Democrat... and he may never get a chance because someone with much lower qualifications (as there are no black women with better qualifications) will get the job he likely covets.
It's wrong no matter how you address it.
It's not just that you are wrong, Reverend. Deep down you know you are wrong and the polling just reinforces that. You are spectacularly wrong and I think you even know that.
But the reality is that more than anyone else on this blog you are the one person who never admits you are wrong about anything. Pride. The deadly sin! It oozes out of you to the point where one wonders if you are just that insecure that you cannot admit being wrong.
More to the point, you don't actually "defend" the position with any logic. You generally use red herring or bring up the fact that a select few others are also wrong just like you.
And no Reverend. It does not impress me in the lease that Lindsey Graham says it is okay. 54% of your own Party believes you are wrong and that doesn't change your mind.
Why it matters: Getting vaccines approved for the youngest children would not only be a relief for worried parents, but could help protect against disruptive school and daycare closures.
If parents are truly worried (and obviously uniformed) then they can give their child the jab all they want once it has been approved.
No problem with that Roger. I would never give it to a child who has nearly zero risk from Covid, but that is me and my logical brain and high IQ talking. You might feel differently with your feeble 400 point lower C+ brain and your deference to liberal politicians as if they are gods.
But I will have an issue when or if they decide at some time that children who logically have no reason to take the vaccine are suddenly forced to take it in order to attend school, etc. That is going to cause major problems for many many people who have any intelligence.
Scott thinks that he is going to appoint an African American woman, and make them happy because he believes in Black inferiority and White Supremacy, because he was raised in the white so era. And of course welfare queens because they can't understand how to work even in restaurants!
Roger thinks that Biden is going to appoint an African American woman, and make them happy because he believes in Black inferiority and White Supremacy, because he was raised in the white so era. And of course welfare queens because they can't understand how to work even in restaurants!
You don't understand cynicism about everything you say!
U.S. and Allies Close to Reviving Nuclear Deal With Iran
January 31, 2022 at 7:50 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 10 Comments
“The United States and its European allies appear on the cusp of restoring the deal that limited Iran’s nuclear program, Biden administration officials said on Monday, but cautioned that it is now up to the new government in Tehran to decide whether, after months of negotiations, it is willing to dismantle much of its nuclear production facilities in return for sanctions relief,” the New York Times reports.
_______
So we and our allies may be able to fix what Trump so ignorantly tore up (and then said he'd fix it, until he realized the only way to fix it would be to do exactly what Obama and our allies already, so he dropped it.)
Some Trump Records Were Torn Up and Taped Together
January 31, 2022 at 7:52 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 57 Comments
“When the National Archives and Records Administration handed over a trove of documents to the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection, some of the Trump White House records had been ripped up and then taped back together," the Washington Post reports.
“Former president Donald Trump was known inside the White House for his unusual and potentially unlawful habit of tearing presidential records into shreds and tossing them on the floor — creating a headache for records management analysts who meticulously used Scotch tape to piece together fragments of paper that were sometimes as small as confetti.”
______
Must have had a lot he wanted to hide.
Trump the liar.
Trump the human shredder.
Trump's faithful disciple Ch shreds the truth.
Today at 6:04 p.m. EST|Updated today at 7:00 p.m. EST
When the National Archives and Records Administration handed over a trove of documents to the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection, some of the Trump White House records had been ripped up and then taped back together, according to three people familiar with the records.
Former president Donald Trump was known inside the White House for his unusual and potentially unlawful habit of tearing presidential records into shreds and tossing them on the floor — creating a headache for records management analysts who meticulously used Scotch tape to piece together fragments of paper that were sometimes as small as confetti, as Politico reported in 2018.
But despite the Presidential Records Act — which requires the preservation of memos, letters, notes, emails, faxes and other written communications related to a president’s official duties — the former president’s infrangible shredding practices apparently continued well into the latter stages of his presidency.
Story continues below advertisement
The National Archives on Monday took the unusual step of confirming the habit, saying in a statement that records turned over from the Trump White House “included paper records that had been torn up by former President Trump.” The statement came in response to a question from The Washington Post about whether some Jan. 6-related records had been ripped up and taped back together.
Some of the documents turned over by the White House had not been reconstructed at all, according to the Archives.
The Archives transmitted over 700 pages of documents to the Jan. 6 committee last month that included a mélange of records concerning the events of Jan. 6, 2021, including those that were torn up and reconstructed, according to the three people familiar with the records, who requested anonymity to reveal sensitive details.
Jan. 6 committee seeks testimony from Ivanka Trump
In its statement, the Archives said that “White House records management officials during the Trump Administration recovered and taped together some of the torn-up records. These were turned over to the National Archives at the end of the Trump Administration, along with a number of torn-up records that had not been reconstructed by the White House. The Presidential Records Act requires that all records created by presidents be turned over to the National Archives at the end of their administrations.”
Story continues below advertisement
ADVERTISING
It’s unclear what documents in the tranche delivered to the Jan. 6 committee were damaged. But legal records indicate that the documents over which Trump sought to assert privilege included presidential diaries, schedules, appointment information, handwritten notes concerning the events of Jan. 6 from White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, speeches, remarks, and more. The archivist is set to hand over more documents in the weeks and months to come.
The committee declined to provide comment.
Scott investigations take time.
No matter what he did or say, you will be loyal to him.
Trump's faithful disciples! Ch shreds the truth.
records turned over from the Trump White House “included paper records that had been torn up by former President Trump.”
He actually broke the rules
January 31, 2022 at 7:14 PM
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Germany's national humiliation after defeat in World War 1. Many Germans perceived the parliamentary government coalition as weak and unable to alleviate the economic crisis. Widespread economic misery, fear, and perception of worse times to come, as well as anger and impatience with the apparent failure of the government to manage the crisis, offered fertile ground for the rise of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party.
Alky it was the Treaty of Versailles, the historical failure of “The League of Nations”, Marxism sweeping through Eastern Europe that brought Hitler.
IOW as always liberal fails caused the vacuum and another liberal (Hitler) leapt into the breach.
It’s always your answer
The historical parallels between the rise of Hitler and Donald Trump are very disturbing
1 Germany's national humiliation after defeat in World War 1.
2 Many Germans perceived the parliamentary government coalition as weak and unable to alleviate the economic crisis.
3 Widespread economic misery, fear, and perception of worse times to come, as well as anger and impatience with the apparent failure of the government to manage the crisis,
offered fertile ground for the rise of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party
----------------
1 The mishandled withdrawal from Afghanistan is similar to the German defeat. Many people believe the United States look weaker.
2 We had an economic crisis caused by the covid-19 pandemic crisis, and most people believe that the President has mishandled it. Despite great numbers.
3 Even worse is he told the Proud Boys that he would pardon them if they acted like the brownshirts in Germany he said they should stand by and pardon them. A majority think the President is incompetent
This is ground for the rise of Donald Trump and his unbelievably loyal current Republican party.
He would fire the leader of the FBI Wray .
And again put loyalists in Department a Justice
And the most dangerous thing, if he put loyalists in The Pentagon.
8:21 is stupider than stupider than stupider than stupidest.
I've never heard anyone else label Hitler a liberal.
CALI and his liberal hitler BS.
It was the REALLY severe punishments we put on Germany after WWI (some of which they richly deserved) that made it so easy for Hitler to come along blaming everything that had gone wrong primarily on the Jews and the more progressive German leaders.
After WWII, we were far less severe, even merciful, in how we treated them, even after the horrors of Nazism. and that has made them among the best allies we have in the world.
Same with the horribly imperial Japanese.
Trump Had Two Drafted Orders to Seize Voting Machines
January 31, 2022 at 9:05 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 40 Comments
“Former President Donald Trump’s advisers drafted two versions of an executive order to seize voting machines — one directing the Department of Defense to do so and another the Department of Homeland Security — as part of a broader effort to undermine the 2020 election results,” CNN reports.
“The idea of using the federal government to access voting machines in states that Trump lost was the brainchild of retired Col. Phil Waldron and retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser.”
____________
It doesn't get any more Hitleresque than that. These are teasonous actions and all who were responsible must and probably will be held accountable.
The FBI wasn't trying to ovethrow the government.
Trump was.
The FBI didn't tear up legally protected presidential records.
Trump did.
Even worse treason two versions instead of one
(CNN) - Former President Donald Trump's advisers drafted two versions of an executive order to seize voting machines -- one directing the Department of Defense to do so and another the Department of Homeland Security -- as part of a broader effort to undermine the 2020 election results, multiple sources tell CNN.
The idea of using the federal government to access voting machines in states that Trump lost was the brainchild of retired Col. Phil Waldron and retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's former national security adviser, the sources said. Both Army veterans spread misinformation about the election being stolen from Trump.
While advisers publicly floated the idea at the time, revelations that two draft executive orders were actually drawn up for different agencies to carry out the job underscores the extent to which the former President's allies wanted to weaponize the powers of his lame-duck administration to overturn the election.
Any operation for the military or federal agents to seize voting equipment for political purposes would have been unprecedented in US history.
CNN has reported the existence of a draft order tasking the Pentagon with seizing voting machines. That document has been handed over by the National Archives to the House select committee, which is investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.
Multiple sources now tell CNN that a second version of the document, instructing DHS to carry out the same task, also exists.
It's unclear who drafted the executive orders, and neither was issued.
But Flynn and Trump's former attorney Sidney Powell advocated for the idea during a now-infamous Oval Office meeting in mid-December 2020. The meeting devolved into screaming matches as some of the President's advisers pushed back on various proposals, including invoking martial law and naming Powell special counsel to investigate voter fraud claims, CNN reported at the time.
The House select committee is now looking into the effort to draft an executive order and how it began, including the roles of Flynn, Waldron and Powell as well as another Trump attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and Bernie Kerik, who worked alongside Giuliani after the election to find any evidence of voter fraud.
Kerik recently testified to the committee about the effort, a source familiar with the matter tells CNN. And a log detailing documents that he believes are covered by attorney-client privilege refers to a memo about seizing voting machines.
After the Pentagon draft document, as first reported by Politico, came to light, committee member Rep. Zoe Lofgren said in an interview with CNN: "It's an extraordinary document, and we have a lot of questions about it."
"We've got no evidence at this point that there were steps taken in the Department of Defense to implement that memo but ... it's a lawless document and really breathtaking in its approach," the California Democrat added.
CNN previously reported that Giuliani had approached Ken Cuccinelli, who was second in command at Homeland Security at the time, about seizing voting machines after the election, and Cuccinelli told him the department didn't have that authority.
When asked about the executive order involving the military, Giuliani's attorney, Robert Costello, said his client also shut that idea down when he became aware of it.
"As soon as he heard about this idea, he was vehemently against it, as was White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and then-President Trump," Costello said.
But Giuliani and his team did continue to pursue other avenues for overturning the election based on the same conspiracies about election fraud cited in the draft executive order to justify the seizure of voting machines.
Trump also continued to entertain some of the same core elements of those executive orders, including the idea of installing a special counsel to investigate election fraud.
Nearly two weeks after White House aides pushed back on the suggestion of naming Powell to such a role, Trump raised the idea again during another Oval Office meeting, but this time floated Cuccinelli as a possible candidate, according to testimony provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee by former senior Justice Department officials who were present.
Meanwhile, Flynn remained adamant that election equipment was going to be seized and personally reached out to at least one senior defense official in mid-December attempting to enlist their help with his cause, according to a source familiar with the outreach.
He also promoted the idea during a Newsmax interview on December 17.
''He could immediately on his order seize every single one of these machines around the country on his order. He could also order, within the swing states, if he wanted to, he could take military capabilities and he could place them in those states and basically rerun an election in each of those states. It's not unprecedented,'' Flynn said at the time.
Flynn, Powell and Waldron could not be reached for comment Monday.
rerun an election in each of those states. It's not unprecedented
If only racist democrats hadn't opposed Bush scotus nominee Janice Rogers Brown, the nation would've had a black female on the court years ago. Ben Nelson of NE was the only dem to vote in favor.
So we can take their talk of racism and push it right back into their hateful faces.
You don't understand cynicism about everything you say!
Well you don't understand that I don't "say" these things Roger.
You literally just make it up and attribute it to me.
You're like a child!
Has anyone here said Biden is Not the President of the United States?
PM Truddy shit his panties.
"Trudeau accuses Canada truckers of ‘hate, abuse and racism’ as he tests positive for Covid."
Freedom Rings Loudly in Ottawa,Canada and the Truckers.
Some Republicans care but not Ch.
Trump just embarrassed Republicans who pretended he wasn’t trying to overturn the election: analysis
Republicans who pretended Donald Trump did not have the intent of overturning the 2020 election were embarrassed on Sunday night when the former leader of the free world issued an official statement complaining that Mike Pence did not overturn the election, which was won by Joe Biden.
"Key members of the Republican Party have spent the better part of six years pretending Donald Trump wasn’t really doing that. This is often followed by Trump himself confirming that’s precisely what he was doing. Such is now the case with the plot to get Vice President Mike Pence to unilaterally overturn the 2020 election," Aaron Blake reported for The Washington Post. "Trump released a statement Sunday night asserting not only that Pence could have overturned the election himself, but that he should have."
Trump wrote, "Unfortunately, [Pence] didn’t exercise that power, he could have overturned the Election!"
Blake explained why Trump's admission is so damning for Republicans who tried to minimize his culpability in the Jan. 6 insurrection.
"This is precisely the thing Republicans and even Trump’s own lawyers have assured us wasn’t the real goal on Jan. 6 last year — or was even 'crazy' or, in Pence’s own words, 'un-American.' That’s despite plenty of evidence that it was indeed an option Trump pushed for, and now we have this confirmation," he wrote. "But more than anything, it renders Republican efforts to suggest this was anything other than an attempted self-coup rather silly. And it also renders any suggestions that he wouldn’t try this kind of thing again even sillier."
PM Truddy shit his panties.
"Trudeau accuses Canada truckers of ‘hate, abuse and racism’ as he tests positive for Covid."
Freedom Rings Loudly in Ottawa,Canada and the Truckers.
He went into hiding, coward all socialist are cowards.
His own words said that it was an Insurrection...
The historical parallels between the rise of Hitler and Donald Trump are very disturbing.
1 The mishandled withdrawal from Afghanistan is similar to the German defeat. Many people believe the United States look weaker.
So the first thing on the list was actually a mishandling by Biden (not Trump) and made the United States look weaker?
Interesting that when the bungling is done by Biden, that you still attribute it to Trump or somehow believe that the Biden failure is somehow making Trump more like "Hitler".
TDS!
Bidenomics Build Back Broker policies have failed Americans
January Dow down 4 %.
I've never heard anyone else label Hitler a liberal.
Google it... you will find over 20 million hits.
Not that you would ever research anything that doesn't come up on the Politicalwire feed.
But I guess it depends on how you view yourself. Are you for or against Government mandates, the Government telling you what you can do, what you cannot do, when you can go out, how you have to dress or if you have to wear a mask. If you can go somewhere without a vaccine passport, etc... etc...
There once was a time when it was considered conservative to follow the orders of the Government and liberal to stand up to the man and rebel. Back when it was conservatives who tried to force people to do things... fascism was probably fairly attributed as a far "right" belief.
But now that the tables are turned and it is liberalism that wants to follow and rely on the Government. Wants to take more out of the private sector and let the Government control more of our lives, then fascism has become far left.
Unless you want to argue that you believe that we should not listen to the Government, that the Government should have less say in our lives, and that people should be free to keep more of their money, business be free from Government regulation, etc, etc...
Then liberalism can be on the opposite side of fascism. But right now liberalism in 2022 is pretty much between a brother and cousin of Nazi fascism.
The Black community must be made to believe that they can have nothing, achieve nothing, and do nothing without the grace and mercy of the White Democrat demi-gods. Because of this plantation mentality, Black Americans who are unfortunate enough to fall under the control of the Democrat Party remain at the bottom of every socioeconomic statistic in the western world. Only the dregs at the bottom of the Black community, chosen by White Democrats to control the ghettos for them, have a chance at advancement.
It is a sad fact that for Black people to believe in White supremacy, they must also believe in Black inferiority. Biden’s insult is the true celebration of that relic from slavery; the artificial Democrat Party construct of “White Supremacy.” Why do I call it an artificial construct? Because as a Black American heir of Jesus Christ, it is impossible for me to be a victim, and no White man or any man can be superior to me. If a superior man does exist, please bring him to me, and we will put that theory to the test. Like leprechauns and ghosts, White Supremacy only exists in the minds of people that believe in it. Sadly, most Democrats believe in this fairy tale. To me, it is as silly as saying the Sun rises in the West.
I believe in brotherhood and fraternity, not the Democrat Party and a Communist concept of equality. I do not seek to be equal to anyone. To seek equality, I must compare myself to and compete with others. This exercise is futile and only exacerbates the Democrat Party practice of envy, jealousy, and hatred. I only compete with myself, never my fellow man. As Ernest Hemingway wrote, “There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.”
Because all these Black Democrats were not chosen on merit, none of the thousands of Black Democrat elected officials feel insulted or slighted at President Biden's plantation master talk toward them and the Black community. They are confused when others are insulted. They are not embarrassed that the president of the United States intentionally said to the world that he could not find one Black woman worthy of the Supreme Court based solely on merit. Black Democrats would have been upset had he said otherwise. To keep the Blacks from getting too uppity, it had to be acknowledged that this great office had to be “given” to her as an example of Biden’s grace and benevolence. Like children acknowledging the master’s supreme power and their inferiority, the self-proclaimed unworthy Black Democrat celebrates.
Let's be honest here:
This was all Roger:
The Black community must be made to believe that they can have nothing, achieve nothing, and do nothing without the grace and mercy of the White Democrat demi-gods. Because of this plantation mentality, Black Americans who are unfortunate enough to fall under the control of the Democrat Party remain at the bottom of every socioeconomic statistic in the western world. Only the dregs at the bottom of the Black community, chosen by White Democrats to control the ghettos for them, have a chance at advancement.
It is a sad fact that for Black people to believe in White supremacy, they must also believe in Black inferiority. Biden’s insult is the true celebration of that relic from slavery; the artificial Democrat Party construct of “White Supremacy.” Why do I call it an artificial construct? Because as a Black American heir of Jesus Christ, it is impossible for me to be a victim, and no White man or any man can be superior to me. If a superior man does exist, please bring him to me, and we will put that theory to the test. Like leprechauns and ghosts, White Supremacy only exists in the minds of people that believe in it. Sadly, most Democrats believe in this fairy tale. To me, it is as silly as saying the Sun rises in the West.
I believe in brotherhood and fraternity, not the Democrat Party and a Communist concept of equality. I do not seek to be equal to anyone. To seek equality, I must compare myself to and compete with others. This exercise is futile and only exacerbates the Democrat Party practice of envy, jealousy, and hatred. I only compete with myself, never my fellow man. As Ernest Hemingway wrote, “There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.”
Because all these Black Democrats were not chosen on merit, none of the thousands of Black Democrat elected officials feel insulted or slighted at President Biden's plantation master talk toward them and the Black community. They are confused when others are insulted. They are not embarrassed that the president of the United States intentionally said to the world that he could not find one Black woman worthy of the Supreme Court based solely on merit. Black Democrats would have been upset had he said otherwise. To keep the Blacks from getting too uppity, it had to be acknowledged that this great office had to be “given” to her as an example of Biden’s grace and benevolence. Like children acknowledging the master’s supreme power and their inferiority, the self-proclaimed unworthy Black Democrat celebrates.
I wonder why he believes this?
50% of Black voters Support Impeachment of.....
Biden.
Do you believe that the Government should label political opponents as domestic terrorists? Do you believe there should be a political double standard for prosecutions (with one side being allowed to commit violence while the other gets tossed in jail for carrying signs)? Do you believe that parents should be put on a list by the Gestapo (sorry FBI) for opposing a political indoctrination?
If you believe any of that... then you are Nazi!
Oh and the Nazis had plenty of excuses for their actions. They had leaders that made them believe that attacking other citizens and trying to stifle opposition beliefs was for the good of society. They believed that you should separate and put labels on people and convinced their faithful that this was all good. They made people follow odd Government regulations for the "common good" and the Germans fell for it.
Last time I checked Hitler was not out there campaigning on less Government control, more private sector jobs, and less interference from our State. He would have hated a guy like Trump who stands for everything Hitler opposed.
I've never heard anyone else label Hitler a liberal.
PM
Google Volkswagen you stupid fuck.
Margaret Sanger is one your hero’s you stupid old man
Any operation for the military or federal agents to seize voting equipment for political purposes would have been unprecedented in US history
Hitler did things like that
The new story shows that he would have reversed the election results.
Six weeks after Election Day, with his hold on power slipping, President Donald J. Trump directed his lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, to make a remarkable call. Mr. Trump wanted him to ask the Department of Homeland Security if it could legally take control of voting machines in key swing states,
Mr. Giuliani did so, calling the department’s acting deputy secretary, who said he lacked the authority to audit or impound the machines.
Mr. Trump pressed Mr. Giuliani to make that inquiry after rejecting a separate effort by his outside advisers to have the Pentagon take control of the machines. And the outreach to the Department of Homeland Security came not long after Mr. Trump, in an Oval Office meeting with Attorney General William P. Barr, raised the possibility of whether the Justice Department could seize the machines, a previously undisclosed suggestion that Mr. Barr immediately shot down.
The new accounts show that Mr. Trump was more directly involved than previously known in exploring proposals to use his national security agencies to seize voting machines as he grasped unsuccessfully for evidence of fraud that would help him reverse his defeat in the 2020 election.
But, people who won't change their minds, even when present with new information, like you, won't change your mind.
As the GOP nominee challenging Jimmy Carter in 1980, Ronald Reagan publicly promised -- weeks before the election -- that he would name a woman to the Supreme Court if given the chance.
"I am announcing today that one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can possibly find," Reagan said at an Oct. 15 news conference in Los Angeles. "It is time for a woman to sit among the highest jurists."
Reagan kept that promise by elevating Sandra Day O'Connor as his first high court nominee in 1981.
Over three-quarters of Americans (76%) in our new ABC/Ipsos poll want President Biden to consider "all possible nominees;" just 23% want him to deliver on his promise to name a qualified black woman to the bench.
Some of the disapproval of Biden's approach appears to stem from the public and political nature of his promise, made days before the South Carolina primary in 2020.
Recordings from the Lyndon Johnson White House reveal the president had a deliberate, but private, determination to make history with the appointment of the first Black justice.
While he didn't make a public pledge, Johnson's conversations make clear he saw the nomination of Thurgood Marshall as an extension of his civil rights agenda and a means of boosting other highly qualified African American leaders.
Decades later, George H.W. Bush never publicly pledged to replace retiring Justice Marshall with another Black jurist, but he reportedly was eager to preserve that representation on the court. He nominated Clarence Thomas in 1991.
PHOTO: Judge Clarence Thomas is sworn as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court by Justice Bryon White on the White House South Lawn. (Mark Reinstein/Getty Images, FILE)
Dwight Eisenhower expressly sought to appoint a Catholic to the seat of retiring Justice Sherman Minton in 1956. While seven of the nine justices today are Catholic, at that time the court had none. Eisenhower ultimately named William Brennan, a Catholic, to the bench. The late justice told Irish America magazine in 1990: "I have seen the record that President Eisenhower, when this vacancy arose, gave instructions to the Attorney General that he would like consideration of a Catholic."
PHOTO: President Eisenhower, left, shakes the hand of Judge William J. Brennan Jr. in his White House office on Sept. 29, 1956. (AP, FILE)
For his third Supreme Court appointment, Reagan reportedly specifically sought out an Italian American candidate, hoping to make history by tapping the first nominee from such a background.
"He felt that it would be great to put an Italian-American on the Supreme Court," former Reagan White House counsel Peter Wallison told the UVA Miller Center in 2003, according to PolitiFact. "Reagan had asked me whether [Antonin] Scalia was of Italian extraction," Walliston said. "I think he used the word 'extraction,' and I said, 'Yes, he's of Italian extraction.' Reagan said, 'That's the man I want to nominate, so I want to meet him.'"
PHOTO: President Reagan announces the retirement of Chief Justice Warren Burger at a White House news briefing. (Bettmann Archive/Getty Images, FILE)
Of the 115 Supreme Court justices to serve since 1789, only two have been black men (Marshall and Thomas); one has been Latina (Sonia Sotomayor); and five have been women (O'Connor, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Barrett and Elena Kagan), according to data compiled by the Federal Judicial Center.
Post a Comment