https://babylonbee.com/news/biden-promises-to-replace-retiring-quarterback-tom-brady-with-a-woman-of-color

There have only been 2 black Supreme Court justices in the 232 year history of the court. Both men.

Only 5 women have served on the Supreme Court (also a disgrace) & none of them have been black.

Structural racism writ large.

Unless you believe no black woman has ever been qualified for the job.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There's a $&@%ing surprise, Pete with no sense of humor.

Saw this yesterday and got a kick out of it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think he has more funnies than most people in this pit.

Stay Ahead of the Censors
Big Tech is suppressing conservative voices. Sign up for our free newsletter so you'll keep getting our content, no matter what.
Your Email
Sign Up
Fake news you can trust, delivered straight to your inbox.

conservative Christian news satire another group fleecing the base

Jim dont forget to buy your copy of the Babylon Bee Guide to Wokeness 19.99 or a site Fav Let's Go Brandon! T-Shirt
Regular price 27.99 or I Identify As Vaccinated T-Shirt for 27.99

love the caption Tired of getting asked to show your vaccination card to go to concerts, ball games, or exotic vacation destinations? Show the powers that be your shirt officially declaring your personal identity is "Vaccinated." They can't argue with science!



Just how I expected.. where and How you get your outrages from..

the Black woman thing really bothers you and other conservatives even Christians Funny how that works


A very selective effort of conservatives to cast Biden’s Supreme Court pick as an affirmative action hire And Jim your carrying the water again like a good foot soldier

Yet Again Affirmative action is just another trigger world to support 49% of the US population whites Suggesting victimHood oppression at the hands of 13% of Black Americans . whom can never be qualified or the best for the Job in the eyes of conservatives unless
that person Identifies with an R next to their names then everything is Aok

or if your wifes white she gets a pass

Ginni Thomas, Wife of Clarence, Cheered On the Rally That Turned Into the Capitol Riot
“GOD BLESS EACH OF YOU STANDING UP or PRAYING!”

or

Ginni Thomas’s name stood out among the signatories of a December letter from conservative leaders, which blasted the work of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection as “overtly partisan political persecution.”

Here Husband being a SCJ no big deal :lama:

There's a $&@%ing surprise, Pete with no sense of humor.

Saw this yesterday and got a kick out of it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

whats Sad is you think Jim posted it because it was Funny :laugha:

There's a $&@%ing surprise, Pete with no sense of humor.

Saw this yesterday and got a kick out of it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

liberalism requires that liberals surrender the ability to laugh at themselves.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There have only been 2 black Supreme Court justices in the 232 year history of the court. Both men.

Only 5 women have served on the Supreme Court (also a disgrace) & none of them have been black.

Structural racism writ large.

Unless you believe no black woman has ever been qualified for the job.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


pete, tell me which part of this you don’t understand…

i believe that for a job that important, you go with THE most qualified candidate. regardless of skin color or presence of a wee wee.

i’m sure there are black women who’d do fine. but if there’s a white man who’d do better, i want him.

if the best candidate is a native american, non binary, non cis, asexual or pan sexual, pick he/she/they/them.

but i see zero value in passing over the best candidate, for the sake of appearances

you disagree. fine. but don’t claim
my view is racist. i’m ignoring race, you’re the one denying opportunity for race. that’s the definition of racism.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Stay Ahead of the Censors
Big Tech is suppressing conservative voices. Sign up for our free newsletter so you'll keep getting our content, no matter what.
Your Email
Sign Up
Fake news you can trust, delivered straight to your inbox.

conservative Christian news satire another group fleecing the base

Jim dont forget to buy your copy of the Babylon Bee Guide to Wokeness 19.99 or a site Fav Let's Go Brandon! T-Shirt
Regular price 27.99 or I Identify As Vaccinated T-Shirt for 27.99

love the caption Tired of getting asked to show your vaccination card to go to concerts, ball games, or exotic vacation destinations? Show the powers that be your shirt officially declaring your personal identity is "Vaccinated." They can't argue with science!



Just how I expected.. where and How you get your outrages from..

the Black woman thing really bothers you and other conservatives even Christians Funny how that works


A very selective effort of conservatives to cast Biden’s Supreme Court pick as an affirmative action hire And Jim your carrying the water again like a good foot soldier

Yet Again Affirmative action is just another trigger world to support 49% of the US population whites Suggesting victimHood oppression at the hands of 13% of Black Americans . whom can never be qualified or the best for the Job in the eyes of conservatives unless
that person Identifies with an R next to their names then everything is Aok

or if your wifes white she gets a pass

Ginni Thomas, Wife of Clarence, Cheered On the Rally That Turned Into the Capitol Riot
“GOD BLESS EACH OF YOU STANDING UP or PRAYING!”

or

Ginni Thomas’s name stood out among the signatories of a December letter from conservative leaders, which blasted the work of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection as “overtly partisan political persecution.”

Here Husband being a SCJ no big deal :lama:

you can’t grasp the simplest thing. maybe that’s what comes from a lifetime of avoiding meaningful time in the private sector, i don’t know. i do know, that your inability to be logical, is staggering.

i never mentioned affirmative action. maybe his pick will be phenomenal. but it’s stupid to set racial
and gender limits, before you know if and when you’ll have a vacancy to fill.

WHAT IF the ten most qualified candidates, don’t include any black women? What if that’s the case? I’m not saying it is the case, but it could be.

it’s your side who believes that black women can’t compete on a level playing field, and therefore certain spots have to be reserved for them. it’s your side who believes that black women can’t prevail if there’s fair competition for the job.

There’s a term for that. it’s called “the soft bigotry of low expectations”.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

whats Sad is you think Jim posted it because it was Funny :laugha:

wrong again. shocker.

i posted it because it’s funny, and to be honest, because it was funny at your expense. i also knew for a certain, that the humor and intent would go sailing right over your head. you completely missed it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pete, tell me which part of this you don’t understand…

i believe that for a job that important, you go with THE most qualified candidate. regardless of skin color or presence of a wee wee.

i’m sure there are black women who’d do fine. but if there’s a white man who’d do better, i want him.

if the best candidate is a native american, non binary, non cis, asexual or pan sexual, pick he/she/they/them.

but i see zero value in passing over the best candidate, for the sake of appearances

you disagree. fine. but don’t claim
my view is racist. i’m ignoring race, you’re the one denying opportunity for race. that’s the definition of racism.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm sure you said the same thing when Reagan said he would pick a woman.

pete, tell me which part of this you don’t understand…

i believe that for a job that important, you go with THE most qualified candidate. regardless of skin color or presence of a wee wee.

i’m sure there are black women who’d do fine. but if there’s a white man who’d do better, i want him.

if the best candidate is a native american, non binary, non cis, asexual or pan sexual, pick he/she/they/them.

but i see zero value in passing over the best candidate, for the sake of appearances

you disagree. fine. but don’t claim
my view is racist. i’m ignoring race, you’re the one denying opportunity for race. that’s the definition of racism.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If that’s your argument make the case for Kavanaugh and Barrett being the “most” qualified people.
All of the rumored black women have far more impressive qualifications than either of those.
But they’re not white as all but two of the Justices have been to date.

Biden announced he'd nominate a Black woman to SCOTUS and the white wing is losing their #^&#^&#^&#^&. For centuries there was no announcement that the nominee would be a white man b/c it was assumed. That's how racial ideology works; it passes as uncontroversial & natural landscape.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let's not forget Trump said the same thing after the death of Ginsburg. He said he would name a woman to succeed her before he had chosen a nominee.

Biden announced he'd nominate a Black woman to SCOTUS and the white wing is losing their #^&#^&#^&#^&.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"white wing" must be pretty big....

A new ABC News/ Ipsos poll found that 76 percent of Americans want Biden to consider “all possible nominees,” while only 23 percent want him to automatically follow through on his promise to nominate a black woman.

I'm sure you said the same thing when Reagan said he would pick a woman.

Let's not forget Trump said the same thing after the death of Ginsburg. He said he would name a woman to succeed her before he had chosen a nominee.

you are ignoring the race part, which is weird because that is usually your obsession....

seems like Reagan and Trump are not racists and not even sexits and Brandon is :kewl:

you can’t grasp the simplest thing. maybe that’s what comes from a lifetime of avoiding meaningful time in the private sector, i don’t know. i do know, that your inability to be logical, is staggering.

i never mentioned affirmative action. maybe his pick will be phenomenal. but it’s stupid to set racial
and gender limits, before you know if and when you’ll have a vacancy to fill.

WHAT IF the ten most qualified candidates, don’t include any black women? What if that’s the case? I’m not saying it is the case, but it could be.

it’s your side who believes that black women can’t compete on a level playing field, and therefore certain spots have to be reserved for them. it’s your side who believes that black women can’t prevail if there’s fair competition for the job.

There’s a term for that. it’s called “the soft bigotry of low expectations”.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i never mentioned affirmative action.

Playing dumb again?

You didn’t have to

Your intention it’s perfectly clear to anyone who’s read any of your posts..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm sure you said the same thing when Reagan said he would pick a woman.

i was a tad young so no, not at the time.

whet do you think my response will be to reagan and teump doing it?

(1) it’s just as stupid as biden doing it?

or

(2) it’s ok when republicans do it?

the answer, obviously, is (1). i’m not a naked hypocrite paul. that’s you guys, not me.

i think it was brilliant, politically, for trump to pick a woman because it put the democrats in an impossible situation.

Barrett was also clearly brilliant and qualified, and Trump knew that ( knew her) when he said he’s luck a woman. we all knew, for many reasons, it was going to be Barrett.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wrong again. shocker.

i posted it because it’s funny, and to be honest, because it was funny at your expense. i also knew for a certain, that the humor and intent would go sailing right over your head. you completely missed it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Sorry Jim your not very good at hiding how you feel. then suggesting Its conservatives humor

There’s no such thing your only fooling yourself

Ps there’s a good chance Brady will be replaced by a black just a women
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i was a tad young so no, not at the time.

whet do you think my response will be to reagan and teump doing it?

(1) it’s just as stupid as biden doing it?

or

(2) it’s ok when republicans do it?

the answer, obviously, is (1). i’m not a naked hypocrite paul. that’s you guys, not me.

i think it was brilliant, politically, for trump to pick a woman because it put the democrats in an impossible situation.

Barrett was also clearly brilliant and qualified, and Trump knew that ( knew her) when he said he’s luck a woman. we all knew, for many reasons, it was going to be Barrett.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Barrett was also clearly brilliant


Really please tell
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i never mentioned affirmative action.

Playing dumb again?

You didn’t have to

Your intention it’s perfectly clear to anyone who’s read any of your posts..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

my intention is clear to anyone with a speck of comprehension. yet you completely miss it again and again.

you want to make these picks based on race and gender. i want to pick the best candidate regardless of race and gender.

you want to exclude
many candidates based in their race and gender. i’d prefer to consider everybody, regardless of race and gender?

who does that make the bigot?

by the way harvard has decided they have enough asians and are raising the admission requirements specifically for them. is that discrimination?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

can't wait to see what brandon #ucks up next :scream:

my intention is clear to anyone with a speck of comprehension. yet you completely miss it again and again.

you want to make these picks based on race and gender. i want to pick the best candidate regardless of race and gender.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But it seems like you had no problem when both Reagan and Trump said they would nominate a woman while you don't like that Biden said he would nominate a Black woman. Hmm, I can't put my finger on the difference.

But it seems like you had no problem when both Reagan and Trump said they would nominate a woman while you don't like that Biden said he would nominate a Black woman. Hmm, I can't put my finger on the difference.

Reagan and Trump didn't exclude other minorities...

Barrett was also clearly brilliant


Really please tell
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

got through days of questioning, often without having to take notes. Dianne Feinstein, who single handedly led the with hunt against Kavanaugh, was repeatedly impressed by her.

Got a full scholarship to Notre Dame law and taught there. Has taught at ND and at University of Virginia, which is a great school.

Character? She adopted two children from Haiti, and is raising a kid with Downs, we all know what your side does to those kids.

Unlike Sotomayor, Barrett doesn't have a history of getting unanimously overturned by higher courts, nor has Barrettt ever said that judges of her race and gender make better judges (which is what Sotomayor once claimed).

I notice you avoided “I like beer”

Choosing a black woman to sit on the Supreme Court isn't racist. Choosing white men 110 times out of 115 to be Justices is racist. And sexist.

As RGB said when asked how many women should there be on the Supreme Court
“When there are nine”
Nobody ever questioned it when there were nine men on the court.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Choosing a black woman to sit on the Supreme Court isn't racist.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it's is when you announce publicly that you won't even be considering other races...

"white wing" must be pretty big....

A new ABC News/ Ipsos poll found that 76 percent of Americans want Biden to consider “all possible nominees,” while only 23 percent want him to automatically follow through on his promise to nominate a black woman.

Bunch of white wingers...

But it seems like you had no problem when both Reagan and Trump said they would nominate a woman while you don't like that Biden said he would nominate a Black woman. Hmm, I can't put my finger on the difference.

I've said multiple times, it was stupid for Trump and Reagan to announce ahead of time they'd exclude ANYBODY based on race or gender. Fair enough? Maybe get the facts before you make demonstrably false and stupid assumptions.

I'm not a naked hypocrite Paul, I have principles that you don't agree with, but I apply them to both sides.

Choosing a black woman to sit on the Supreme Court isn't racist.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You tell me what's wrong with the following sentence...

Refusing to consider whites, asians, hispanics, and native americans based solely on their race, is racist. It's the exact textbook definition of racist.

Limiting the choice to a black woman isn't racist against blacks. It's racist against everyone else. Two things can be true at once, and in this case, those two things are true.

Choosing someone JUST because of their race or sex is racist/sexist. Choosing an outstanding candidate who also happens to be those is not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity.

that's fine for conservatives as long as you leave out Black because they think that's not possible ... as if Clarence Thomas was the best choice in his Day

got through days of questioning, often without having to take notes. WOW so that qualifies you to be a SCJ Dianne Feinstein, who single handedly led the with hunt against Kavanaugh, was repeatedly impressed by her.

Got a full scholarship to Notre Dame law and taught there. Has taught at ND and at University of Virginia, which is a great school. Sotomayor entered Princeton University on a full scholarship do you have a point


Character? She adopted two children from Haiti, and is raising a kid with Downs, we all know what your side does to those kids. has nothing to do with her qualifications

Unlike Sotomayor, Barrett doesn't have a history of getting unanimously overturned by higher courts, nor has Barrettt ever said that judges of her race and gender make better judges (which is what Sotomayor once claimed). jim again do you do any research or are just a parrot Over her ten years on the Second Circuit, Sotomayor heard appeals in more than 3,000 cases and wrote about 380 opinions when she was in the majority.[13] The Supreme Court reviewed five of those, reversing three and affirming two[13]—not high numbers for an appellate judge of that many years[18] and a typical percentage of reversals.[113]


2 years On the Seventh Circuit, Barrett wrote 79 majority opinions

Barrett is a 48-year-old federal appeals court judge favored by social conservatives and the religious right.

But Jim wants us to think Trump picked her because she was the best for the Job :rotflmao:

I've said multiple times, it was stupid for Trump and Reagan to announce ahead of time they'd exclude ANYBODY based on race or gender. Fair enough? Maybe get the facts before you make demonstrably false and stupid assumptions. Go f yourself you angry dic k :bshake:

I'm not a naked hypocrite Paul, I have principles that you don't agree with, but I apply them to both sides.No you don't.
Where is your thread crying about Reagan and Trump announcing it is wrong for them to consider only woman?

You don't have prinicples bc you didn't start a thread about Trump's saying the same thing that Biden did. Instead you got your panties in a bunch bc you saw that the faux news is crying about what Biden said.

You don't have prinicples bc you didn't start a thread about Trump's saying the same thing that Biden did. Instead you got your panties in a bunch bc you saw that the faux news is crying about what Biden said.

i said again and again and again, that’s it’s exactly as wrong when either side does it. then you act like i give the gop a free pass. don’t blame me for feeling foolish when i called you out for being as wrong as you could possibly be.

yes i’m the angry one. obviously. n. read your post again and tell
me how I’m angrier than you are?

you’re right i didn’t start a post when Trump did it. i’m so sorry. And the thread i started here, was a j-o-k-e. A harmless joke. and it broke your brain a little. because criticism of the left isnt allowed.

Politically, his is a smart move for Biden and the dems. But don’t tell
me it’s not discrimination.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i said again and again and again, that’s it’s exactly as wrong when either side does it. then you act like i give the gop a free pass. don’t blame me for feeling foolish when i called you out for being as wrong as you could possibly be. Again, where is the thread?

yes i’m the angry one. obviously. n. read your post again and tell
me how I’m angrier than you are? I just fire back at your usual classless comments

you’re right i didn’t start a post when Trump did it. i’m so sorry. And the thread i started here, was a j-o-k-e. A harmless joke. and it broke your brain a little. because criticism of the left isnt allowed.

Politically, his is a smart move for Biden and the dems. But don’t tell
me it’s not discrimination.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
It is no more discrimination that what Trump or Reagan did. There are multiple people who are qualified for the SC and blacks (and woman) are/were shut out for too long.

2 years On the Seventh Circuit, Barrett wrote 79 majority opinions

Barrett is a 48-year-old federal appeals court judge favored by social conservatives and the religious right.

But Jim wants us to think Trump picked her because she was the best for the Job :rotflmao:

How many of Barrett's 79 majority opinions, were overturned by a higher court? That's a sincere question...

Sotomayor has repeatedly been overturned by the Supreme Court, when she was a lower justice. Once, she was overturned unanimously. That means everyone from Scalia to Ginsburg, and everyone in between, said she was wrong on the law. Which kind of means she wasn't great at being a lower court judge, doesn't it?.

Sotomayor also said that female hispanics make better judges than anyone else. That's what she said.

Oh, there were sleazy reasons why Trump picked Barrett. He knew a woman would drive the liberals bonkers and when they attacked her, it would show the world that they don't really care about women like they claim they do.

It is no more discrimination that what Trump or Reagan did. There are multiple people who are qualified for the SC and blacks (and woman) are/were shut out for too long.

"It is no more discrimination that what Trump or Reagan did. "

I agree.

Originally Posted by PaulS

"It is no more discrimination that what Trump or Reagan did. "



I agree.


all three said they would be choosing a woman...only one specified that he'd be choosing based on skin tone...that is more discrimination

to be fair...it is perfectly within character for Brandon to be seen pandering to racial groups playing identity politics and succeeding in making a complete ass out of himself by sounding incredibly patronizing and often quite racist.....

Still waiting for the rationale on the supreme qualifications of Kavanaugh
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Still waiting for the rationale on the supreme qualifications of Kavanaugh
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

well, as a lower court judge, kavanaugh had 13 opinions get reviewed by SCOTUS, they affirmed 12 and reversed 1.

Sotomayor had 5 opinions get reviewed and 2 got overturned, one unanimously.

What does that suggest, Pete?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

well, as a lower court judge, kavanaugh had 13 opinions get reviewed by SCOTUS, they affirmed 12 and reversed 1.

Sotomayor had 5 opinions get reviewed and 2 got overturned, one unanimously.

What does that suggest, Pete?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Washington (CNN)Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor made a significant false claim on Friday about Covid-19's impact on children.

I bet Kavanaugh rolled his eyes when she said this :jester:

Washington (CNN)Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor made a significant false claim on Friday about Covid-19's impact on children.

I bet Kavanaugh rolled his eyes when she said this :jester:

She also famously said this about judges of different gender and race...

"a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

She said that white men have inferior life experiences compared to female Latinas. Saying something that bigoted, would get you instantly banned from jury duty. But apparently it doesn't preclude you from being on the Supreme Court for life.

well, as a lower court judge, kavanaugh had 13 opinions get reviewed by SCOTUS, they affirmed 12 and reversed 1.

Sotomayor had 5 opinions get reviewed and 2 got overturned, one unanimously.

What does that suggest, Pete?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim leaves out she ruled on over 300 cases but Amy 75 overall

Brett at least did 12 years on the bench
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She also famously said this about judges of different gender and race...

"a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

She said that white men have inferior life experiences compared to female Latinas. Saying something that bigoted, would get you instantly banned from jury duty. But apparently it doesn't preclude you from being on the Supreme Court for life.



Again Jim post this again with no context

a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life


white male who hasn't lived that life

Not sure Jim how you twisted that comment to be bigoted

Oh wait I do she called out bias
And that triggered your white victimhood

How dare a person of color speak the Truth
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again Jim post this again with no context


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

here's all the context you need wayne...

"Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor backed away from a now-famous quotation from one of her speeches, saying her comment about a “wise Latina” judge had fallen flat, and was “a bad idea.”

The statement was made in contrast to a familiar quote from former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor who often said that she did not view herself as a female jurist. Instead, she said that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same result as judges."

Again Jim post this again with no context

a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life


white male who hasn't lived that life

Not sure Jim how you twisted that comment to be bigoted

Oh wait I do she called out bias
And that triggered your white victimhood

How dare a person of color speak the Truth
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you posted the same exact quote I did, with no additional context. None.

And i’m not sure how anyone can pretend that’s not textbook bigotry.

she said explicitly, that being hispanic and female allows one to acquire more wisdom than a white man can acquire. Because our experience is inferior.

I notice being a female latina ( and all the inherent wisdom contained therein) didn’t prevent her from making a fool of herself when she said there were many more kids hospitalized with covid than actually are.

Nor did all that wisdom prevent her from being unanimously overturned by SCOTUS when she was a lower judge.

When Ginsberg and Scalia and everyone in between says you were wrong in the law, that means you were really wrong. Doesn’t it?

She’s not bigoted! She just thinks female Latinas are more wise than white men. That’s not bigoted at all!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you posted the same exact quote I did, with no additional context. None.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it was brilliant...really...:claps:

it was brilliant...really...:claps:

did i miss the additional context?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

did i miss the additional context?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i'm sure he'll think of something :rotf2:

here's all the context you need wayne...

"Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor backed away from a now-famous quotation from one of her speeches, saying her comment about a “wise Latina” judge had fallen flat, and was “a bad idea.”

The statement was made in contrast to a familiar quote from former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor who often said that she did not view herself as a female jurist. Instead, she said that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same result as judges."

Yes if those 2 wise people had the same experience in life

That would be a true statement
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you posted the same exact quote I did, with no additional context. None.

And i’m not sure how anyone can pretend that’s not textbook bigotry.

she said explicitly, that being hispanic and female allows one to acquire more wisdom than a white man can acquire. Because our experience is inferior.

I notice being a female latina ( and all the inherent wisdom contained therein) didn’t prevent her from making a fool of herself when she said there were many more kids hospitalized with covid than actually are.

Nor did all that wisdom prevent her from being unanimously overturned by SCOTUS when she was a lower judge.

When Ginsberg and Scalia and everyone in between says you were wrong in the law, that means you were really wrong. Doesn’t it?

She’s not bigoted! She just thinks female Latinas are more wise than white men. That’s not bigoted at all!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Now it’s my job to make your case?

Again your just upset a brown person called out Bias

Basically saying Try walking in my shoes before YOU Aka WHITE DUDE . Tells me how easy it was or how I should have walked

The line was almost identical every time:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."

That sentence, or a similar one, has appeared in speeches Sotomayor delivered in 1994, 1999, 2002, 2004 and 2001. In that speech, she included the phrase "than a white male who hasn't lived that life" at the end, which sparked cries of racism from some Republicans.


Look at that what a shocker cries of racism from some Republicans

How that for context Jim and Scott

You 2 are like a moths to the flame
parroting Republicans talking point wash rinse and repeat
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes if those 2 wise people had the same experience in life


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you love to write things that nobody ever said or implied or would... and then act self-satisfied for doing so, as if you've made some point

you love to write things that nobody ever said or implied or would... and then act self-satisfied for doing so, as if you've made some point

I know right your commentary here is always informative LOL
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I know right your commentary here is always informative LOL
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

we still love you...

Now it’s my job to make your case?

Again your just upset a brown person called out Bias

Basically saying Try walking in my shoes before YOU Aka WHITE DUDE . Tells me how easy it was or how I should have walked

The line was almost identical every time:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."

That sentence, or a similar one, has appeared in speeches Sotomayor delivered in 1994, 1999, 2002, 2004 and 2001. In that speech, she included the phrase "than a white male who hasn't lived that life" at the end, which sparked cries of racism from some Republicans.


Look at that what a shocker cries of racism from some Republicans

How that for context Jim and Scott

You 2 are like a moths to the flame
parroting Republicans talking point wash rinse and repeat
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Now it’s my job to make your case?"

Huh?

No. But if you say I took it out of context, you should provide the correct context. You didn't.

What bias did she call out? She said female Latinas have a superior life experience compared to us male gringos.

It's textbook bigotry.

The bias is hers.

"Basically saying Try walking in my shoes before YOU Aka WHITE DUDE . Tells me how easy it was or how I should have walked "

That's not within a million miles of what she said. She said her experience generates more wisdom that that of a white man.

You completely changed what she said, to make it more benign. I have no problem with what you said. But that's nowhere near what she said.

Sotomayor said female latinas are superior to white men. How did you hear, "don't judge me unless you've walked a mile in my shoes"?

She didn't say female latinas are different. She said they're better.

Look at that what a shocker cries of racism from some Republicans

How that for context Jim and Scott


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's not context, it's wayne's racist Tourette's

Basically saying Try walking in my shoes before YOU Aka WHITE DUDE . Tells me how easy it was or how I should have walked


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


?....who told her how easy it was and how she should have walked?

The line was almost identical every time:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."

That sentence, or a similar one, has appeared in speeches Sotomayor delivered in 1994, 1999, 2002, 2004 and 2001. In that speech, she included the phrase "than a white male who hasn't lived that life" at the end, which sparked cries of racism from some Republicans.



Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so you are admitting that she said it repeatedly but then backed away from it when she was a supreme court nominee and said it was “a bad idea”

Jim leaves out she ruled on over 300 cases but Amy 75 overall

Brett at least did 12 years on the bench
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's worth noting, sure.

How many times was Barrett overturned, unanimously, on appeal?

How many times did Barrett say that her race and gender result in more wisdom than any other race or gender?

Ummm...Sotomayor's race is Caucasian, she may not be Western European Caucasian, but she is Caucasian

Her ethnicity is Hispanic, but she is a cracker
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ummm...Sotomayor's race is Caucasian, she may not be Western European Caucasian, but she is Caucasian

Her ethnicity is Hispanic, but she is a cracker
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wow
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wow
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What's wow about it, 80% of Puerto Rico is white. She is Puerto Rican.

Are Italians POC's, are Greeks POC's, are Turks POC's? They are darker skinned than Western Europe, but they are still Caucasian by race.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://welcome.topuertorico.org/fastfacts.shtml

Ethnic composition: white (mostly Spanish origin) 80.5%, black 8%, Amerindian 0.4%, Asian 0.2%, mixed and other 10.9%.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you sure she isn’t Honkey and not Cracker?

Are you sure she isn’t Honkey and not Cracker?

That is so 70's
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Biden should have just asked the federalist society to draw up a list and picked from that.

Biden should have just asked the federalist society to draw up a list and picked from that.

and regardless of who Biden picks ( which won’t change the political
makeup of the court so who really cares), maybe the gop can drag some broken person out to say they were raped by the nominee.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Biden should have just asked the federalist society to draw up a list and picked from that.

well, since we know women can have penises and democrats like to dress in black face...there are a lot of possibilities:uhuh:

You guys have now risen to a new level of stupidity.:jump:

and regardless of who Biden picks ( which won’t change the political
makeup of the court so who really cares), maybe the gop can drag some broken person out to say they were raped by the nominee.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Shows the hypocrisy of the R.

Yes, let's investigate - but do a real investigation.

I think if Jim wrote "I had an omelette for breakfast"

paul would respond

"Shows the hypocrisy of the R."

Shows the hypocrisy of the R.

Yes, let's investigate - but do a real investigation.

it’s “hypocrisy” if the gop exactly replicates the democrats tactics. i see.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Shows the hypocrisy of the R.

Yes, let's investigate - but do a real investigation.

There was an allegation against Kavanaugh, and also against Biden. Should we investigate both? or only investigate allegations against republicans?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it’s “hypocrisy” if the gop exactly replicates the democrats tactics. i see.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So somehow Biden announced this before Trump kissed the federalists societies butt and promised to pick someone from the list they produced or before Reagan said he would hire a woman:fishslap:

There was an allegation against Kavanaugh, and also against Biden. Should we investigate both? or only investigate allegations against republicans?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Shows the hypocrisy of the R.

Yes, let's investigate - but do a real investigation.

I'm guessing you missed my response otherwise why ask about investigating both?

Hard to investigate a President but if the SC nominee has credible claims against them then by all means investigate - and as I said a "but do a real investigation" not the shame the Rs did with Kavanaugh

I'm guessing you missed my response otherwise why ask about investigating both?

Hard to investigate a President but if the SC nominee has credible claims against them then by all means investigate - and as I said a "but do a real investigation" not the shame the Rs did with Kavanaugh

“credible”. yup. a very broken person making politically convenient, yet unbelievably vague allegations with massive holes in it.

Why did Feinstein wait until
the very end of Kavanaugh’s first round of hearings, to break the story? She had the allegation all along. Other than for political drama and political impact, what possible reason was there for her to sit on it for a week?

i don’t know when the rape happened, i do t know where it happened, i never told
anyone about it, i don’t know how i got home, can’t name a single
other person who was at the party, but i know who did it.

reeks of credibility.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“credible”. yup. a very broken person making politically convenient, yet unbelievably vague allegations with massive holes in it.

Why did Feinstein wait until
the very end of Kavanaugh’s first round of hearings, to break the story? She had the allegation all along. Other than for political drama and political impact, what possible reason was there for her to sit on it for a week?

i don’t know when the rape happened, i do t know where it happened, i never told
anyone about it, i don’t know how i got home, can’t name a single
other person who was at the party, but i know who did it.

reeks of credibility.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Should have been easy to disprove then - right? There were lots of witness' who were never interviewed or contacted after they contacted the FBI to say they had info.

So back to your other post

it’s “hypocrisy” if the gop exactly replicates the democrats tactics. i see.

What exact tactics did the Ds do that the Rs "replicated" since it seems like the Rs have a long history of limiting who should be considered for the SC but when the Ds do it the Rs get their panties all in a bunch?

Should have been easy to disprove then - right? There were lots of witness' who were never interviewed or contacted after they contacted the FBI to say they had info.

So back to your other post

it’s “hypocrisy” if the gop exactly replicates the democrats tactics. i see.

What exact tactics did the Ds do that the Rs "replicated" since it seems like the Rs have a long history of limiting who should be considered for the SC but when the Ds do it the Rs get their panties all in a bunch?

"Should have been easy to disprove then - right?"

No, in fact. Almost impossible to disprove. How does Kavanaugh prove that he didn't rape her in a room at someone's house, 35 years ago?

It was an asinine allegation. The one against Boden, at least, was brought by someone who told people back when it happened, that she was raped by a US Senator. That's waaaay more credibility than Ford had.

I feel sorry for her, don't want anything bad to happen to her. But her story is a joke.

"What exact tactics did the Ds do that the Rs "replicated""

I said that the GOP should claim that Bidens nominee raped someone 35 years ago. That would be replicating the lefts tactics.

"Should have been easy to disprove then - right?"

No, in fact. Almost impossible to disprove. How does Kavanaugh prove that he didn't rape her in a room at someone's house, 35 years ago?

It was an asinine allegation. The one against Boden, at least, was brought by someone who told people back when it happened, that she was raped by a US Senator. That's waaaay more credibility than Ford had.

I feel sorry for her, don't want anything bad to happen to her. But her story is a joke.

"What exact tactics did the Ds do that the Rs "replicated""

I said that the GOP should claim that Bidens nominee raped someone 35 years ago. That would be replicating the lefts tactics.

Ford's therapists notes backed her story. Ford passed a polygraph administered by a former FBI agent and while not admissible in court law enforcement uses them. She did not want to go public.

So you have nothing. I demonstrated the R's hypocrisy in picking of SC justices and you have nothing.

Ford's therapists notes backed her story. Ford passed a polygraph administered by a former FBI agent and while not admissible in court law enforcement uses them. She did not want to go public.

So you have nothing. I demonstrated the R's hypocrisy in picking of SC justices and you have nothing.

it’s all just a coincidence that after decades, the story broke when it did.

gimme a break.

“so you have nothing.”.

i have everything. The Kavanaugh allegation was dismissed and he’s on that court for life, and no sane person thinks he’s a serial rapist. I have everything.

your side assumed
kavanaugh was guilty and won’t consider that Biden might be guilty. that’s hypocrisy too.

he has daughters and he coached their basketball teams, and not a whisper about anything improper.

But Bill Clinton is a hero on the left. An absolute hero.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it’s all just a coincidence that after decades, the story broke when it did.
You do understand he was being nominated for the USSC right.
gimme a break.

i have everything. The Kavanaugh allegation was dismissed and he’s on that court for life, and no sane person thinks he’s a serial rapist. I have everything.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, you don't have anything. The thread is about the R's hypocrisy in crying about Biden saying he will nominate a Black woman yet have a history of doing basically the same thing.

No, you don't have anything. The thread is about the R's hypocrisy in crying about Biden saying he will nominate a Black woman yet have a history of doing basically the same thing.

yes i understand he was nominated. that’s all this was, a desperate attempt from your side to stop his confirmation. it didn’t work, and the country saw it for exactly what it was.

When trump
said he was nominating a woman, they had already decided that Barrett was next up. When Biden made that promise years ago, he had no one in mind because he had no way of knowing when there’s be a vacancy. he was trying to appease Congressman Clayburn to help him win the SC primary.

but i agree, there’s gop hypocrisy in being ok when republicans say it and attacking biden.

if biden knew who he wanted when he made that promise, i’m ok with it. making that promise so speculatively, is stupid.

it’s a smart political move for him. he’ll get a much needed bounce
from it.


there’s also hypocrisy in the left, for believing a crazy allegation against a republican, but dismissing a less flimsy allegation against Biden.

Paul, there's also blatant hypocrisy on the right when it comes to spending, they didn't say anything when Trump added trillions to the debt, then they go berserk when Biden does it.

Plenty of unethical behavior on all sides, sadly.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but i agree, there’s gop hypocrisy in being ok when republicans say it and attacking biden.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is all that needs to be said.

A majority of voters back President Joe Biden's intention to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court, according to a Morning Consult/Politico poll released on Wednesday.

A full 51% of those surveyed said they support the president’s vow to nominate the first Black woman to be a Supreme Court justice, with 23% saying they had no opinion, and 28% saying they opposed the plan to some degree.:wavey:

A majority of voters back President Joe Biden's intention to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court, according to a Morning Consult/Politico poll released on Wednesday.



oh there ya go...cherry pick a favorable biased poll :rotf2:

A full 51% of those surveyed said they support the president’s vow to nominate the first Black

a "full" 51%

that's pretty funny