Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
So 47 democrats voted against the black nominee then, the exact same number as the 47 republicans who opposed Jackson this week. Sounds to me like the democrats were as racist then, than the GOP is now.
So unless the vote totals are identical. it's a "false equivalence". If one event took place on a Monday and the other on a Tuesday, you'll say "false equivalence". You find some meaningless detail that's different, then say they aren't comparable.
Lindsay Graham voted for both of Obama's nominees. Last time I checked, he voted to conform every single Biden federal judge nominee, until Jackson. So he's not a racist, not someone who refuses to ever support a democrat nominee. He voted for Sotomayor and Kagan. But maybe there was a reason why he drew the line with Jackson.
You keep shrieking racism and false equivalence.
Have you ever, and i mean ONCE, in all your posts, ever criticized a democrat or praised a republican? EVER?
|
You keep shrieking racism ? Really How so love to see it . that's what your brain hears when ever republicans are called out on their Comments.. you Have a great ability to not see insinuation in Conservatives.. But here OMG you See insinuation where non exist Like "Bidens said he will use chemical weapons "
The late Republican senator Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) in his 2000 autobiography “Passion for Truth”: Bush announced that Thomas was the “best qualified” nominee he could find for the high court and that “the fact he was black and a minority had nothing to do with this.” Immediately
I said publicly that Thomas was not the best-qualified nominee available and that race was a factor — and properly so. I did not object to Thomas’s nomination because I thought he was entitled to a hearing and because on the record, with his degrees from Holy Cross and Yale Law School plus his tenure on the court of appeals,
he appeared at least marginally qualified.
What we had hoped to learn was more about Clarence Thomas the jurist. The American Bar Assn. rated him “qualified” but withheld its highest rating, “well qualified.” On that score, Thomas’ sometimes lucid, sometimes stumbling testimony at the hearings did nothing to invalidate the ABA’s estimation of his legal prowess. Thomas did not distinguish himself as a legal mind.
Thomas did flatly reject Robert H. Bork’s belief that the Constitution must be interpreted only as its 18th-Century authors originally intended. “The world didn’t stop with the framers,” Thomas said. The meaning of the Constitution “is not frozen in time” but instead “moves with our history and our tradition.”
yey now he's an Justice Thomas, originalist
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...988-story.html
After Hill’s testimony, Thomas told the committee that he would not answer any further questions, angrily calling the hearing “a high-tech lynching.”
Bar Association Splits on Fitness Of Thomas for the Supreme Court
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/28/u...eme-court.html
Have you ever, and i mean ONCE, in all your posts, ever criticized a democrat or praised a republican?
Still waiting on a reason PS if I Did praise a Republican you more like would call them a rino anyway
