lefty Bill Maher slams media for censoring Hunter Biden laptop

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I was told Roe was settled law. Now it’s pretty clear Roe is gone. I was told that LGBTQ rights were settled law, now I see Republicans attacking them ferociously. It’s hard not to see where this is going.

Busy day for the GQP:

- 63 Republicans vote no to supporting NATO
- TN GOP proposes “Marry Little Kids” bill
- Tom Cotton calls Ketanji Brown Jackson a Nazi
- OH pushes Don’t Say Gay/Race bill
- GOP to host CPAC with Orban in Hungary
- Oklahoma GOP passes total abortion ban
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there was a time ( thanks to democrats) hat slavery was settled law. There was a time ( also thanks to democrats) that segregation was settled law. There was a time when prohibition was settled law. There was a time when gay marriage prohibition was settled law.

from where do you get the idea, that laws can never be overturned?

roe isn’t even close to gone. and even if it were, that just means states get to decide. liberal states will always allow abortion, so the worst case scenario is that women in red states need to go to a blue state. that’s the worst it can ever get. and we’re nowhere near that today.

And Cotton did not come close to calling her a nazi. check your facts, liar.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

there was a time ( thanks to democrats) hat slavery was settled law. There was a time ( also thanks to democrats) that segregation was settled law. There was a time when prohibition was settled law. There was a time when gay marriage prohibition was settled law.

from where do you get the idea, that laws can never be overturned?

roe isn’t even close to gone. and even if it were, that just means states get to decide. liberal states will always allow abortion, so the worst case scenario is that women in red states need to go to a blue state. that’s the worst it can ever get. and we’re nowhere near that today.

And Cotton did not come close to calling her a nazi. check your facts, liar.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

i am aware of the clip. saying a lawyer would defend nazis, isn’t the same thing as saying she’s a nazi. it’s not even close.

pete, is every lawyer who has ever defended a murderer, also a murderer? is the lawyer a murderer?

Its hard to tell if you’re kidding, lying, stupid, or crazy. but it’s one of those.

lawyers defend people all
day, every day. that doesn’t mean the lawyers “are” what they defend.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What Cotton was ticked off about, was her volunteering on multiple occasions to defend the Guantanimo Bay terrorists, and accuse the US soldiers of war crimes. She sought these cases out. I didn't know that before. It's not much of a leap to say that if you'd defend murdering terrorists, you MIGHT (Cotton said "might", which you conveniently left out) defend Nazis.

Does saying we're the bad guys and the terrorists are the real victims, mean she shouldn't be on SCOTUS? Maybe. Unlike you, I have no problem calling out jerk son my side. I have no huge issue with Cotton despising this woman based on that.

She's a radical liberal. That doesn't mean she'd be incapable of setting her personal beliefs aside and decide cases based just on the law, but radicals are risky to give a lifetime appointment to.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

What Cotton was ticked off about, was her volunteering on multiple occasions to defend the Guantanimo Bay terrorists, and accuse the US soldiers of war crimes. She sought these cases out. I didn't know that before.

Probably because it’s not true.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Probably because it’s not true.

funny the reporter he said that to, didn’t tell him he was wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by spence

Probably because it’s not true.

He thinks she’s a radical liberal he loves using radicalized terms of the far right

And he thinks public defender’s volunteer

Her brother was an US Army infantry man in Iraq. At the same Time

Ps US soldiers did comment war crimes. Trump pardoned them
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Probably because it’s not true.

here’s fact-check saying she did defend gitmo detainees and said it was deplorable that we put them
there.

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/03/th...tmo-detainees/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

here’s fact-check saying she did defend gitmo detainees and said it was deplorable that we put them
there.

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/03/th...tmo-detainees/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That doesn’t say what you think it says.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

That doesn’t say what you think it says.

it says she defended gitmo defames and criticized the us military while
doing so. it also
says she wrote amicus briefs for detainees that she wasn’t formally representing, but who she wanted to help on her own time.

we know what it means when you lib these baseless insults spence. usually, not always, it means i’m right but you can’t bring yourself to admit it.

what did cotton say, specifically, that was wrong?

maybe she said the military was merely “deplorable” instead of specifically accusing it of war crimes. maybe.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

That doesn’t say what you think it says.

oh and here, according to CNN, she very specifically accuses the US of war crimes.

now, of course she has the right to say that. and others have the right to judge her for saying it, and to conclude that saying it makes her a potentially dangerous candidate for a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS.

Lindsay Graham voted for Kagan and Sotomayor. But he has concerns about Jackson. Maybe there’s a chance he has valid reasons to be concerned since he doesn’t blindly oppose all democrat nominees. A reason besides racism, that is.

You have to wonder if they picked a radical intentionally, just so that when the GOP questioned her about some of the controversial
things she’s said, the left could
claim “racism”. All they have to talk about, is Trump and racism.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/23/polit...eck/index.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device