re: Clarence Thomas Issues Warning About The Supreme Court

Posted by Landmass

Member since Jun 2013

18187 posts

Posted on 3/13/22 at 1:58 pm to Lucius Clay

quote:
You also shouldn't cavalierly refuse to allow a President to make an appointment (see Obama/Garland) and then allow it under the same circumstances (see Trump/Barrett), for purely political reasons. But Thomas apparently didn't complain about that hypocrisy.

The difference is that the opposing party was in power for one and not the other. How do you not understand this? And if you think Garland would have not been a political appointment, you're nuts. Have you missed his current attack directly on American parents? You lucked out with two centrists being appointed in Kavanagh and Barret. You think a Dem president would ever appoint a centrist?

Posted by TigerIron

Member since Feb 2021

3064 posts

Posted on 3/13/22 at 2:01 pm to Lucius Clay

This post was edited on 8/23/22 at 11:31 am

Posted by JackieTreehorn

Malibu

Member since Sep 2013

29172 posts

Posted on 3/13/22 at 2:20 pm to Lucius Clay

Yeah the better option is paying a bat shite crazy woman to create horrible lies and try to destroy a man’s life to prevent them from making it onto the court.

Posted by ABearsFanNMS

Formerly of tLandmass now in Texas

Member since Oct 2014

17503 posts

Posted on 3/13/22 at 3:23 pm to Lucius Clay

quote:
You also shouldn't cavalierly refuse to allow a President to make an appointment (see Obama/Garland) and then allow it under the same circumstances (see Trump/Barrett), for purely political reasons. But Thomas apparently didn't complain about that hypocrisy.

You are missing some very important background in this post….which you just happen to leave out!

Insert The Great Divider & Chief, AKA Bitch arse Barry’s “Election have consequences” GIF

This post was edited on 3/13/22 at 3:24 pm

Posted by GeauxTigerTM

Member since Sep 2006

30596 posts

Posted on 3/13/22 at 3:33 pm to Lucius Clay

quote:
You also shouldn't cavalierly refuse to allow a President to make an appointment (see Obama/Garland) and then allow it under the same circumstances

It. Wasn't. The. Same.

Posted by coolpapaboze

Parts Unknown

Member since Dec 2006

15853 posts

Posted on 3/13/22 at 3:44 pm to Lucius Clay

I bet you think inflation is Putin’s fault.

Posted by BFIV

Virginia

Member since Apr 2012

7747 posts

Posted on 3/13/22 at 3:52 pm to Lucius Clay

quote:
You also shouldn't cavalierly refuse to allow a President to make an appointment (see Obama/Garland) and then allow it under the same circumstances (see Trump/Barrett),

They were not the same circumstances and you know it. Stop trying to perpetuate that lie.

Posted by Jimbeaux

Member since Sep 2003

20134 posts

Posted on 3/13/22 at 4:48 pm to Lucius Clay

quote:
You also shouldn't cavalierly refuse to allow a President to make an appointment (see Obama/Garland) and then allow it under the same circumstances (see Trump/Barrett), for purely political reasons. But Thomas apparently didn't complain about that hypocrisy.

Your party started the politicization of the court with Robert Bork. That was Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden - LYING AS USUAL.

Your party doubled down with the Anita Hill bullshite regarding Clarence Thomas. This while both parties were banging underaged pages in the Senate.

And upped the nonsense with “the wise Latina” bs. And now choosing another candidate EXPRESSLY based on identity politics .

Posted by CajunTiger92

Member since Dec 2007

2821 posts

Posted on 3/13/22 at 5:00 pm to Lucius Clay

quote:
You also shouldn't cavalierly refuse to allow a President to make an appointment (see Obama/Garland) and then allow it under the same circumstances (see Trump/Barrett), for purely political reasons.

The President was allowed to make the appointment, the Senate did not confirm him. If you want to talk about the politicization of that process then let’s talk about Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavenaugh.

If you want to talk about the senate refusing to allow the President to make an appointment, let’s talk about Janice Rogers Brown, a black woman whose nomination was torpedoed by Biden himself. The Dems have played hardball politics with these nominations for decades.

Posted by Jake88

Member since Apr 2005

68425 posts

Posted on 3/13/22 at 8:04 pm to Lucius Clay

quote:
You also shouldn't cavalierly refuse to allow a President to make an appointment (see Obama/Garland) and then allow it under the same circumstances (see Trump/Barrett), for purely political reasons

Senate control matters. That was a great move by McConnell.

Posted by N.O. via West-Cal

New Orleans

Member since Aug 2004

7179 posts

Posted on 3/14/22 at 8:47 am to Lucius Clay

I would maybe tend to agree with you, but this all started with the rejection of the eminently qualified Robert Bork by Democrats led by, oddly enough, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.). The confirmation process has become a mess, but at least that’s part of the political process. The key is keeping the Court out of that process once the justices are seated. However, you need justices who actually believe in our system to make that work. Despite my differences of opinion, I know RBG did. I am not so sure with Sotomayor.

Posted by Indefatigable

Member since Jan 2019

26653 posts

Posted on 3/14/22 at 4:12 pm to Lucius Clay

quote:
You also shouldn't cavalierly refuse to allow a President to make an appointment (see Obama/Garland) and then allow it under the same circumstances (see Trump/Barrett), for purely political reasons. But Thomas apparently didn't complain about that hypocrisy.

On what planet did Thomas or even SCOTUS "allow" or not allow those things to happen?

Besides, you can pretend that the circumstances were the exact same--but they factually were not. If the Democrats would have had their current numbers in the Senate in fall 2020, Barrett would not be on the Court.

This post was edited on 3/14/22 at 4:13 pm