supreme court nominee

Topics that do not fit anywhere else. Absolutely NO discussions of religion, race, or immigration!

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton


philip964
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 18028
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:30 pm

Re: supreme court nominee

#16

Post by philip964 »

I get Disney+ to see Mandalorian.

Looking for something wife and I can enjoy together. Saw Disney+ had a new show - Cheaper buy the Dozen.

Remember seeing it on a date night in 2003. ( Steve Martin, Hillary Duff, Bonnie Hunt) Oh how times have changed. So we start the new Disney+ version.

Well let’s say the family looks like America and the convoluted way they get all these flavored kids together took real work. Adopted goddaughter was in car accident with both parents killed, she is in a wheel chair and is goth metal.

Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 4339
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: supreme court nominee

#17

Post by Soccerdad1995 »

powerboatr wrote: Fri Feb 25, 2022 3:26 pm https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html

let me say, no matter this judges qualifications, ideals, etc whether are GREAT or TERRIBLE

I was watching cnn as i surf to see who is saying what and how twisted it may become

they completely ruined her past accomplishments or failures with a statement made by the commentator this morning
he stated she has numerous qualifications/requirements that make her the right choice for the court. he then stated the #1 qualification/requirement is that she is a black women.
so being a color and a sex is a qualification/requirement to sit on the bench????? really that seems hmmmmmm whats the word??discriminatory

i have not dug into her political or judicial life , she may be the cats meow or the devil. but they completely destroyed any her accomplishments or failures by placing her on top because she is a black women??? never mind what she may or may not actually stand for.

blew my mind
How does the commentator know that she is a black woman? Does he have both a biology AND a genealogy degree?

Ruark
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1793
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 8:11 pm

Re: supreme court nominee

#18

Post by Ruark »

Just for the record, what IS a good definition of "woman"?
-Ruark

srothstein
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 5276
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: supreme court nominee

#19

Post by srothstein »

philip964 wrote: Fri Mar 25, 2022 2:15 pm I get Disney+ to see Mandalorian.

Looking for something wife and I can enjoy together. Saw Disney+ had a new show - Cheaper buy the Dozen.

Remember seeing it on a date night in 2003. ( Steve Martin, Hillary Duff, Bonnie Hunt) Oh how times have changed. So we start the new Disney+ version.

Well let’s say the family looks like America and the convoluted way they get all these flavored kids together took real work. Adopted goddaughter was in car accident with both parents killed, she is in a wheel chair and is goth metal.
I watched that the other night and was amazed at how many diversity boxes were checked: White, Black, biracial, Jewish, Indian, disabled, etc. And played to the stereotypes too. I was very disappointed in it and need to rethink my Disney subscription.
Steve Rothstein
User avatar

anygunanywhere
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 7863
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:16 am
Location: Richmond, Texas

Re: supreme court nominee

#20

Post by anygunanywhere »

Ruark wrote: Fri Mar 25, 2022 8:04 pm Just for the record, what IS a good definition of "woman"?
To parody the scotus decision on pornography, I don’t know the definition of a woman but I recognize one when I see one. :mrgreen:
"When democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote." Mike Vanderboegh

"The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." – Ayn Rand

Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 4339
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: supreme court nominee

#21

Post by Soccerdad1995 »

I'm just impressed with the qualifications of everyone who has every sat on the SC. I didn't even realize that one needed to hold a degree in a specific area in order to answer the most basic questions / make basic determinations. Just using the case of pornography, who knew that all SC justices at that time held film degrees?

Unfortunately, the current nominee does not have that level of expertise in many areas, so I expect she'll be recusing herself from almost every case.
Post Reply

Return to “Off-Topic”