Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.
-
It is particular to American culture, this obsession with skin color and the thoughts people think about it. It all traces back to power and the ability to manipulate the masses into thinking and acting in the way they have been convinced is virtuously opposed to the evil that lurks within them. Some of us are apparently more manipulable than others, not least, I suspect, because some of us have more such thought patterns within ourselves to be ashamed of than others.
-
It is particular to American culture, this obsession with skin color and the thoughts people think about it. It all traces back to power and the ability to manipulate the masses into thinking and acting in the way they have been convinced is virtuously opposed to the evil that lurks within them. Some of us are apparently more manipulable than others, not least, I suspect, because some of us have more such thought patterns within ourselves to be ashamed of than others.
@Horace said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
It is particular to American culture, this obsession with skin color and the thoughts people think about it.
Actually not at all. Go to any Asian country and one of the popular cosmetics is skin whitening cream.
Having darker skin in most Asian countries is a (Incorrect) sign you are a laborer And less educated.
Unfortunately not only the US has these thoughts.
-
Well I didn’t say no other country thought about it. America has a particular obsession. To the extent that the left believes skin color underpins all of politics. To the extent that race theory is religious, which it is, that makes the left’s politics religious. So I would question anybody who believes with a shrug that America’s obsession with race is not particular.
-
Well I didn’t say no other country thought about it. America has a particular obsession. To the extent that the left believes skin color underpins all of politics. To the extent that race theory is religious, which it is, that makes the left’s politics religious. So I would question anybody who believes with a shrug that America’s obsession with race is not particular.
@Horace said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
Well I didn’t say no other country thought about it. America has a particular obsession. To the extent that the left believes skin color underpins all of politics. To the extent that race theory is religious, which it is, that makes the left’s politics religious. So I would question anybody who believes with a shrug that America’s obsession with race is not particular.
There are a number of obsessions that seem to be peculiarly American. Guns and abortion spring to mind as well as race. I never really thought much about either before I lived here.
-
Because they can.
Seriously, the opportunity is there to have a conservative-leaning court. They can assure it if they move now. If Trump loses, the effort succeeds. If Trump wins, the effort had succeeded anyway.
WOuldn't you do the same?
Graham's comments reflect the anger he felt during the scorched-earth Kavanaugh hearings.
Link to videoHe's a man on a mission.
@George-K seems like a mistake. Personally I think the erosion of political norms is a much greater danger for either side than anything else. The same is true over here though you guys seem to be trail blazers in eradicating any semblance of shared values. All this will just lead to further polarisation and acceptance that anything you can get away with is ok.
-
The erosion of comity and political norms began with the Bork hearings. It continued with Reid's abolition of the filibuster for everything other than SCOTUS nominations. The filibustering of Estrada because he was Hispanic was an outrage.
Once the norm of filibuster was removed by Harry Reid, presumably expecting to retain a majority in the Senate was a bone-headed and amateurish move. I would have expected him to have known better.
As a blogger comments, today's Democrats' argument is simply, "Mom, he hit me back!"
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
The erosion of comity and political norms began with the Bork hearings. It continued with Reid's abolition of the filibuster for everything other than SCOTUS nominations. The filibustering of Estrada because he was Hispanic was an outrage.
Once the norm of filibuster was removed by Harry Reid, presumably expecting to retain a majority in the Senate was a bone-headed and amateurish move. I would have expected him to have known better.
As a blogger comments, today's Democrats' argument is simply, "Mom, he hit me back!"
-
Interesting to look back at the recent supreme court judges and the votes at which they were confirmed. Since people are starting with Judge Bork, I will start with him also. There were actually a lot of confirmations near unanimous since him, so dont think it has been as bad for that long a time. The last couple for sure maybe
Robert Bork July 1, 1987 rejected (42–58)
Anthony Kennedy Nov. 30, 1987 confirmed (97–0)
David Souter July 25, 1990 confirmed (90–9)
Clarence Thomas July 8, 1991 confirmed (52–48)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg June 14, 1993 confirmed (96–3)
Stephen Breyer May 17, 1994 confirmed (87–9)
John Roberts Sep. 6, 2005 confirmed (78–22)
Harriet Miers Oct. 7, 2005 withdrawn
Samuel Alito Nov. 10, 2005 confirmed (58–42)
Sonia Sotomayor June 1, 2009 confirmed (68–31)
Elena Kagan May 10, 2010 confirmed (63–37)
Merrick Garland Mar. 16, 2016 lapsed
Neil Gorsuch Feb. 1, 2017 confirmed (54–45)
Brett Kavanaugh July 10, 2018 confirmed (50–48) -
Interesting to look back at the recent supreme court judges and the votes at which they were confirmed. Since people are starting with Judge Bork, I will start with him also. There were actually a lot of confirmations near unanimous since him, so dont think it has been as bad for that long a time. The last couple for sure maybe
Robert Bork July 1, 1987 rejected (42–58)
Anthony Kennedy Nov. 30, 1987 confirmed (97–0)
David Souter July 25, 1990 confirmed (90–9)
Clarence Thomas July 8, 1991 confirmed (52–48)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg June 14, 1993 confirmed (96–3)
Stephen Breyer May 17, 1994 confirmed (87–9)
John Roberts Sep. 6, 2005 confirmed (78–22)
Harriet Miers Oct. 7, 2005 withdrawn
Samuel Alito Nov. 10, 2005 confirmed (58–42)
Sonia Sotomayor June 1, 2009 confirmed (68–31)
Elena Kagan May 10, 2010 confirmed (63–37)
Merrick Garland Mar. 16, 2016 lapsed
Neil Gorsuch Feb. 1, 2017 confirmed (54–45)
Brett Kavanaugh July 10, 2018 confirmed (50–48)@taiwan_girl said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
Interesting to look back at the recent supreme court judges and the votes at which they were confirmed. Since people are starting with Judge Bork, I will start with him also. There were actually a lot of confirmations near unanimous since him, so dont think it has been as bad for that long a time. The last couple for sure maybe
Robert Bork July 1, 1987 rejected (42–58)
Anthony Kennedy Nov. 30, 1987 confirmed (97–0)
David Souter July 25, 1990 confirmed (90–9)
Clarence Thomas July 8, 1991 confirmed (52–48)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg June 14, 1993 confirmed (96–3)
Stephen Breyer May 17, 1994 confirmed (87–9)
John Roberts Sep. 6, 2005 confirmed (78–22)
Harriet Miers Oct. 7, 2005 withdrawn
Samuel Alito Nov. 10, 2005 confirmed (58–42)
Sonia Sotomayor June 1, 2009 confirmed (68–31)
Elena Kagan May 10, 2010 confirmed (63–37)
Merrick Garland Mar. 16, 2016 lapsed
Neil Gorsuch Feb. 1, 2017 confirmed (54–45)
Brett Kavanaugh July 10, 2018 confirmed (50–48)Break it down by what party nominated the person.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
Interesting to look back at the recent supreme court judges and the votes at which they were confirmed. Since people are starting with Judge Bork, I will start with him also. There were actually a lot of confirmations near unanimous since him, so dont think it has been as bad for that long a time. The last couple for sure maybe
Robert Bork July 1, 1987 rejected (42–58)
Anthony Kennedy Nov. 30, 1987 confirmed (97–0)
David Souter July 25, 1990 confirmed (90–9)
Clarence Thomas July 8, 1991 confirmed (52–48)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg June 14, 1993 confirmed (96–3)
Stephen Breyer May 17, 1994 confirmed (87–9)
John Roberts Sep. 6, 2005 confirmed (78–22)
Harriet Miers Oct. 7, 2005 withdrawn
Samuel Alito Nov. 10, 2005 confirmed (58–42)
Sonia Sotomayor June 1, 2009 confirmed (68–31)
Elena Kagan May 10, 2010 confirmed (63–37)
Merrick Garland Mar. 16, 2016 lapsed
Neil Gorsuch Feb. 1, 2017 confirmed (54–45)
Brett Kavanaugh July 10, 2018 confirmed (50–48)Break it down by what party nominated the person.
I was typing the same thing, LOL..."It would be interesting to see, in the last 20 years or so, how many senators "crossed the aisle" to vote for a nominee put up by a president not of their party."
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
I was typing the same thing, LOL..."It would be interesting to see, in the last 20 years or so, how many senators "crossed the aisle" to vote for a nominee put up by a president not of their party."
-
@taiwan_girl said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
I guess it means that Democratic presidents are more willing to build a consensus and be "bi-partisan" in their picks!!!
Look at how many Democrats voted in favor of Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas. A good number voted in favor of Scalia and Roberts.
Now, compare that with the number of Republicans who voted in favor of justices nominated by Democrat presidents. Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginsburg.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
I guess it means that Democratic presidents are more willing to build a consensus and be "bi-partisan" in their picks!!!
Look at how many Democrats voted in favor of Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas. A good number voted in favor of Scalia and Roberts.
Now, compare that with the number of Republicans who voted in favor of justices nominated by Democrat presidents. Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginsburg.
@George-K See that proves my point!!!
(Actually, I am just kidding. It is a perfect example of how statistics can be made to fit two stories! LOL)
-
Democrat senators are not willing to be "bi-partisan" with the other party
-
Democrat presidents are more willing to pick a "bi-partisan" candidate
-
-
@George-K See that proves my point!!!
(Actually, I am just kidding. It is a perfect example of how statistics can be made to fit two stories! LOL)
-
Democrat senators are not willing to be "bi-partisan" with the other party
-
Democrat presidents are more willing to pick a "bi-partisan" candidate
@taiwan_girl said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
Democrat presidents are more willing to pick a "bi-partisan" candidate
Alternative explanation: Republicans are more willing to respect and confirm a nominee from a Democrat President.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
-
@taiwan_girl said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
Democrat presidents are more willing to pick a "bi-partisan" candidate
Alternative explanation: Republicans are more willing to respect and confirm a nominee from a Democrat President.
@George-K said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
@taiwan_girl said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
Democrat presidents are more willing to pick a "bi-partisan" candidate
Alternative explanation: Republicans are more willing to respect and confirm a nominee from a Democrat President.
Yep
Press Release from the Republics:
Data PROVES that Republicans are more willing to respect and confirm a nominee from a Democrat President!!!Press Release from Democrats:
Data PROVES that Democrat Presdients are more willing to nominate Supreme Court judges that are acceptable to both parties!!!
