00:00
00:00
Newgrounds Background Image Theme

Kiler91 just joined the crew!

We need you on the team, too.

Support Newgrounds and get tons of perks for just $2.99!

Create a Free Account and then..

Become a Supporter!

Honest thoughts on Biden

8,825 Views | 304 Replies

Response to Honest thoughts on Biden 2022-01-24 12:34:05 (edited 2022-01-24 12:45:07)


At 1/24/22 12:20 PM, EdyKel wrote:
At 1/24/22 09:18 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote: This thread seems to be fuelled by melodramaticism a lot more than the Trump thread.

Looking back at the Trump thread, by this time he enacted
-travel bans
-leaking intel to a Russian diplomat
-withdrawal from Paris accord
-Scaramuchi and Bannon being fired
... and then we’re up to January 2018 on page 20.

For Biden, we have the fall-out from Afghanistan, which was arguably put into motion by the previous admin and allowed to continue.

To me, it looks like it takes less to incite vitriol over Biden compared to the previous president.
You forgot about the firing of FBI director James Comey, which led to outrage on both sides, and Robert Mueller to be special counsel to head the investigation into it.

Constantly kissing Putin's ass...

Not to mention all the affairs lawsuits, like Stormy Daniels, against him....

Trump certainly was busy in his first year of racking up controversies... More so than Biden.


Have to say firing Comey was 100% justified. In case we forget, Comey admitted under Oath he was leaking information from Trump's White House in order to legally damage him. Imagine your FBI director being that hostile and subversive to your agenda. Really, he should have been imprisoned if equality before the law exists. Not even saying that leakers should go to jail, I think there are times when it is justified, but I am saying that if Reality Winner has to sit in jail so should James Comey.


No pods, no casters

Response to Honest thoughts on Biden 2022-01-24 12:48:35 (edited 2022-01-24 12:52:10)


At 1/24/22 12:34 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
At 1/24/22 12:20 PM, EdyKel wrote:
At 1/24/22 09:18 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote: This thread seems to be fuelled by melodramaticism a lot more than the Trump thread.

Looking back at the Trump thread, by this time he enacted
-travel bans
-leaking intel to a Russian diplomat
-withdrawal from Paris accord
-Scaramuchi and Bannon being fired
... and then we’re up to January 2018 on page 20.

For Biden, we have the fall-out from Afghanistan, which was arguably put into motion by the previous admin and allowed to continue.

To me, it looks like it takes less to incite vitriol over Biden compared to the previous president.
You forgot about the firing of FBI director James Comey, which led to outrage on both sides, and Robert Mueller to be special counsel to head the investigation into it.

Constantly kissing Putin's ass...

Not to mention all the affairs lawsuits, like Stormy Daniels, against him....

Trump certainly was busy in his first year of racking up controversies... More so than Biden.
Have to say firing Comey was 100% justified. In case we forget, Comey admitted under Oath he was leaking information from Trump's White House in order to legally damage him. Imagine your FBI director being that hostile and subversive to your agenda. Really, he should have been imprisoned if equality before the law exists.


I kinda figured you would. Trump could kill someone on the street without any reason and you would argue he was justified in doing it as well.


The fact is,Trump fired Comey for political reasons, because he didn't like the investigation. You don't do that, without looking guilty of something. There were a lot of questions about Russia's involvement in the 2016 election, along with growing information of the Trump campaign reaching out to them. If Trump did nothing, much of it would have blow over, but his narcissistic impulses only made it worse, and led to a special console to investigate it which then led to several charges of people in his campaign, with some of them going to jail.


And I'm sure you will cry it's all unfair, but so was Russia's using Social media to divide people and to hack the DNC, all of which helped Trump out - with Trump publicly asking Russia to help him out

Response to Honest thoughts on Biden 2022-01-24 13:38:08


Since we have already effectively derailed the topic...


PRESIDENTIAL POP QUIZ!


Which US President said this quote?


"There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done. We must have complete and effective publicity of corporate affairs, so that the people may know beyond peradventure whether the corporations obey the law and whether their management entitles them to the confidence of the public."

No pods, no casters

Response to Honest thoughts on Biden 2022-01-24 14:58:32


At 1/24/22 01:38 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote: Since we have already effectively derailed the topic...

PRESIDENTIAL POP QUIZ!

Which US President said this quote?


Those were different times. Teddy Roosevelt would be considered a socialist communist and a RINO by today's conservative standards - after all, today's Republican party argues that corporation are people.


Back in the early 20th century both parties began to appeal to the ideas of the general welfare of people and being critical of the abuse by big companies and corporations. Though, Conservatives began to take over the Republican party, and held several red scare congressional investigations, while shaming white people over welfare by tying it blacks.


In the late 60's to 70s, new political movement like Neo Conservatives, and Neo Liberals, began to infest the parties, promoting free market ideology, or the renewal of lazefair ideas, or business libertarianism, during the height of the cold war. Republicans went full throttle on it, while Democrats remained tepid but complying.


These days, Republicans believe that Corporations are people, but are willing to go after them for political retributions for any perceived slight against them, while Democrats want to split up large corporations and create govermnet regulations over them.


No matter how you bitch and moan about Democrats and Biden, they are still doing a lot more than Republicans are to uphold the ideas of Teddy's Roosevelt's on the general welfare of the people and to hold corporations accountable.

Response to Honest thoughts on Biden 2022-01-25 10:25:35



No pods, no casters

Response to Honest thoughts on Biden 2022-01-25 11:16:01


At 1/25/22 10:25 AM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote: lmao

Psaki: ‘Russia could at any point launch an attack in Ukraine’ - POLITICO


What about the article did you have a problem with and what does it have to do with Biden?


.

BBS Signature

Response to Honest thoughts on Biden 2022-01-25 16:07:42 (edited 2022-01-25 16:08:37)


At 1/25/22 10:25 AM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote: lmao

Psaki: ‘Russia could at any point launch an attack in Ukraine’ - POLITICO


Didn't Trump increase spending to Lockeed Martin by increasing defense spending? And didn't Trump promote them at the White House? So, when shit happens in Ukraine, you think that the Biden admin is a puppet to Lockheed Martin, when you 100% accepted it from the Trump admin slapping you in the face with it?

Response to Honest thoughts on Biden 2022-01-25 16:20:36


At 1/25/22 04:07 PM, EdyKel wrote:
: At 1/25/22 10:25 AM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
: : lmao
: :
: : Psaki: ‘Russia could at any point launch an attack in Ukraine’ - POLITICO
:
: Didn't Trump increase spending to Lockeed Martin by increasing defense spending? And didn't Trump promote them at the White House?


Yes.


So, when shit happens in Ukraine, you think that the Biden admin is a puppet to Lockheed Martin, when you 100% accepted it from the Trump admin slapping you in the face with it?


I don't think Biden is going to do anything with Ukraine. They would accomplish their mission before we had troops on the ground and we would likely lose any ex post facto engagements, even if only in a pyrrhic sense.


But not for lack of trying on the part of the bought and paid for media.


No pods, no casters

Response to Honest thoughts on Biden 2022-01-25 16:38:34


At 1/25/22 04:20 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
Yes.

I don't think Biden is going to do anything with Ukraine. They would accomplish their mission before we had troops on the ground and we would likely lose any ex post facto engagements, even if only in a pyrrhic sense.

But not for lack of trying on the part of the bought and paid for media.


Is the media promoting the war on the behalf of Lockheed Martin? I keep hearing about how the BIden admin is being weak, and incompetent, over this crises, but I haven't seen any media outright promoting the idea that the US needs to get military involved in any conflict over there. And I read a lot more of the media to get a sense of of how it views it, not from some partisan/bias social media feed that spins shit to brainwash you.

Response to Honest thoughts on Biden 2022-01-26 15:32:46 (edited 2022-01-26 15:46:54)


This Supreme Court pick represents the Democratic Party perfectly. It really can not be more emblematic. Who should occupy the highest court in the land, according to them? Not someone who has good views on health care, not someone who has good views on housing or human rights, not someone who has good views on worker protections, not someone who has good views on environmental protections. No. What matters is they are black.


This is the regime of affirmative action, which is merely a euphemism for malicious racial discrimination. We see it virtually everywhere from the highest offices to the all over the cultural landscape regardless of who is allegedly in power these days. That is the only thing the regime has to offer to justify their own unearned power and privileges in society. It can build nothing. It can inspire no one.


On paper this sort of thing is illegal in ten different ways, remember Equal Employment? Lol. But we all know that laws only exist when the state is willing to enforce them, and these days the only laws they care about are the ones that work to their advantage.


ABC News on Twitter: "Asked if Pres. Biden will honor his pledge to nominate a Black woman to Supreme Court following reports of Justice Stephen Breyer’s retirement, White House press sec. Jen Psaki says he “certainly stands by that.” https://t.co/NyK4wgtmSQ https://t.co/yOYmuCgZsu" / Twitter


No pods, no casters

Response to Honest thoughts on Biden 2022-01-26 16:55:44


At 1/26/22 03:32 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote: On paper this sort of thing is illegal in ten different ways


No, it's not.



BBS Signature

Response to Honest thoughts on Biden 2022-01-26 17:16:42 (edited 2022-01-26 17:27:18)


At 1/26/22 03:32 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote: This Supreme Court pick represents the Democratic Party perfectly. It really can not be more emblematic. Who should occupy the highest court in the land, according to them? Not someone who has good views on health care, not someone who has good views on housing or human rights, not someone who has good views on worker protections, not someone who has good views on environmental protections. No. What matters is they are black.

This is the regime of affirmative action, which is merely a euphemism for malicious racial discrimination. We see it virtually everywhere from the highest offices to the all over the cultural landscape regardless of who is allegedly in power these days. That is the only thing the regime has to offer to justify their own unearned power and privileges in society. It can build nothing. It can inspire no one.

On paper this sort of thing is illegal in ten different ways, remember Equal Employment? Lol. But we all know that laws only exist when the state is willing to enforce them, and these days the only laws they care about are the ones that work to their advantage.

ABC News on Twitter: "Asked if Pres. Biden will honor his pledge to nominate a Black woman to Supreme Court following reports of Justice Stephen Breyer’s retirement, White House press sec. Jen Psaki says he “certainly stands by that.” https://t.co/NyK4wgtmSQ https://t.co/yOYmuCgZsu" / Twitter


God, you are stupid. Republicans have been electing mostly white, male, Christian, conservatives, to the US Supreme Court for half a century, who favor Republican causes, Christianity, Gun activism, anti-abortionism, and corporations - while claiming to be originalists over the Constitution.. It's why practically nothing you claim you want for "the people" ever comes to fruition, unless you area conservative, white, a gun nut, and Christian.

Response to Honest thoughts on Biden 2022-01-26 17:35:53


Dude slime, relax. It’s a massive shell game. Liberal justice leaves, liberal justice goes in. That’s how it has worked for generations.


hello

Response to Honest thoughts on Biden 2022-01-26 21:03:07 (edited 2022-01-26 21:04:05)


At 1/26/22 05:35 PM, BUM-DRILLER wrote: Dude slime, relax. It’s a massive shell game. Liberal justice leaves, liberal justice goes in. That’s how it has worked for generations.


I know, I know, we live in a country that has become a global flophouse and this is all a show. Still, it annoys me to no end how they have mainstreamed racial discrimination in all areas of life as a virtue, rather than as the illegal and immoral practice that it is and should be.


It's nepotism all the way up.


No pods, no casters

Response to Honest thoughts on Biden 2022-01-26 21:13:52


At 1/26/22 09:03 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
At 1/26/22 05:35 PM, BUM-DRILLER wrote: Dude slime, relax. It’s a massive shell game. Liberal justice leaves, liberal justice goes in. That’s how it has worked for generations.
I know, I know, we live in a country that has become a global flophouse and this is all a show. Still, it annoys me to no end how they have mainstreamed racial discrimination in all areas of life as a virtue, rather than as the illegal and immoral practice that it is and should be.

It's nepotism all the way up.


Son, YOU 100% SUPPORT THIS SHIT WHEN IT'S DONE ON YOUR SIDE, AND MORE EGREGIOUS ANDWORSE, BUT YOU WILL PRETEND ITS NOT WRONG.


Please stop shitting out right-wing talking points that are full hypocrisy.

Response to Honest thoughts on Biden 2022-01-26 21:16:29


At 1/26/22 09:13 PM, EdyKel wrote:
: Son, YOU 100% SUPPORT THIS SHIT WHEN IT'S DONE ON YOUR SIDE


When does this happen on the Republican side? When is the last time a Republican politician made a public promise to only elect a white person? Not only does it not happen, they would be arrested for even saying it.


No pods, no casters

Response to Honest thoughts on Biden 2022-01-26 21:35:05


At 1/26/22 09:16 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
When does this happen on the Republican side? When is the last time a Republican politician made a public promise to only elect a white person? Not only does it not happen, they would be arrested for even saying it.


ALL THE FUCKING TIME!!


You think that promising to fill the court/s with conservative Christians is not identity politics, like they have for decades? You are appealing to a certain identity group by using those terms. You think you have to insert "white" into the mix for it not to be identity politics? Everyone knows what you are talking about with it.


Yet, as soon as a president nominates, or promise to nominate, a minority, suddenly the right screams identity politics, while ignoring the very fact that Conservatism is all about protecting a certain culture that is based on the dominate, white, race. And that is very much identity politics, even if they don't call it that.


And please stop with the over-dramatics. No one is going to get arrested for outright promoting white nationalism.


Response to Honest thoughts on Biden 2022-01-26 21:36:21


At 1/26/22 09:16 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
When does this happen on the Republican side? When is the last time a Republican politician made a public promise to only elect a white person? Not only does it not happen, they would be arrested for even saying it.


No, they wouldn't.


BBS Signature

Response to Honest thoughts on Biden 2022-01-26 21:42:14


At 1/26/22 09:36 PM, FinaLee wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:16 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
When does this happen on the Republican side? When is the last time a Republican politician made a public promise to only elect a white person? Not only does it not happen, they would be arrested for even saying it.
No, they wouldn't.


You got me, it's hyperbole. But they absolutely would be charged if they said it and did it.


No pods, no casters

Response to Honest thoughts on Biden 2022-01-26 21:48:29


At 1/26/22 09:42 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:36 PM, FinaLee wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:16 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
When does this happen on the Republican side? When is the last time a Republican politician made a public promise to only elect a white person? Not only does it not happen, they would be arrested for even saying it.
No, they wouldn't.
You got me, it's hyperbole. But they absolutely would be charged if they said it and did it.


Then I guess you're not being hyperbolic? On what basis do you think a Republican president would be charged for saying they will only nominate white supreme court justices?


BBS Signature

Response to Honest thoughts on Biden 2022-01-26 21:50:09


At 1/26/22 09:48 PM, FinaLee wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:42 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:36 PM, FinaLee wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:16 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
When does this happen on the Republican side? When is the last time a Republican politician made a public promise to only elect a white person? Not only does it not happen, they would be arrested for even saying it.
No, they wouldn't.
You got me, it's hyperbole. But they absolutely would be charged if they said it and did it.
Then I guess you're not being hyperbolic? On what basis do you think a Republican president would be charged for saying they will only nominate white supreme court justices?


Did you just misread the second sentence of my post or can you not tell the difference between saying it and doing it?


No pods, no casters

Response to Honest thoughts on Biden 2022-01-26 21:54:53


At 1/26/22 09:50 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:48 PM, FinaLee wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:42 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:36 PM, FinaLee wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:16 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
When does this happen on the Republican side? When is the last time a Republican politician made a public promise to only elect a white person? Not only does it not happen, they would be arrested for even saying it.
No, they wouldn't.
You got me, it's hyperbole. But they absolutely would be charged if they said it and did it.
Then I guess you're not being hyperbolic? On what basis do you think a Republican president would be charged for saying they will only nominate white supreme court justices?
Did you just misread the second sentence of my post or can you not tell the difference between saying it and doing it?


I'm trying to understand how you came to the conclusion that a president would be charged for nominating someone based on their race when there are multiple layers of legal and constitutional frameworks saying otherwise.


BBS Signature

Response to Honest thoughts on Biden 2022-01-26 22:04:28


At 1/26/22 09:54 PM, FinaLee wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:50 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:48 PM, FinaLee wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:42 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:36 PM, FinaLee wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:16 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
When does this happen on the Republican side? When is the last time a Republican politician made a public promise to only elect a white person? Not only does it not happen, they would be arrested for even saying it.
No, they wouldn't.
You got me, it's hyperbole. But they absolutely would be charged if they said it and did it.
Then I guess you're not being hyperbolic? On what basis do you think a Republican president would be charged for saying they will only nominate white supreme court justices?
Did you just misread the second sentence of my post or can you not tell the difference between saying it and doing it?
I'm trying to understand how you came to the conclusion that a president would be charged for nominating someone based on their race when there are multiple layers of legal and constitutional frameworks saying otherwise.


Because it violates the Civil Rights Act, genius.


No pods, no casters

Response to Honest thoughts on Biden 2022-01-26 22:14:01


At 1/26/22 10:04 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:54 PM, FinaLee wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:50 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:48 PM, FinaLee wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:42 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:36 PM, FinaLee wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:16 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
When does this happen on the Republican side? When is the last time a Republican politician made a public promise to only elect a white person? Not only does it not happen, they would be arrested for even saying it.
No, they wouldn't.
You got me, it's hyperbole. But they absolutely would be charged if they said it and did it.
Then I guess you're not being hyperbolic? On what basis do you think a Republican president would be charged for saying they will only nominate white supreme court justices?
Did you just misread the second sentence of my post or can you not tell the difference between saying it and doing it?
I'm trying to understand how you came to the conclusion that a president would be charged for nominating someone based on their race when there are multiple layers of legal and constitutional frameworks saying otherwise.
Because it violates the Civil Rights Act, genius.


You need to be more specific. The CRA covers a lot of things, but I must have missed the part where a politician can't nominate someone based on race.


BBS Signature

Response to Honest thoughts on Biden 2022-01-26 22:28:06 (edited 2022-01-26 22:28:51)


At 1/26/22 10:14 PM, FinaLee wrote:
At 1/26/22 10:04 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:54 PM, FinaLee wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:50 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:48 PM, FinaLee wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:42 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:36 PM, FinaLee wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:16 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
When does this happen on the Republican side? When is the last time a Republican politician made a public promise to only elect a white person? Not only does it not happen, they would be arrested for even saying it.
No, they wouldn't.
You got me, it's hyperbole. But they absolutely would be charged if they said it and did it.
Then I guess you're not being hyperbolic? On what basis do you think a Republican president would be charged for saying they will only nominate white supreme court justices?
Did you just misread the second sentence of my post or can you not tell the difference between saying it and doing it?
I'm trying to understand how you came to the conclusion that a president would be charged for nominating someone based on their race when there are multiple layers of legal and constitutional frameworks saying otherwise.
Because it violates the Civil Rights Act, genius.
You need to be more specific. The CRA covers a lot of things, but I must have missed the part where a politician can't nominate someone based on race.


You just said to me that "there are multiple layers of legal and constitutional frameworks saying otherwise". I feel like you should also be more specific.


But fine, i'll bite because I really am that mad about this. First off, the Civil Rights Act and most importantly Title VII does apply to the government. Let's get that out of the way.


Now i'll just quote from Title VII, basically. Let me write off a very common argument for why this sort of thing is okay when it's not. The first, that you are correcting an imbalance because there have been to many white men or whatever. This isn't discrimination, it's *correcting* discrimination. This is wrong. For this i'll reference subsection (j) of Unlawful Employment Practices


(j) Preferential treatment not to be granted on account of existing number or percentage imbalance
Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be interpreted to require any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-­management committee subject to this subchapter to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any race, color, religion, sex, or national origin employed by any employer, referred or classified for employment by any employment agency or labor organization, admitted to membership or classified by any labor organization, or admitted to, or employed in, any apprenticeship or other training program, in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of such race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in any community, State, section, or other area, or in the available work force in any community, State, section, or other area.


For virtually every other argument i'll refer to subsection (m) of Unlawful Employment Practices


(m) Impermissible consideration of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in employment practices
Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, an unlawful employment practice is established when the complaining party demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice.


Now there can be absolutely no doubt that race was a motivating factor in this decision because he not only said so, he promised it. Even if other factors were involved, it meets the definition of discrimination, and nothing fits any of the limited situations where it would be okay in a single instance.


So yeah. Like I said before, this is illegal *on paper* to the best of my knowledge, but it has become so commonplace and normalized the laws essentially don't matter anymore.


No pods, no casters

Response to Honest thoughts on Biden 2022-01-26 23:12:41


At 1/26/22 10:28 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
At 1/26/22 10:14 PM, FinaLee wrote:
At 1/26/22 10:04 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:54 PM, FinaLee wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:50 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:48 PM, FinaLee wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:42 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:36 PM, FinaLee wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:16 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
When does this happen on the Republican side? When is the last time a Republican politician made a public promise to only elect a white person? Not only does it not happen, they would be arrested for even saying it.
No, they wouldn't.
You got me, it's hyperbole. But they absolutely would be charged if they said it and did it.
Then I guess you're not being hyperbolic? On what basis do you think a Republican president would be charged for saying they will only nominate white supreme court justices?
Did you just misread the second sentence of my post or can you not tell the difference between saying it and doing it?
I'm trying to understand how you came to the conclusion that a president would be charged for nominating someone based on their race when there are multiple layers of legal and constitutional frameworks saying otherwise.
Because it violates the Civil Rights Act, genius.
You need to be more specific. The CRA covers a lot of things, but I must have missed the part where a politician can't nominate someone based on race.


but it has become so commonplace and normalized the laws essentially don't matter anymore.


Laws matter, but understanding the law is equally as important.


To be clear, the onus is on you to provide evidence, since you claimed that a politician would be legally charged for nominating someone based on race. The Civil Rights Act, which has undergone many revisions since 1964, largely uses the employer-employee dynamic to regulate businesses. However, you using Title VII to call foul on the President and a potential Supreme Court Justice is misplaced. Supreme Court Justices do not work for the President, and no Supreme Court Justice's salary is dependent on the direction of neither the President nor the legislature. To put it more plainly, hiring someone is not the same thing as nominating someone.


I will now direct you to Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution:


[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.


That's all the Constitution has to say about nominating a SCJ. Notice how it does not say anything about race. It is because of this article that the President has generally broad authority when it comes to the nomination of a SCJ. Any revision or additional stipulation to this process would almost assuredly require a Constitutional Amendment to be passed.


Of course, it is also because of this very same article that the Senate is granted the ability to provide a check on the President's nomination. If there were enough GenericDungeonSlimes in the Senate that were just as angry about Joe Biden promising to nominate a black woman, then you have the leverage needed to reject his nomination. That is how the SC nominating process is meant to be used.


I will also point out that I linked an article earlier explaining a very similar circumstance that happened last year.


BBS Signature

Response to Honest thoughts on Biden 2022-01-27 00:18:43


At 1/26/22 10:28 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
At 1/26/22 10:14 PM, FinaLee wrote:
At 1/26/22 10:04 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:54 PM, FinaLee wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:50 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:48 PM, FinaLee wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:42 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:36 PM, FinaLee wrote:
At 1/26/22 09:16 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
When does this happen on the Republican side? When is the last time a Republican politician made a public promise to only elect a white person? Not only does it not happen, they would be arrested for even saying it.
No, they wouldn't.
You got me, it's hyperbole. But they absolutely would be charged if they said it and did it.
Then I guess you're not being hyperbolic? On what basis do you think a Republican president would be charged for saying they will only nominate white supreme court justices?
Did you just misread the second sentence of my post or can you not tell the difference between saying it and doing it?
I'm trying to understand how you came to the conclusion that a president would be charged for nominating someone based on their race when there are multiple layers of legal and constitutional frameworks saying otherwise.
Because it violates the Civil Rights Act, genius.
You need to be more specific. The CRA covers a lot of things, but I must have missed the part where a politician can't nominate someone based on race.
You just said to me that "there are multiple layers of legal and constitutional frameworks saying otherwise". I feel like you should also be more specific.

But fine, i'll bite because I really am that mad about this. First off, the Civil Rights Act and most importantly Title VII does apply to the government. Let's get that out of the way.

Now i'll just quote from Title VII, basically. Let me write off a very common argument for why this sort of thing is okay when it's not. The first, that you are correcting an imbalance because there have been to many white men or whatever. This isn't discrimination, it's *correcting* discrimination. This is wrong. For this i'll reference subsection (j) of Unlawful Employment Practices

For virtually every other argument i'll refer to subsection (m) of Unlawful Employment Practices

Now there can be absolutely no doubt that race was a motivating factor in this decision because he not only said so, he promised it. Even if other factors were involved, it meets the definition of discrimination, and nothing fits any of the limited situations where it would be okay in a single instance.

So yeah. Like I said before, this is illegal *on paper* to the best of my knowledge, but it has become so commonplace and normalized the laws essentially don't matter anymore.


I'm no legal expert, but this sounds like someone masticated some legal mumble jumble, then swallowed it, and finally regulated it for your consumption.


And this is all to argue that President Biden can't choose whoever he wants to, because you are a snowflake over race

who has accepted this very same shit from previous presidents, who just didn't outright say they wanted a white, straight, Christian, male... God, you are a moron...


Even Mitch McConnell, who denied Obama a Justice pick in 2015 ( Merrick Garland) by saying it was an election year, while ignoring that very rule he created to confirm Amy Coney Barrett in an election year (because Trump wanted a woman), is staying very quite about it.


Response to Honest thoughts on Biden 2022-01-27 08:59:23


This conversation is so silly and hinges on @GenericDungeonSlime's implication that there are no black women who are qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.


Biden will pick someone who is a black woman AND qualified.


.

BBS Signature

Response to Honest thoughts on Biden 2022-01-27 09:31:40


U.S. economy likely regained steam in Q4, 2021 growth seen best in 37 years


Awesome Job by our president, Joseph Robinette Biden, to give the economy the best growth in 37 years!


.

BBS Signature

Response to Honest thoughts on Biden 2022-01-27 20:19:21


At 1/27/22 08:59 AM, Zachary wrote: Biden will pick someone who is a black woman AND qualified.


like Elizabeth Warren!


hello