The difference between republicans and democrats
- Thread starter Crazyhole
- Start date
Republicans and Democrats are simply opposite sides of the same swamp coin.
This is so disingenuous. She clearly says there were no named victims, and Republicans are turning that into her saying there were no victims. So, explain to me how she should contact victims, when there were none named in the case?
She is a nominee for the Supreme Court and Republicans are doing nothing but getting their message out for the mid terms. That question had absolutely nothing to do with her nomination, and Martha Blackburn accusing her of having a secret CRT agenda is for nothing more than to keep the CRT talk in the mainstream media.
It's not disingenuous at all. This is a person that may write majority opinions that change case law for generations. Answers need to be clear and concise, otherwise we will end up with another John Roberts who writes opinions that just make situations even more convoluted than they were to begin with.
Her answer was clear and concise, it is Republicans who arent sharing her entire quote who are being disingenous.
Personally, i think it was a bullshit question. But she squirmed and did a very poor job in her answer. It should have just been "no". Then let him follow up and ask her "why".
Except you dont know if he would ask that follow up. You admit it was a BS question, so why would you assume he would ask an appropriate follow up? This is all for media and social media, the tweet you posted is from an official RNC account, and they completely cut off her answer in the headline. If she just left it at "no", then you know the GOP would be making it out that she is pro drug dealer or something, I mean, that is kind of what they are doing anyway despite the fact she gave a perfectly reasonable explanation.
I watched Cruz's entire questioning. He would ask a question, as soon as she would start to answer he would interrupt her. Durbin wouldnt let him continue because he wasnt letting her speak, and his time was expired, which the tweet you posted conveniently leaves out.
He was also checking twitter right after his spat with Durbin, because that it all this is about for Cruz and Graham and a few others, getting their names in the news.
She has been fine, but it has been turned into a partisan shit show, like a lot of these hearings are now. Part of me thinks we just need to get rid of these hearings period. Just name the nominee, everyone can review the persons work, and then vote when the vote is called. What we have now is everyone just trying to have their clips on the news and trending on twitter, and it has become a completely unserious ordeal. Lindsey Graham is a perfect example, he voted for her last March, basically 1 year ago, to be on the court of appeals, but now he is so upset by her nomination he storms out and leaves the room? Of course, those hearings arent all over TV, so Lindsey had nothing to gain by showing out for those hearings, but with these hearings he knows he will be plastered all over the news.
She isnt justifying pedophilia, none of these cases are people who just walked. But, shouldnt someone now ask Graham why he voted for her less than a year ago? Most of these cases happened prior to the last year, so if this is such an issue to Graham, then it seems to me he needs to start explaining why he supported her less than a year ago.
This is simply the normal political posturing. The Republicans have been gentle compared to the stuff the Dems threw at the last 2 nominees. It will be done in a few days, and she will be confirmed
It wasn't a good look for Cruz. It's going to backfire. He's pandering to his base, but it's going to backfire.
The only thing I'll agree on this woman is -- as Tucker pointed out in a very anti-PC way -- she's another Clarence Thomas African-American, only more Liberal (not quite Progressive), while Thomas is clearly one of the biggest Conservatives on the court.
I.e., She's a token African-American who didn't grow up without things, like most affluent white people too.
Still, I like most of her rulings. I have to be impressed by her objectivity and sticking to her evaluations. She isn't a blanket Progressive, and more of a Liberal, independently thinking.
It's hard for me to dislike her at all. She's not 'tough on crime' and I like that, because we're 'too tough' since the mid '90s.
Similar threads
