1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

President Biden: The NEW one and only politics thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Moderator1, Jan 20, 2021.

  1. Brooklyn Bridge

    Brooklyn Bridge Well-Known Member

    Cruz searching Twitter for mentions after grilling Jackson.

     
  2. garrow

    garrow Well-Known Member

  3. Mngwa

    Mngwa Well-Known Member

    Pandering? He made a campaign promise and he kept it, which I understand is unusual. Tell me, was Sandra Day O'Connor diminished over the course of her Supreme Court career? I don't think she was.
     
  4. Della9250

    Della9250 Well-Known Member

    I think the chart does go out of the way to highlight stuff she has that a lot of the others don't, but I also think it is meant to highlight to people who don't pay attention that she is as qualified as any of the others, despite those going out of their way to discredit her ability.

    And I think the point of some of the differences is to show what she adds. Does it matter that she's the only one to be a public defender? It at least gives her a different prospective that the other eight voices in the room and how they might approach some things. Does it matter that she will replace Breyer's spot as the lone justice who was on the sentencing commission, in case that comes in handy for a docket a decade down the road?
     
  5. Regan MacNeil

    Regan MacNeil Well-Known Member

    Johnson sure didn’t do Thurgood Marshall any favors by putting that token on the Court.
     
  6. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Johnson didn't announce that only a black male would be his nominee before there was even a seat open. Which amounts to using your duty to pick Supreme Court justices as a prop to pander for votes. Biden did it in a lame effort to get black people and women to actually come out and vote for him rather than stay home. It was opportunistic tokenism.

    If he felt it was overdue for a black woman to get a nomination, there were clearly plenty of impressive enough candidates to choose from. It would have been easy to just wait for a seat to open up and nominate a person on their merits -- not on their gender and skin color. But that's not how things get done now, because it's all about dividing us into races and religions and genders and any number of other things that people identify with, and. ... yes, turn governance into pandering.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2022
  7. Regan MacNeil

    Regan MacNeil Well-Known Member

    We’re not all required to have your cynical take on it.
     
  8. garrow

    garrow Well-Known Member

    But jealous spite and all their precious courts
    He must be tweet on the telephone they need their Gov to trans hate
    He plays the electorate so more running money

    Arc of a liar effortlessly, his mind is a lie and when we wake up
    Daytime and nighttime the danger is clear
    Cold fascists breathing AOC helps us here

    Mean streak and Putin spawned on the streets I hear it but with you I had to go
    'Cause their soundbites have to be found and the beat it goes on
    Arc of a liar effortlessly, his mind is a lie and when we wake up
    Daytime and nighttime the danger is clear
    Cold fascists breathing AOC helps us here
     
  9. Brooklyn Bridge

    Brooklyn Bridge Well-Known Member

    And if Biden didn’t say anything about a potential nominee and then went ahead with his choice, would the outcome have been any different? Would Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley and the rest of the knuckle draggers said “she is a highly-qualified individual and will get my vote?” Methinks not.
     
    cyclingwriter2, matt_garth and Mngwa like this.
  10. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    She's a great choice.

    And as always, a reminder of the qualifications required for appointment to the Supreme Court:

    Frequently Asked Questions: General Information - Supreme Court of the United States

    Are there qualifications to be a Justice? Do you have to be a lawyer or attend law school to be a Supreme Court Justice?

    The Constitution does not specify qualifications for Justices such as age, education, profession, or native-born citizenship. A Justice does not have to be a lawyer or a law school graduate, but all Justices have been trained in the law. Many of the 18th and 19th century Justices studied law under a mentor because there were few law schools in the country.

    • The last Justice to be appointed who did not attend any law school was James F. Byrnes (1941-1942). He did not graduate from high school and taught himself law, passing the bar at the age of 23.
    • Robert H. Jackson (1941-1954). While Jackson did not attend an undergraduate college, he did study law at Albany Law School in New York. At the time of his graduation, Jackson was only twenty years old and one of the requirements for a law degree was that students must be twenty-one years old. Thus rather than a law degree, Jackson was awarded with a "diploma of graduation." Twenty-nine years later, Albany Law School belatedly presented Jackson with a law degree noting his original graduating class of 1912.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2022
  11. Octave

    Octave Well-Known Member

    MSNBC chryon "Griner is doing well in prison." WTF is that supposed to mean?
     
  12. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    She’s still alive. That’s what that means.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page