Skip to main content
Update
Non-financial boards have been closed.

Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.

Fool.com | The Motley Fool Community
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 4
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/13-senate-democrats-voted-a...

While Biden's pledge to nominate a Black woman has received support from Democrats who see it as a win for diversity, over a dozen Senate Democrats previously tried to block a Black woman from the federal judiciary when she was nominated by former President Trump.

Sometimes diversity by color isn't quite ok. But to deny one who is Black and checks all the right liberal boxes from a job, well that is now racist first and foremost. No mention of the liberal leanings not wanted by those who vote.

Is your head spinning yet?


ww
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
over a dozen Senate Democrats previously tried to block a Black woman from the federal judiciary when she was nominated by former President Trump.

To whom do you refer? When I googled for this, I found out:

Donald Trump is on track to be the first president since Richard Nixon to go a full first term without selecting a Black nominee for a federal appeals court.

Just one of Trump’s 53 confirmed appeals court judges is Hispanic and none are Black. That compares to about 27% of President Barack Obama’s and roughly 15% under President George W. Bush, according to a Bloomberg Law analysis of Federal Judicial Center data.

...

Trump has already filled nearly 30% of federal appeals court seats, stocking them with conservative stalwarts and stalling progress under his two predecessors in adding more Hispanic and Black judges.


https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/no-black-judges-am...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You claimed....To whom do you refer? When I googled for this, I found out:

Donald Trump is on track to be the first president since Richard Nixon to go a full first term without selecting a Black nominee for a federal appeals court.



++++++++++++++++++++++

From the linked article...The Senate Democrats in question all voted against Ada E. Brown, former President Trump’s nominee for district judge of the northern district of Texas.

Brown, a Black woman, was confirmed in September 2019 by a vote of 80-13, with the 13 "nay" votes coming from Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer, Tammy Baldwin, Richard Blumenthal, Sherrod Brown, Maria Cantwell, Catherine Cortez Masto, Kirsten Gillibrand, Mazie Hirono, Ed Markey, Patty Murray, Brian Schatz, Debbie Stabenow and Ron Wyden.

I guess you did not read the link.

ww
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Guess not.

trump nominated ONE black person out of hundreds of judgeships?!

And 80-13 is excellent. Do you think Buden's nominee will get that many Repoublican thumbs-up?

PS--Nothing to explode my head here.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Guess not.

trump nominated ONE black person out of hundreds of judgeships?!

And 80-13 is excellent. Do you think Buden's nominee will get that many Repoublican thumbs-up?

PS--Nothing to explode my head here.

++++++++++

Not much to explode it seems.

The point being if Republicans vote against it, it is racism, if they vote for it...well it is about time. If Democrats vote against it,it is for other worthy reasons. No mention of racism.

Racism is the go to race card to be played, but your mileage may vary. As practiced by you folks, it is now also just a joke. You folks made it that way.

ww
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Is your head spinning yet?

Yup: Too much of will's swill.

Oops.....back to The Weather Channel for some real stimulation.


Jimbo
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
The point being if Republicans vote against it, it is racism, if they vote for it...well it is about time. If Democrats vote against it,it is for other worthy reasons. No mention of racism.

YooHoo! Most Democratic senators voted *for* her. I guess we both have problems with reading comprehension ;-)

PS--*More* DEMs voted for trump's black nominee than REPs voted for Obama's Latina nominee (Sotomayor): 68-31. Or Thurgood Marshall: 69-11.

So spare us your faux "Dems are racist, Reps aren't" malarkey.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtN...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
So spare us your faux "Dems are racist, Reps aren't" malarkey.

++++++++++++++

This not at all what I said. You have a comprehension problem.

What I referred to was the flippant use of racism broadcasted against Republicans when the issue is judgment on their policy and qualifications to do the job. When Democrats do the same thing, who is using the racism card then?? No one until I stepped up. I am trying to show the special ed folks how it is being played.

Funny how that just works so often.



w
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
The point being if Republicans vote against it, it is racism, if they vote for it...well it is about time. If Democrats vote against it,it is for other worthy reasons. No mention of racism.

So... Your point is that 13% of democrats are racist and a 100% of republicans are racist.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The point being if Republicans vote against it, it is racism, if they vote for it...well it is about time. If Democrats vote against it,it is for other worthy reasons. No mention of racism.

So... Your point is that 13% of democrats are racist and a 100% of republicans are racist.

+++++++++++++

The take home lesson children is....

Anyone can disagree with someone of a different Race, Sex, Religion, sexual orientation,etc,etc and be on principled grounds other than their descriptor...even Republicans.

You immediately give a Democrat a pass, then play the race card front and center if the exact same situation involves a Republican.

Aspire to be better, fair and balanced.


ww
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

You immediately give a Democrat a pass, then play the race card front and center if the exact same situation involves a Republican.


Ahhhh... I played the Race Card?

No.... That would be your distinction...
Note: caption for your thread

Obvious racism with Black judges

Somewhere you'll find a post by me where I call Republicans Racist for any reason, Black Judges or any matter.

Ahhhh... That would be No

There's only one person here bringing up the Race Card:
YOU
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
This message was written by Willswill, an author you chose to ignore.

Oh, yes. I do chose to ignore that author.

Click here to unignore this author.


No, no, no. Definitely do not wish to unignore this author. I see most of the racism which I recognize to be many multiples of the number of white men participating.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Aspire to be better, fair and balanced.

words of wisdom and a part of being better is to use CRT or as I refer to it

Critical Reading Theory

Everything does have another side and another story and what's so troubling about the GOP right now is the 100% grievance based platform and a complete disinterest in being better and fair and balanced. Win the argument ignore the research readily available with a few EZ clicks

What we get instead are long useless threads with grievance upon grievance being added to the winding pile and never a fair and balanced look at the whole story. Confine reading to a narrow range of sources and what's left is whaddabout

The whole story is a lot less inflammatory and gives the 13 dissenters a reason for their "no" votes.

Ada Brown would not accept Brown v Board of Education as a correct decision. It's reminiscent of Kavanaugh and Barrett dodging Roe v Wade and now look where we are.

Brown was confirmed with just the third use of the aptly named nuclear option. The dissenting votes were inconsequential to the final outcome. These dissenting 13 votes may more aptly be considered a protest vote against confirmation based on Brown's failure to accept settled law and precedence. It is doubtful it was racism. In fact, the votes represent support for desegregation and equal opportunity. Brown v Board put an end to "separate but equal" and we should expect our judges to abide by Brown.

There are questions during confirmation hearings we have come to think of as litmus tests. One is Roe v Wade and the other is Brown v Board of Education. It was Ada Brown's failure to unequivocally say Brown v Board was settled law and decided correctly that drew rebuke from the Senators. . This cornerstone of civil rights law was not settled law for Ada Brown and the dissenting Senators were protesting the failure.

These Senators wrote a letter explaining why they were voting against the trump nominee and insisted all nominees should be willing to affirm Brown v Board


https://newsone.com/4282856/republicans-leave-out-key-facts-...

Confirmed by a vote of 80-13, Brown refused to answer directly about Brown. While Brown acknowledged the importance of Brown in her own ability to attend “an excellent integrated school,” she declined to say whether the Court correctly decided the case definitively.

The letter read in part:

All nominees who have refused to state unequivocally that Brown was correctly decided should be given an opportunity to clarify their testimony. And those nominees who cannot bring themselves to affirm a case as vital to the fabric of our democracy and legal order as Brown do not deserve a lifetime appointment as a federal judge. Below is a list of pending judicial nominees who as of the time of this letter have declined to state that Brown v. Board was correctly decided. We urge all senators to uphold the importance of this fundamental civil rights ruling by voting against these nominees unless they clarify their testimony and state unequivocally that Brown was correctly decided. There must be a moral floor for these lifetime appointments to our federal judiciary.
Print the post Back To Top