Trump Judicial Nominee Refusing to Say if She Supports Brown v. Board of Education

[mikeymikec]

that was like her personal vietnam, man

 

[HomerJS]

She showed reasonable restrain when asked instead of telling them to go fsck off and take their witch hunt elsewhere.

Good for her. Why should the American people know if someone sitting on the bench thinks getting rid of separate but equal is a good idea?

Spoken like a very fine Republican

 

[pmv]

link? proof? What if i supported segregation just to irritate you? Does that mean I believe certain races inferior? How?

It seems to be this is increasingly what actually happens. People with resentments against 'elite liberals' decide to hit back at those liberals by attacking a vulnerable minority who aren't elite liberals. Just to irritate them.

But if you make black people pay a price just so you can work out some hostility to white people who you think are better-off than you, then, yeah, you are a racist. Because you are using black people as a means-to-an-end and assuming their well-being is less important than your own agenda. You clearly would not be viewing them as fellow, equal human beings. That's obviously racism.

 

[justoh]

It seems to be this is increasingly what actually happens. People with resentments against 'elite liberals' decide to hit back at those liberals by attacking a vulnerable minority who aren't elite liberals. Just to irritate them.

But if you make black people pay a price just so you can work out some hostility to white people who you think are better-off than you, then, yeah, you are a racist. Because you are using black people as a means-to-an-end and assuming their well-being is less important than your own agenda. You clearly would not be viewing them as fellow, equal human beings. That's obviously racism.

That's just stupid. Please read the definition.

 

[mindless1]

Aptly named fucktard...

Troll mode is for 5 year olds. Grow up.

 

[pmv]

That's just stupid. Please read the definition.

That's not an argument. Try constructing one, maybe?

 

[Amused]

Troll mode is for 5 year olds. Grow up.

Wow... projection. How unoriginal for the new right.

 

[justoh]

That's not an argument. Try constructing one, maybe?

You didn't have an argument; just a conclusion:

You clearly would not

Which was stupid. I actually tried editing the post, desperately looking for something more to add, but came up with the same reply. You're clearly 3 months behind on your cable bill. See? Doesn't work.

 

[Maxima1]

link? proof? What if i supported segregation just to irritate you? Does that mean I believe certain races inferior? How?

In the Griswold v. Connecticut decision on birth control, the court found that arbitrariness of religious principles were being disguised as safety concerns. This excuse of yours is just as obvious.

 

[Commodus]

Troll mode is for 5 year olds. Grow up.

Speaking of growing up: instead of being immature and falsely attacking it as a "witch hunt," maybe you should ask why a judicial nominee is even being entertained when she won't say whether or not she supports the ruling that desegregated schools? If a nominee won't support desegregation, they don't deserve to have any legal authority.

 

[pmv]

You didn't have an argument; just a conclusion:



Which was stupid. I actually tried editing the post, desperately looking for something more to add, but came up with the same reply. You're clearly 3 months behind on your cable bill. See? Doesn't work.

You continue to make little sense. Your cable bill analogy fails badly. It seems to be missing the antecedent clause.

I'll say it again - if you were to _use_ another less powerful group as a means to an end, harming them in order to get back at someone else, you clearly would not be treating them as equal human beings. Now what in that do you disagree with?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I haven't had a chance to look into statements. Did she say she was against integration, or did she say that she thought the legal basis was in doubt? Were the questions legit or "gotchas"?

 

[justoh]

You continue to make little sense. Your cable bill analogy fails badly. It seems to be missing the antecedent clause.

I'll say it again - if you were to _use_ another less powerful group as a means to an end, harming them in order to get back at someone else, you clearly would not be treating them as equal human beings. Now what in that do you disagree with?

If you were to use another less powerful group as a means to an end, blah blah blah, you clearly would be 3 months behind on your cable bill. It's more or less the same argument. Neither conclusions follow.

 

[Meghan54]

If you were to use another less powerful group as a means to an end, blah blah blah, you clearly would be 3 months behind on your cable bill. It's more or less the same argument. Neither conclusions follow.

Neither does anything remotely resembling a coherent train of thought from you.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I haven't had a chance to look into statements. Did she say she was against integration, or did she say that she thought the legal basis was in doubt? Were the questions legit or "gotchas"?

The clip in the OP is basically her refusing to say the SCOTUS was correct in their ruling, but she claims she'd put her personal beliefs aside and adhere to the courts decisions because they're her boss.

She's a pro birth nutter, spreads falsehoods about planned Parenthood, and refused to answer anything g about it

 

[Jhhnn]

I haven't had a chance to look into statements. Did she say she was against integration, or did she say that she thought the legal basis was in doubt? Were the questions legit or "gotchas"?

What she said (without actually saying it) Is that her personal beliefs are such that "separate yet equal" wasn't a lie all along.

The whole notion that school kids should be separated on the basis of color is racist to its core.

 

[Greenman]

If you cannot see the difference between state mandated segregation (Apartheid/Jim Crow) and voluntary self segregation, you don't understand the concept of freedom, law, or simple logic.

The fact is, it was a racist state mandated policy designed not only to keep races seperate against their will, but to also keep an entire race down, mired in poverty. And it only truly ended in the 1960s. It was America's version of Apartheid.

See the concept is simple, if you want to segregate yourself, that's racial animosity (if the oppressed race) or racist (if the oppressing race) but legal. If you want to segregate others against their will, that's racist and illegal.

I understand the difference, it wasn't clear if we were including voluntary segregation in the discussion. I have no issue with voluntary segregation from anyone. We should all be allowed to live with people we're comfortable with.

 

[umbrella39]

Troll mode is for 5 year olds. Grow up.

Do report back after you blow out those 5 candles...

 

[mindless1]

Wow... projection. How unoriginal for the new right.

nvm troll not worth the time

 

[Puffnstuff]

Too bad we don't have a national fire chief so Trump could appoint an arsonist to the post.

 

[mindless1]

Good for her. Why should the American people know if someone sitting on the bench thinks getting rid of separate but equal is a good idea?

Spoken like a very fine Republican

You're really delusional enough to think that a single person who doesn't want to be questioned in a witch trial, is a threat? That's ignorant.

I'm not advocating her based on any values bad or good, just the context of this topic. I don't feel she is fit for the position but it's aside from this internet trial-by-idiots.

 

[mikeymikec]

@mindless1

The nominee was asked some questions. You called it a 'witch hunt' without any kind of justification for your assertion. Would you like to provide some, or are you going to accuse me of conducting a 'witch hunt' against you because I'm asking you a question or two?

 

[pcgeek11]

It seems to be this is increasingly what actually happens. People with resentments against 'elite liberals' decide to hit back at those liberals by attacking a vulnerable minority who aren't elite liberals. Just to irritate them.

But if you make black people pay a price just so you can work out some hostility to white people who you think are better-off than you, then, yeah, you are a racist. Because you are using black people as a means-to-an-end and assuming their well-being is less important than your own agenda. You clearly would not be viewing them as fellow, equal human beings. That's obviously racism.

So the Democratic Party is racist.

Got it.

 

[Amused]

You're really delusional enough to think that a single person who doesn't want to be questioned in a witch trial, is a threat? That's ignorant.

I'm not advocating her based on any values bad or good, just the context of this topic. I don't feel she is fit for the position but it's aside from this internet trial-by-idiots.

By your logic, every job interview and first date is now officially a witch hunt.

Seriously.

That's how stupid this is.

Stop

 

[ch33zw1z]

Concerned about hard right idealogy influencing judicial branches, well you're just hunting for witches.