Supreme Court rejects affirmative action at colleges, says schools can’t consider race in admission

Ms. Cleo, your tarrot cards and crystal ball ain't working. They're broken.

 

Hey Forrest Gump, that’s Aretha Franklin. Oh and it’s YOUR “tarot” cards. Go back to school.

 

No, because Garland didn't have the votes.

Yeah, take a guess when that trend started.

 

So are you saying all those Asians were cheering since they were the majority according to you

 

Maybe Mitch McConnell should've dug up 40-year old bogus rape allegations with respect to Garland. Maybe then you guys would be happy.

We could've had hearings questioning whether he drank in high school. It could've been such a party.

 

He's always been lazy

 

Answering a question with a question is a bad look.

In a “colorblind” society there would not be discernible differences in socioeconomic status between the races. Each race of American citizen would have similar incarceration rates. Similar graduation rates. Similar rates of socioeconomic success. There is no rational basis for these discrepancies to exist along the lines of race.

Now why don’t you take a crack at explaining their existence.

 

Why do only 1% of Martian’s graduate high school? Further, in such a crazed hypothetical you think society should just accept that disparity without attempting to understand the underlying causes or attempting to redress them?

 

I know what you're expecting and I would agree that it started with the Democrats and Bork. That being said almost every SCOTUS nominee for the next several decades was confirmed on a bipartisan basis even the contentious nomination of Clarence Thomas who would have been rejected had the vote been strictly partisan was confirmed as were Clinton's one nominee (Stephen Breyer 87-9); George W. Bush's two nominees (Roberts 78-22 and Alito 58-42) as well as Obama's two nominees (Sotomayor 68-31and Kagan 63-37). Again if McConnell had the votes to reject Garland he almost certainly would have had the Senate as a whole vote on the nomination. He used his power as the majority leader to deny Garland a vote because he wanted to keep the seat open hoping that a Republican would win the election and even if Clinton won the balance on the court would not have changed.

 

This is the silliest spin I've ever encountered on this. You are embarrassing yourself at this point. Stop. Quit digging.

 

A Republican Majority Senate was never going to vote to confirm Garland to replace Scalia in an election year.

That is a completely delusional take. And to suggest that THIS is the justification for packing the Court in context of everything else Democrats have done over the last decade is just the height of dishonesty.

 

Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan nominee was confirmed by a Democrat majority Senate in 1988 also an election year by a 97-0 vote. For at least the third time Mitch McConnell didn't put the Garland nomination before the Senate because knew that Garland would be confirmed. In fact if he thought that Garland would have been rejected he most likely would have put the nomination before the Senate to embarrass Obama.

 

Kennedy is the reason gay marriage is now a Constitutional right. No shit Democrats like him.

Not saying he was a liberal justice either, but he certainly wasn't a conservative one. He was far from a Scalia or a Thomas. He was in the middle and *checks notes* would you look at that, not a single vote went against him.

Here's the thing about Garland. He's not in the middle. And if there's anything that's pulled back the curtain on that front, it's been his run as Attorney General in the Biden Administration.

He already embarrassed Obama. By not having the vote he provided cover to Republicans who may have reaped political consequences for not voting to confirm him while simultaneously humiliating Obama. Seems like a win-win for McConnell to me.

 

You need to work on your reading comprehension. The cheers were from those folks in attendance.

 

Winsome Sears Nukes Ketanji Brown Jackson's Dissent: ‘Chosen Because She’s Black’

 

Winsome Sears is full of shit

 

One opinion of Garland from a former Republican US Attorney who used to make frequent appearances on Fox. Doesn't sound like he was describing a flaming liberal.

How Bombing Case Helped Shape Career of a Potential Justice (Published 2010)

 

She’s well qualified, full stop.

The problem that some of you have, either consciously or not, is that for your lifetime the people in power look like you, white and male. The fact someone does NOT look like you is jarring.

Well, guess what, leadership positions are becoming more representative of the population and that’s a good thing.

 

I thought I was debating the issue. The immature taunt is unnecessary.