Opposing Obama's SCOTUS nomination is racist -


#1

There’s more than a few of these articles out there but I’m getting really sick of them, here’s one:
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/sanders-calls-senate-obstruction-a-racist-effort-024556291.html

It’s such a sack of crap. Wanting to not be racist is the reason Obama got elected. I hear this ‘elections have consequences’ claim on this stuff frequently as well. I haven’t quite gone through with making a facebook post because I generally don’t post politics on Facebook, but I’ve written posts without hitting send in response to this crap that if elections have consequences, it would do well for the people saying this to remember that a Republican majority has been elected in the House and Senate. So aside from the voting populace not wanting to be racist, it seems pretty clear that on policy matters - ya know, the actual reason Obama’s agenda and SCOTUS nomination are opposed - the elections have said what Obama wants is not what the country wants.

Here’s a real list of racists:

[TABLE=“class: contenttext, width: 100%”]

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)

Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (D-FL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)

Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)

[/TABLE]
U.S. Senate: Roll Call Vote

Yeah, it’s the nays from a roll call where Miguel Estrada’s confirmation was denied cloture by the Senate minority.

Bernie isn’t on the list because he wasn’t in the Senate at the time, he was in the House of Representatives. Clinton sure as hell is though.

I remember it being nasty, but I didn’t realize until I looked it back up now that it was so nasty it led to Estrada’s wife having a miscarriage then subsequently dying from an alcohol and sleeping pills. After 28 months of the nomination process.

And since it turned up in my searches, here’s another racist group: The Leadership Council on Civil Rights.

Hell, I mean if just opposing someone’s agenda makes someone racist, shouldn’t opposing somebody that isn’t white be even more so?

Leadership Conference Applauds Cloture Vote on Estrada Nomination


#2

The reason Obama won’t get another pick is Racism, Obama is just too Racist to be trusted with another Supreme Court nomination.

If Obama wanted the Senate to trust him he should have thought about that long ago when he decided to put his Racist hatred ahead of his oath to defend the Constitution, now there is nothing left but for Obama to assume his place in history right along side of all the other filthy Racist leaders who tried to destroy their country’s.

Obama will cry like all filthy Racists do over this and McConnell will probably cave since McConnell seems to agree with the Racist Obama on everything anyway, but that is the cost of electing Racist imbeciles like Obama and cowards like McConnell.


#3

I was suprised when McConnell and others in the Senate came out so fast and sounding so resolute. Then the Judiciary Committee stated they will not even have a hearing on any Obama nominee. Now Grassley, Judiciary Committee Chairman, has agreed to meet with Obama to discuss. Discuss what? Has the slow agonizing road to surrender begun already?

Here is a possibility: The GOP leadership does not want to surrender until the presidential primary process is decided. They would risk amplifying the anger of primary voters and helping Cruz and Trump. Once the primary process is decided, regardless of the result, they will be free to resume cooperation with the democrats. GOP Senators up for re-election will be given a pass to bellow their disappointment and opposition. Another 3 act play for the stupid base; except more and more of them are waking up.


#4

I really think they looked at reality and saw that waiting will still glean them an Obama type pick since the next president will be Clinton or Trump, if they thought Cruz had a chance they would quickly confirm whoever Obama picked but there is no sense in spending all that voter capital when they can “play tough” for the Base and still get a Justice that will ignore the Constitution.


#5

I personally think McConnell should not have staked out any public position on moving or not moving whenever Obama moved a name for SCTUS into nomination. McConnell should have said only, “The president has his role in the process and, as a co-equal branch of government, the Senate will respond in a manner consistent with the Constitution”. There was no need to say more and IMHO, it was counterproductive to do so. I think this for two reasons -

First, McConnell and the Judiciary Chair, Grassley, are weak and no one with any sense trusts either one of them so . . .

Two, why provide Obama and the Democrats an opportunity to further politicize the process and publically demagogue the issue?

Now, Obama has “floated” the name of Repub Gov, Brian Sandoval of Nevada in an effort to “flush” these two Republican goons from cover, attempt to outflank them and attempt to get them to process his, Obama’s, appointee. Obama has invited both McConnell and Grassley to the WH to discuss the matter and both have accepted. For Obama, things are moving along just great. If/When McConnell and Grassley weaken and an Obama nomination gets to the Senate Judicial Committee, who knows what will happen under the feckless leadership of this group of Repubs?

It is this kind of political ineptness, equivocation, stupidity, weakness and bullsh*t that has Trump kicking everyone’s ass in the primaries. The Beltway Lizards just don’t freakin’ get it.

About Sandoval - as someone who originally retired to Nevada and who worked on a “Tea Party” candidate Senate campaign, I can tell you that Sandoval represents the perfect Obama appointee to the SCOTUS. Sandoval is a LIBERAL Republican. Among other things, he is a pro-abortion, large government, don’t rock the boat politician.

I can provide this insight relative to 2nd amendment rights as well - despite being governor for several years now, Nevada STILL has no reciprocal agreement with other states that allow concealed handgun carry. It is one of only a handful of states that does not have a reciprocal agreement allowing a citizen licensed in another state to carry a concealed firearm. Sandoval has steadfastly refused to support concealed carry reciprocity.

In short, Sandoval is akin to a cross-dressing Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

One final point: I wouldn’t get too excited about Democrats and their claim of racism as a reason why Repubs won’t accept a nomination from Obama. After all, “Racism” is the default position of Democrats on virtually every issue. To be surprised or upset by it only means you will be popping Tums and downing valium for the rest of your life.


#6

The notion that Trump will nominate someone in the same vein as Obama or Clinton is absurd. He stated that Justice Thomas is his favourite on the court. He also threw out the names of William Pryor and Diane Sykes as possibilities.

Meet The Two Ultra-Conservatives Trump Would Nominate To The Supreme Court | ThinkProgress


#7

I agree, but for a slightly different reason. Why telegraph the punch you plan to use? Definitely a counterproductive case of mouth running but brain not yet started. :banghead:


#8

Mind you, I’m going only by what is written in your link of the two.

Judge Diane Sykes is a judge who appears to adhere to the Constitution, and her, I could go along with.

Judge Pryor, otoh, struck down the voter ID law based on who it effected more, and/or the likelihood of fraud happening, OVER the Constitutionality of such a law.
Not good.
(Agree w/his opinion of Roe vs. Wade. Would have to know more particulars about sex discrimination case.)


#9

I agree but it is far more important that they actually follow through and block any nominations; past performance is not encouraging. Even with a Republican president any confirmations in the foreseeable future may be impossible; and we know the democrats know how to fight.


#10

Unless (as I usually suspect with the likes of McConnell) they’re taking a dive instead of making a mistake.


#11

Taking a dive (again) is a mistake. Even more so after telegraphing your plans.


#12

Yeah, only Trump or Clinton picks unConstitutional SCOTUS judges. Who, again, picked Roberts? GWBush? Oh yeah. Sure. He picked better than Trump will.[sarcasm]

the President doesn’t just “pick” a justice. He or she, must be confirmed in the Senate. The Speaker and Senate Majority leader are trying to keep an already incensed electorate, from getting angrier. They are seen as political Eunuchs. They are really trying to give the impression that they have “grown a pair”. Ain’t working, from where I sit.


#13

From a right-vs.-wrong perspective, I agree. My suspicion is that they’re looking at it from a money-under-the-table perspective.


#14

I tend to agree. However, I think we should stipulate that not one of us knows with certainty what Trump would do regarding a SCOTUS nominee - or anything else. Trump’s history is pretty much all over the political map.

People are livid and, as I see it, they have concluded they would rather take Trump at his word and on faith than place their hopes to turn this sh*t around in the hands of professional politicians. IMHO

The thread I started titled, “The State Of The Election” under Election Watch pretty much sums up my view on this election cycle and its cast of characters.


#15

Yes I know, he also thinks the Justices who voted for KELO were right and Thomas was wrong; I have no idea what Trump’s criteria is for having a “favorite” but I assume it is whatever will play well in the moment.

Donald Trump is Bill Clinton part two, “Character doesn’t matter” as long as he gets what he wants.


#16

Yes but Bush made a mistake, his intent was to appoint a Strict Constructionist and everyone that I know thought Roberts was one at the time.

Trump and Clinton will choose a name who also represents how important they think Constitutional integrity is, and for both that is “not very” according to their own history’s and current words.

Trump will say whatever he thinks will advance his agenda at the moment and the complete opposite tomorrow if he changes his mind about what he needs; he is an Amoral Populist without a conscience.


#17

Well, you may be right, but I am not ready to concede that, at this point.
So, who is your candidate of choice? Who has the “character” you wish to see running this country? And, if you think Cruz doesn’t say what will advance his agenda, you may want to rethink. He is just another paid politician, bought and paid for by billionaire donors. He won’t get much support, in Congress, even from his own party. I guess if someone is of the mindset that doing nothing is better than rocking the boat, Cruz may do well. Yet, I have not seen anyone other than Trump with the audacity and tenacity to move forward.
What if Trump does make good on his promises?
I know if Clinton or Sanders win, we’re screwed.
I know that if Rubio wins, we’re screwed.
I’d be willing to bet Cruz will also screw he pooch.
So, I am willing to give someone different a try. And Trump is nothing, if not different.


#18

Tiny sez: “So, I am willing to give someone different a try. And Trump is nothing, if not different.”

My biggest hangup with this bozo is that he strikes me as an “OBAMA” clone, IE: narcissistic, temperamental, egotistical, and “it’s my way or the highway” attitude; and IMHO, we are just as in the dark as to what he will ACTUALLY do based on his “promises” as we were with the ZERO.
IOW, he’s as much an unknown as the ZERO was, and you see how that has turned out!

Frankly, again IMHO, we as a nation are screwed - no matter what!

Color me cynical and un-trusting!!:cry:

**HOWEVER, should he become the nominee, for now anyway, I would vote for him over ANY Democrat that I know of now!!!
**


#19

Cruz is the only option left, he has been a pillar of integrity for as long as he has been in the crucible of the public sector.

I always knew defeating the Establishment GOP was a longshot at best, I just did not think that the rank and file Republican voters who will embrace absolute moral bankruptcy was such a high percentage.


#20

Different doesn’t mean better. Others have articulated better than I about why they don’t trust Trump. I can’t say for sure that Cruz is better. But I feel pretty sure that Trump is not. I can’t point to specifics because I didn’t pay attention to them before he started running; but I recall hearing on the news about a number of issues on which Trump took a nonconservative position. And now that he’s running, he’s talking the talk like there’s no tomorrow. Seems to me to be Romney Mk.2.