Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Ford is a nut. It is obvious from her testimony that she is a nut. Call her a nut and move on.

Nut.

---

Kavanaugh is a jerk. It is obviously from his testimony at the Senate hearing that he is a jerk and a mean drunk. Call him a jerk and find someone who's not to sit on SCOTUS.

---

It's not obvious. You believe all of that because she said so with zero...and I mean zero evidence and no one backing her story. That's just how crazy you hate Trump.

---

If you think it's terrible to judge a SCOTUS nominee based on the president nominating him, well, that's what happened to Merrick Garland.

Where were your cries of "foul" when it was total clear that McConnell's refusal to even TALK to Garland had nothing to do with Garland, and everything to do with disrespecting the president who nominated him, Obama?

My disgust with Kavanaugh's performance at the Senate hearing has NOTHING to do with Trump (except that the performance was calculated to maintain Trump's support, which it did--my understanding is that Kavanaugh was advised to come on strong).

It had everything to do with the way Senate Republicans treated Obama, Garland and Blasey-Ford.

I don't like Neil Gorsuch as a judge, but I couldn't contest his qualifications and it wasn't HIS fault that McConnell played dirty politics with SCOTUS. Had I been him, however, I might have considered politely declining to be considered until the Senate interviewed Garland and considered him, because that maneuver undermined the credibility of SCOTUS and impartial justices.

I'm also disgusted with the double-standard that awful behavior by Republicans is tolerated because the ends justify the means, while Democrats are held accountable for the sort of behavior Al Franken engaged in (by their own party, even).

---

1. I don't.
2. I didn't see it as foul as Dems would have done the same thing.
3. Garland wasn't mistreated and neither was Ford. Ford was handled with kid gloves when she shouldn't have been...
4. What awful behavior are you talking about?

---

Garland wasn't smeared. He was humilated.

FWIT, a federal judge agrees with you and totally fails to see that Democrats have a valid reason for anger re: Merrick Garland. I think Republicans understimate the anger over what happened with GArland's appointment, the obvious disrespect to Obama, who had dealt with birthers and racist smears against his wife and kids for 8 years, and the humilation of a good man and good judge, at their peril.

Some people who agree with me are Republicans, but the less partisasn variety who don't subscribe to Trump inerrancy and the narrative that everything Trump does is right/moral/justified and everything Democrats do is wrong/immogral/unjustified. Those include the moderator of the discussion I attended last week, a hard-right libertarian and federalist society faculty adviser who counted that among the "race to the bottom" in the politiczation of court appointments.

---

I would expect during an election year, if the president and senate are not from the same party, the judge confirmation would not see the light of day. I wasn't surprised.

It's funny how people like you are upset about the "nuclear" option used by Republicans but somehow missed r=that the Dems started it.

---

"People like me" also don't buy the narrative that whatever nastiness the GOP dishes out is cuz Democrats did it first.

And I learned that "They started it" wasn't a good argument for bad, mean or unethical behavior in grade school.

---

Then why do you bring up Garland every time conservatives talk about Kavanaugh. It is your go to defense: "Garland was treated bad (he wasn't, comparatively), so nothing is off limits with Kavanaugh." That is the definition of "they started it." Get a grip.

---

Garland wasn't even treated. No one even TALKED to him. He didn't GET a hearing. Senators from the opposing party would not meet with him.

That's different from considering his nomination and rejecting him.

Which is why McConnell pulled the stunt he pulled; because Garland was eminantly qualified and a proven moderate--a truly bipartisan option. At the time, McConnell and many other Republicans (including one of my senators, who stated his belief that Hillary would beat Trump 3 weeks befre the election) were far from certain of a GOP victory. So the move was clearly to spite Obama, and Garland was jus the pawn.

Garland didn't get a hearing because, like Gorsuch, he was too credible a nominee not to confirm. So the only way the Republicans could avoid confirming him was to refuse to talk to him. And that's what they did. It was scurrilous, whether you think it was or not.

---

And again, Brett only wishes he could have only gotten the Garland treatment.

contrario said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Then why do you bring up Garland every time conservatives talk about Kavanaugh. It is your go to defense: "Garland was treated bad (he wasn't, comparatively), so nothing is off limits with Kavanaugh." That is the definition of "they started it." Get a grip.

---

Garland wasn't even treated. No one even TALKED to him. He didn't GET a hearing. Senators from the opposing party would not meet with him.

That's different from considering his nomination and rejecting him.

Which is why McConnell pulled the stunt he pulled; because Garland was eminantly qualified and a proven moderate--a truly bipartisan option. At the time, McConnell and many other Republicans (including one of my senators, who stated his belief that Hillary would beat Trump 3 weeks befre the election) were far from certain of a GOP victory. So the move was clearly to spite Obama, and Garland was jus the pawn.

Garland didn't get a hearing because, like Gorsuch, he was too credible a nominee not to confirm. So the only way the Republicans could avoid confirming him was to refuse to talk to him. And that's what they did. It was scurrilous, whether you think it was or not.

---

And again, Brett only wishes he could have only gotten the Garland treatment.

---

No, he doesn't. Because he wanted that seat. It had been promised to him, and he felt entitled to it.

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Then why do you bring up Garland every time conservatives talk about Kavanaugh. It is your go to defense: "Garland was treated bad (he wasn't, comparatively), so nothing is off limits with Kavanaugh." That is the definition of "they started it." Get a grip.

---

Garland wasn't even treated. No one even TALKED to him. He didn't GET a hearing. Senators from the opposing party would not meet with him.

That's different from considering his nomination and rejecting him.

Which is why McConnell pulled the stunt he pulled; because Garland was eminantly qualified and a proven moderate--a truly bipartisan option. At the time, McConnell and many other Republicans (including one of my senators, who stated his belief that Hillary would beat Trump 3 weeks befre the election) were far from certain of a GOP victory. So the move was clearly to spite Obama, and Garland was jus the pawn.

Garland didn't get a hearing because, like Gorsuch, he was too credible a nominee not to confirm. So the only way the Republicans could avoid confirming him was to refuse to talk to him. And that's what they did. It was scurrilous, whether you think it was or not.

---

And again, Brett only wishes he could have only gotten the Garland treatment.

---

No, he doesn't. Because he wanted that seat. It had been promised to him, and he felt entitled to it.

---

You've spoken with him? Impressive.

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Then why do you bring up Garland every time conservatives talk about Kavanaugh. It is your go to defense: "Garland was treated bad (he wasn't, comparatively), so nothing is off limits with Kavanaugh." That is the definition of "they started it." Get a grip.

---

Garland wasn't even treated. No one even TALKED to him. He didn't GET a hearing. Senators from the opposing party would not meet with him.

That's different from considering his nomination and rejecting him.

Which is why McConnell pulled the stunt he pulled; because Garland was eminantly qualified and a proven moderate--a truly bipartisan option. At the time, McConnell and many other Republicans (including one of my senators, who stated his belief that Hillary would beat Trump 3 weeks befre the election) were far from certain of a GOP victory. So the move was clearly to spite Obama, and Garland was jus the pawn.

Garland didn't get a hearing because, like Gorsuch, he was too credible a nominee not to confirm. So the only way the Republicans could avoid confirming him was to refuse to talk to him. And that's what they did. It was scurrilous, whether you think it was or not.

---

And again, Brett only wishes he could have only gotten the Garland treatment.

---

No, he doesn't. Because he wanted that seat. It had been promised to him, and he felt entitled to it.

---

I'm sure if he could have avoided having his reputation smeared by the media and the democrats, he would have gladly taken it, even if it meant keeping his old job. I would imagine if he had the choice of reputation ruining coverage or no vote, he would choose no vote. The democrats have set a new low, that the republicans will gladly replicate. Gawd I hate the two parties.

Jinx 2 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Just can't wrap your head around that Biden Rule.

God bless you.

---

And you just can't wrap your head around the fact that there is no "Biden rule" that extends 10 months from the election and a year from inauguation.

Under that system, any sitting president would be a lame duck almost his entire final year.

But it's a clever enough tactic--always blame Democrats for their own self-destruction (and they are good at it) than hold your own politicians responsible for their bad behavior.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

Biden's floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than it is now.


There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.

There was no nominee to consider.

The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.

Nonetheless, Biden took to the floor in a speech addressing the Senate president to urge delay if a vacancy did appear. But he didn't argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992.
Many of Biden's words echo the state of Washington today:

"Given the unusual rancor that prevailed in the (Clarence) Thomas nomination, the need for some serious reevaluation of the nomination and confirmation process, and the overall level of bitterness that sadly infects our political system and this presidential campaign already, it is my view that the prospects for anything but conflagration with respect to a Supreme Court nomination this year are remote at best."
He noted that among the previous seven nominations, two were not confirmed and two passed with strong opposition.

"In my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.

"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

Biden said if Bush were to nominate someone anyway, "the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."

Based on Biden's words, it appears he would not have objected to Bush nominating someone the day after election day. It would have given the Senate more than two and a half months to vote on confirmation.

---

There have been ten Supreme Court vacancies in election years in which the president's party didn't control the Senate. Of those ten seats, none were filled before the election, three were filled after the election, and seven were left vacant until a new president took office. In at least a couple of cases, the Senate took no action for almost a year.

There have been ten nominees in election years in which the president's party did control the Senate. No less than half of those nominations were made after the election. All but one was confirmed before the next president took office.

Garland's rejection was completely normal and expected. If a vacancy arises in 2020, Republicans will likely fill it even if Trump loses the election. That too will be completely normal and expected.

contrario said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

And again, Brett only wishes he could have only gotten the Garland treatment.

---

No, he doesn't. Because he wanted that seat. It had been promised to him, and he felt entitled to it.

---

I'm sure if he could have avoided having his reputation smeared by the media and the democrats, he would have gladly taken it, even if it meant keeping his old job. I would imagine if he had the choice of reputation ruining coverage or no vote, he would choose no vote. The democrats have set a new low, that the republicans will gladly replicate. Gawd I hate the two parties.

---

Kavanaugh's reputation has not been ruined for conservatives, incluidng some judges. They believe he was unjustly attacked by a liar.

The people who bleieve Blasey Ford are people who already thought Kavanaugh was too partisan and a jerk.

It was clear the Republicans would not care and would not listen to any allegations. But the Democrats were in an impossible position. Ignore Blasey-Ford's allegations, and their base is angry that, yet again, they helped usher in a Republican judicial appointee facing allegations of sexual abuse and harassment. Let Blasey-Ford testity, and unleash the invective of the right-wing media and all the conspiracy nuts on themselves.

If they were going to interview someone and focus on something, perhaps they'd have been smarter to pay more attnetion to Ramirez, and insist investigators talk to Kavanaugh's dorm mates. By college, you're an adult, even if you're still young and foolish.

But I think you're wrong about Kavanaugh. He wanted this job. Clarence Thomas got through, and despite the fact that lots of people believe Anita Hill's charges, he's served ont he court for almost 30 years and gotten to influence jurisprudence from the nation's top court. Kavanaugh's in his 50s. He probbly has 30 years to sit in that seat. It'll be intersting to see what he does there.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Just can't wrap your head around that Biden Rule.

---

---

Garland's rejection was completely normal and expected. If a vacancy arises in 2020, Republicans will likely fill it even if Trump loses the election. That too will be completely normal and expected.

---

I don't know any Democrats who believe this.

And McConnell also said that, if Clinton was elected, he would block all of her nominees.

But this narrative works for the GOP and for Trump. And it worked out great for Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

It has been around for a long time.
Bork: obstruct (someone, especially a candidate for public office) through systematic defamation or vilification.

ShooterTX said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

And again, Brett only wishes he could have only gotten the Garland treatment.

---

No, he doesn't. Because he wanted that seat. It had been promised to him, and he felt entitled to it.

---

I'm sure if he could have avoided having his reputation smeared by the media and the democrats, he would have gladly taken it, even if it meant keeping his old job. I would imagine if he had the choice of reputation ruining coverage or no vote, he would choose no vote. The democrats have set a new low, that the republicans will gladly replicate. Gawd I hate the two parties.

---

Kavanaugh's reputation has not been ruined for conservatives, incluidng some judges. They believe he was unjustly attacked by a liar.

The people who bleieve Blasey Ford are people who already thought Kavanaugh was too partisan and a jerk.

It was clear the Republicans would not care and would not listen to any allegations. But the Democrats were in an impossible position. Ignore Blasey-Ford's allegations, and their base is angry that, yet again, they helped usher in a Republican judicial appointee facing allegations of sexual abuse and harassment. Let Blasey-Ford testity, and unleash the invective of the right-wing media and all the conspiracy nuts on themselves.

If they were going to interview someone and focus on something, perhaps they'd have been smarter to pay more attnetion to Ramirez, and insist investigators talk to Kavanaugh's dorm mates. By college, you're an adult, even if you're still young and foolish.

But I think you're wrong about Kavanaugh. He wanted this job. Clarence Thomas got through, and despite the fact that lots of people believe Anita Hill's charges, he's served ont he court for almost 30 years and gotten to influence jurisprudence from the nation's top court. Kavanaugh's in his 50s. He probbly has 30 years to sit in that seat. It'll be intersting to see what he does there.

---

Nobody with a brain believed Anita Hill. Not a single piece of corroborating evidence. Not a single personal to backup her story, other than people who said that Anita Hill told them her story. She painted him as some sort of sexual deviant, yet no one had ever made such allegations in his 40+ years of life. Meanwhile more than a dozen women who worked with Justice Thomas testified on his behalf. And then there is the fact that Anita Hill met with Thomas for dinners and meetings for years after she had left his employment... not something you would willingly do if you had been harassed in the manner she described. It was a lie, and everyone (even a few of the democrats in the dem controlled congress) knew it was a lie.

It is hilarious that the dems have tried this lie over and over again... and yet they are the true racists & perverted sickos.
Bill Clinton finally admitted to having sex with a girl only a few years older than his own daughter.
Teddy Kennedy and his decades of debauchery... including killing his pregnant mistress.
But my all time favorite is Anthony Wiener. That total scum went public with his angry lies about his innocence (very Clintonian), only to be proven guilty. Then he did it again and again, and even with underage girls (also very Clintonian).
Of course, now days we have creepy Uncle Joe to carry on the sexual sicko banner.

Whenever dems try to attack a Republican over sexual misconduct... just ask them if they voted for or supported the Clintons. Also remember that dems LOVE to lie about sex... it's like a cult for them.

---

Plenty of people with functioning brains don't share your opinion about Anita Hill or much of anything else. Opinions are like noses--everybody's got one. But people's senses of smell differ. I think Trump stinks to high heaven of the worst sort of corruption, while he passes the smell test of most evangelicals.

The one good thing the treatment of Anita Hill did was wake women up. Wish we'd changed politics, particularly Republican politics more than we have.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/hill/hillframe.htm

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jinx shows an awful lot of hate to be judging Christians here.

---

Only the hypocrites.

---

Not so. You have great sympathy for progressive hypocrites, and also great bitterness at honest conservatives, Jinx.

And we are all of us hypocrites at one time or another. Sort of why Jesus warned Peter that he would deny him three times, before it happened.

---

Usually, I ignore you because I don't think you're rational. You accuse anyone who disagrees with you of lying.

I don't disrespect honest conservatives. I just haven't met many. And certainly none on this site.

---

Jinx, with all respect you see everything here through a filter of bigotry. That happens with certain people of course. Florda does that on the conservative side, as does Golem. And of course, cinque cannot say one good word about anyone who does not share his politics.

Stepping aside from various opinions on Donald Trump, consider that more than sixty-two million good, decent Americans voted for him. And they still support him. If you can only believe that those people are mindless haters who are bad people, you are making the same mistake as those people who think that anyone who voted for Hillary Clinton must be a mad, immoral person.

Surely you see where that leads?

It's not about what I think of you, or you of me. It's about greater things.

---

Jinx, I really want to read your response to this post.

You keep saying how much you hate negativity and nasty attacks. This is an opportunity for productive discussion.

What do you say?

---

Third try, Jinx.

Are you interested in a productive discussion, or do you prefer to just make the same angry noises and get angry noises back?

Up to you ...

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jinx shows an awful lot of hate to be judging Christians here.

---

Only the hypocrites.

---

Not so. You have great sympathy for progressive hypocrites, and also great bitterness at honest conservatives, Jinx.

And we are all of us hypocrites at one time or another. Sort of why Jesus warned Peter that he would deny him three times, before it happened.

---

Usually, I ignore you because I don't think you're rational. You accuse anyone who disagrees with you of lying.

I don't disrespect honest conservatives. I just haven't met many. And certainly none on this site.

---

Jinx, with all respect you see everything here through a filter of bigotry. That happens with certain people of course. Florda does that on the conservative side, as does Golem. And of course, cinque cannot say one good word about anyone who does not share his politics.

Stepping aside from various opinions on Donald Trump, consider that more than sixty-two million good, decent Americans voted for him. And they still support him. If you can only believe that those people are mindless haters who are bad people, you are making the same mistake as those people who think that anyone who voted for Hillary Clinton must be a mad, immoral person.

Surely you see where that leads?

It's not about what I think of you, or you of me. It's about greater things.

---

Jinx, I really want to read your response to this post.

You keep saying how much you hate negativity and nasty attacks. This is an opportunity for productive discussion.

What do you say?

---

Third try, Jinx.

Are you interested in a productive discussion, or do you prefer to just make the same angry noises and get angry noises back?

Up to you ...

---

You're wasting time

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Just can't wrap your head around that Biden Rule.

God bless you.

---

And you just can't wrap your head around the fact that there is no "Biden rule" that extends 10 months from the election and a year from inauguation.

Under that system, any sitting president would be a lame duck almost his entire final year.

But it's a clever enough tactic--always blame Democrats for their own self-destruction (and they are good at it) than hold your own politicians responsible for their bad behavior.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

Biden's floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than it is now.


There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.

There was no nominee to consider.

The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.

Nonetheless, Biden took to the floor in a speech addressing the Senate president to urge delay if a vacancy did appear. But he didn't argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992.
Many of Biden's words echo the state of Washington today:

"Given the unusual rancor that prevailed in the (Clarence) Thomas nomination, the need for some serious reevaluation of the nomination and confirmation process, and the overall level of bitterness that sadly infects our political system and this presidential campaign already, it is my view that the prospects for anything but conflagration with respect to a Supreme Court nomination this year are remote at best."
He noted that among the previous seven nominations, two were not confirmed and two passed with strong opposition.

"In my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.

"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

Biden said if Bush were to nominate someone anyway, "the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."

Based on Biden's words, it appears he would not have objected to Bush nominating someone the day after election day. It would have given the Senate more than two and a half months to vote on confirmation.

---

There have been ten Supreme Court vacancies in election years in which the president's party didn't control the Senate. Of those ten seats, none were filled before the election, three were filled after the election, and seven were left vacant until a new president took office. In at least a couple of cases, the Senate took no action for almost a year.

There have been ten nominees in election years in which the president's party did control the Senate. No less than half of those nominations were made after the election. All but one was confirmed before the next president took office.

Garland's rejection was completely normal and expected. If a vacancy arises in 2020, Republicans will likely fill it even if Trump loses the election. That too will be completely normal and expected.

---

https://www.afj.org/myths-vs-facts-on-scotus-vacancy

MYTH: President Obama should not nominate a Supreme Court justice because he is a "lame duck" president and thus should not be allowed to fill a Supreme Court vacancy during an election year.
FACT: President Obama is not a "lame duck" president. According to Merriam-Webster, a lame duck is "an elected official or group continuing to hold political office during the period between the election and the inauguration of a successor." This usage has been around since the mid-nineteenth century and is the reason the Twentieth Amendment, which shortens the period between an election and the start of the next Congress and president, is referred to as the "Lame Duck Amendment." Thus, President Obama will not be a lame duck until after the November elections.
FACT: Thirteen (13) presidents have filled Supreme Court vacancies during a presidential election year. Our first president, George Washington, established this precedent. In 1796, Washington nominated Samuel Chase and Oliver Ellsworth to two vacancies on the Supreme Court. In fact, Ellsworth was nominated to the Chief Justice position on the Court. The Senate immediately confirmed both nominees. Importantly, these nominations and confirmations occurred the same year that the nation faced its first truly contested presidential election after Washington announced that he would not seek a third term.
FACT: The most recent president to fill a Supreme Court vacancy during an election year is Ronald Reagan. In 1988, the Democratically-controlled Senate unanimously confirmed Reagan's nominee to the Court, Anthony Kennedy.
FACT: The 13 presidents who have filled Supreme Court vacancies during a presidential election year are:
George Washington (1796, Justice Samuel Chase and Chief Justice Oliver Elsworth)
Thomas Jefferson (1804, Justice William Johnson)
Andrew Jackson (1836, Justice Philip Barbour and Chief Justice Roger Taney)
Abraham Lincoln (1864, Chief Justice Salmon Chase)
Ulysses S. Grant (1872, Justice Ward Hunt)
Rutherford Hayes (1880, Justice William Woods)
Grover Cleveland (1888, Justice Lucius Lamar and Chief Justice Melville Fuller)
Benjamin Harrison (1892, Justice George Shiras, Jr.)
William Taft (1912, Justice Mahlon Pitney)
Woodrow Wilson (1916, Justices Louis Brandeis and John Clarke)
Herbert Hoover (1932, Justice Benjamin Cardozo)
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1940, Justice Frank Murphy)
Ronald Reagan (1988, Justice Anthony Kennedy)
FACT: Of the 112 justices that have served on the Supreme Court, 17 of them have been confirmed in a presidential election year.
FACT: The Senate has confirmed 6 Supreme Court justices who were nominated by 6 presidents during a true lame duck periodafter the incumbent president had been voted out of office and before the newly-elected president had been inaugurated. Benjamin Harrison submitted a nominee to the Senate in February 1893 after Grover Cleveland had defeated him in the 1892 elections. His nominee was nevertheless confirmed shortly thereafter. Rutherford Hayes made two nominations during his lame-duck period but only one was confirmed by the Senate. (The other nominee was confirmed after re-nomination by incoming president James Garfield.) John Tyler was able to secure Samuel Nelson's confirmation to the Supreme Court in February 1845 after being defeated in the 1844 elections. The other three Supreme Court justices who were confirmed during lame-duck periods were nominated by presidents Martin Van Buren (February 1841), Andrew Jackson (March 1837), and John Adams (January 1801).
FACT: John Adams was the first president to establish true lame duck appointments to the Supreme Court. In January 1801, after he had lost his re-election bid to Thomas Jefferson, Adams nominated John Marshall to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The Senate quickly confirmed Marshall before Jefferson's inauguration despite Adams's defeat at the polls. Chief Justice Marshall went on to become the longest-serving Chief Justice and one of the most influential members of the Court. This precedent is important because the actions of our founding fathers at the time sheds important light on what is permitted or required under the Constitution with respect to Supreme Court vacancies.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Just can't wrap your head around that Biden Rule.

God bless you.

---

And you just can't wrap your head around the fact that there is no "Biden rule" that extends 10 months from the election and a year from inauguation.

Under that system, any sitting president would be a lame duck almost his entire final year.

But it's a clever enough tactic--always blame Democrats for their own self-destruction (and they are good at it) than hold your own politicians responsible for their bad behavior.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

Biden's floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than it is now.


There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.

There was no nominee to consider.

The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.

Nonetheless, Biden took to the floor in a speech addressing the Senate president to urge delay if a vacancy did appear. But he didn't argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992.
Many of Biden's words echo the state of Washington today:

"Given the unusual rancor that prevailed in the (Clarence) Thomas nomination, the need for some serious reevaluation of the nomination and confirmation process, and the overall level of bitterness that sadly infects our political system and this presidential campaign already, it is my view that the prospects for anything but conflagration with respect to a Supreme Court nomination this year are remote at best."
He noted that among the previous seven nominations, two were not confirmed and two passed with strong opposition.

"In my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.

"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

Biden said if Bush were to nominate someone anyway, "the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."

Based on Biden's words, it appears he would not have objected to Bush nominating someone the day after election day. It would have given the Senate more than two and a half months to vote on confirmation.

---

There have been ten Supreme Court vacancies in election years in which the president's party didn't control the Senate. Of those ten seats, none were filled before the election, three were filled after the election, and seven were left vacant until a new president took office. In at least a couple of cases, the Senate took no action for almost a year.

There have been ten nominees in election years in which the president's party did control the Senate. No less than half of those nominations were made after the election. All but one was confirmed before the next president took office.

Garland's rejection was completely normal and expected. If a vacancy arises in 2020, Republicans will likely fill it even if Trump loses the election. That too will be completely normal and expected.

---

https://www.afj.org/myths-vs-facts-on-scotus-vacancy

MYTH: President Obama should not nominate a Supreme Court justice because he is a "lame duck" president and thus should not be allowed to fill a Supreme Court vacancy during an election year.
FACT: President Obama is not a "lame duck" president. According to Merriam-Webster, a lame duck is "an elected official or group continuing to hold political office during the period between the election and the inauguration of a successor." This usage has been around since the mid-nineteenth century and is the reason the Twentieth Amendment, which shortens the period between an election and the start of the next Congress and president, is referred to as the "Lame Duck Amendment." Thus, President Obama will not be a lame duck until after the November elections.
FACT: Thirteen (13) presidents have filled Supreme Court vacancies during a presidential election year. Our first president, George Washington, established this precedent. In 1796, Washington nominated Samuel Chase and Oliver Ellsworth to two vacancies on the Supreme Court. In fact, Ellsworth was nominated to the Chief Justice position on the Court. The Senate immediately confirmed both nominees. Importantly, these nominations and confirmations occurred the same year that the nation faced its first truly contested presidential election after Washington announced that he would not seek a third term.
FACT: The most recent president to fill a Supreme Court vacancy during an election year is Ronald Reagan. In 1988, the Democratically-controlled Senate unanimously confirmed Reagan's nominee to the Court, Anthony Kennedy.
FACT: The 13 presidents who have filled Supreme Court vacancies during a presidential election year are:
George Washington (1796, Justice Samuel Chase and Chief Justice Oliver Elsworth)
Thomas Jefferson (1804, Justice William Johnson)
Andrew Jackson (1836, Justice Philip Barbour and Chief Justice Roger Taney)
Abraham Lincoln (1864, Chief Justice Salmon Chase)
Ulysses S. Grant (1872, Justice Ward Hunt)
Rutherford Hayes (1880, Justice William Woods)
Grover Cleveland (1888, Justice Lucius Lamar and Chief Justice Melville Fuller)
Benjamin Harrison (1892, Justice George Shiras, Jr.)
William Taft (1912, Justice Mahlon Pitney)
Woodrow Wilson (1916, Justices Louis Brandeis and John Clarke)
Herbert Hoover (1932, Justice Benjamin Cardozo)
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1940, Justice Frank Murphy)
Ronald Reagan (1988, Justice Anthony Kennedy)
FACT: Of the 112 justices that have served on the Supreme Court, 17 of them have been confirmed in a presidential election year.
FACT: The Senate has confirmed 6 Supreme Court justices who were nominated by 6 presidents during a true lame duck periodafter the incumbent president had been voted out of office and before the newly-elected president had been inaugurated. Benjamin Harrison submitted a nominee to the Senate in February 1893 after Grover Cleveland had defeated him in the 1892 elections. His nominee was nevertheless confirmed shortly thereafter. Rutherford Hayes made two nominations during his lame-duck period but only one was confirmed by the Senate. (The other nominee was confirmed after re-nomination by incoming president James Garfield.) John Tyler was able to secure Samuel Nelson's confirmation to the Supreme Court in February 1845 after being defeated in the 1844 elections. The other three Supreme Court justices who were confirmed during lame-duck periods were nominated by presidents Martin Van Buren (February 1841), Andrew Jackson (March 1837), and John Adams (January 1801).
FACT: John Adams was the first president to establish true lame duck appointments to the Supreme Court. In January 1801, after he had lost his re-election bid to Thomas Jefferson, Adams nominated John Marshall to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The Senate quickly confirmed Marshall before Jefferson's inauguration despite Adams's defeat at the polls. Chief Justice Marshall went on to become the longest-serving Chief Justice and one of the most influential members of the Court. This precedent is important because the actions of our founding fathers at the time sheds important light on what is permitted or required under the Constitution with respect to Supreme Court vacancies.

---

How does that change anything I said? I'm not saying Garland shouldn't have been nominated or that election year appointments can't happen. But he was never likely to get confirmed without a Democratic majority. That's well in line with historical precedent, as both Obama and Garland surely knew.

Jinx 2 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

And again, Brett only wishes he could have only gotten the Garland treatment.

---

No, he doesn't. Because he wanted that seat. It had been promised to him, and he felt entitled to it.

---

I'm sure if he could have avoided having his reputation smeared by the media and the democrats, he would have gladly taken it, even if it meant keeping his old job. I would imagine if he had the choice of reputation ruining coverage or no vote, he would choose no vote. The democrats have set a new low, that the republicans will gladly replicate. Gawd I hate the two parties.

---

Kavanaugh's reputation has not been ruined for conservatives, incluidng some judges. They believe he was unjustly attacked by a liar.

The people who bleieve Blasey Ford are people who already thought Kavanaugh was too partisan and a jerk.

It was clear the Republicans would not care and would not listen to any allegations. But the Democrats were in an impossible position. Ignore Blasey-Ford's allegations, and their base is angry that, yet again, they helped usher in a Republican judicial appointee facing allegations of sexual abuse and harassment. Let Blasey-Ford testity, and unleash the invective of the right-wing media and all the conspiracy nuts on themselves.

If they were going to interview someone and focus on something, perhaps they'd have been smarter to pay more attnetion to Ramirez, and insist investigators talk to Kavanaugh's dorm mates. By college, you're an adult, even if you're still young and foolish.

But I think you're wrong about Kavanaugh. He wanted this job. Clarence Thomas got through, and despite the fact that lots of people believe Anita Hill's charges, he's served ont he court for almost 30 years and gotten to influence jurisprudence from the nation's top court. Kavanaugh's in his 50s. He probbly has 30 years to sit in that seat. It'll be intersting to see what he does there.

---

Nobody with a brain believed Anita Hill. Not a single piece of corroborating evidence. Not a single personal to backup her story, other than people who said that Anita Hill told them her story. She painted him as some sort of sexual deviant, yet no one had ever made such allegations in his 40+ years of life. Meanwhile more than a dozen women who worked with Justice Thomas testified on his behalf. And then there is the fact that Anita Hill met with Thomas for dinners and meetings for years after she had left his employment... not something you would willingly do if you had been harassed in the manner she described. It was a lie, and everyone (even a few of the democrats in the dem controlled congress) knew it was a lie.

It is hilarious that the dems have tried this lie over and over again... and yet they are the true racists & perverted sickos.
Bill Clinton finally admitted to having sex with a girl only a few years older than his own daughter.
Teddy Kennedy and his decades of debauchery... including killing his pregnant mistress.
But my all time favorite is Anthony Wiener. That total scum went public with his angry lies about his innocence (very Clintonian), only to be proven guilty. Then he did it again and again, and even with underage girls (also very Clintonian).
Of course, now days we have creepy Uncle Joe to carry on the sexual sicko banner.

Whenever dems try to attack a Republican over sexual misconduct... just ask them if they voted for or supported the Clintons. Also remember that dems LOVE to lie about sex... it's like a cult for them.

---

Plenty of people with functioning brains don't share your opinion about Anita Hill or much of anything else. Opinions are like noses--everybody's got one. But people's senses of smell differ. I think Trump stinks to high heaven of the worst sort of corruption, while he passes the smell test of most evangelicals.

The one good thing the treatment of Anita Hill did was wake women up. Wish we'd changed politics, particularly Republican politics more than we have.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/hill/hillframe.htm

---

The problem is that IF these things occurred, they don't report them until they get an "I Gotcha moment." If they were truly upset and offended, they'd report it in a timely manner. You and I both know this.

"you know what they say about arguing with an idiot."

Yes, but it's so hard to actually see your Congressional Rep face to face, it's next to impossible to get the chance to argue with them.

Jinx 2 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Plenty of people with functioning brains don't share your opinion about Anita Hill or much of anything else. Opinions are like noses--everybody's got one.
Plenty of people with functioning brains don't share your opinion about Anita Hill

---

---

---

---

---

---

'He didn't believe her': Orrin Hatch recalls that Joe Biden did not trust Anita Hill

In an upcoming documentary, former Utah senator Orrin Hatch recalls that Joe Biden personally expressed to him that he did not believe Anita Hill during the contentious confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Hill accused Thomas of sexually harassing her while he was her supervisor at the Department of Education in the 1980s. The accusation because public knowledge when an interview between the FBI and Hill was leaked to the press just before the end of Thomas' confirmation hearings in 1991.
Biden served as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time and has come under fire more recently for the way he chose to handle Hill's accusations and subsequent testimony.
"Biden told me personally that he didn't believe her," Hatch said in a teaser clip for FOX Nation's Confirmation Chronicles Volume 2: High Tech Lynching which will air on Wednesday. "He [Biden] said, 'I don't know why she did this.' I don't mean to malign Joe but Joe told me he didn't believe her, and there are some others who told me that too."
Late Sen. Arlen Specter also recounted in his 2000 memoir Passion for Truth that Biden had told him that he didn't believe Hill in a 1998 conversation.
Biden has since stated that he believed Hill's accusations from the beginning and that he didn't feel he treated her unfairly during her testimony which dominated national news for weeks.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/he-didnt-believe-her-orrin-hatch-recalls-that-joe-biden-did-not-trust-anita-hill

Osodecentx said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Plenty of people with functioning brains don't share your opinion about Anita Hill or much of anything else. Opinions are like noses--everybody's got one.
Plenty of people with functioning brains don't share your opinion about Anita Hill

---

---

---

---

---

---

'He didn't believe her': Orrin Hatch recalls that Joe Biden did not trust Anita Hill

In an upcoming documentary, former Utah senator Orrin Hatch recalls that Joe Biden personally expressed to him that he did not believe Anita Hill during the contentious confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Hill accused Thomas of sexually harassing her while he was her supervisor at the Department of Education in the 1980s. The accusation because public knowledge when an interview between the FBI and Hill was leaked to the press just before the end of Thomas' confirmation hearings in 1991.
Biden served as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time and has come under fire more recently for the way he chose to handle Hill's accusations and subsequent testimony.
"Biden told me personally that he didn't believe her," Hatch said in a teaser clip for FOX Nation's Confirmation Chronicles Volume 2: High Tech Lynching which will air on Wednesday. "He [Biden] said, 'I don't know why she did this.' I don't mean to malign Joe but Joe told me he didn't believe her, and there are some others who told me that too."
Late Sen. Arlen Specter also recounted in his 2000 memoir Passion for Truth that Biden had told him that he didn't believe Hill in a 1998 conversation.
Biden has since stated that he believed Hill's accusations from the beginning and that he didn't feel he treated her unfairly during her testimony which dominated national news for weeks.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/he-didnt-believe-her-orrin-hatch-recalls-that-joe-biden-did-not-trust-anita-hill

---

Again... no one with a brain believed Anita Hill... not even crazy Uncle Joe.

contrario said:

---

I started to type something, but then I remembered Jinx is a binary that is incapable of free thought. So it's a waste of time. So I'll just pat Jinx on the head and move on because you know what they say about arguing with an idiot.

---

Bingo! You win

Jinx 2 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

And again, Brett only wishes he could have only gotten the Garland treatment.

---

No, he doesn't. Because he wanted that seat. It had been promised to him, and he felt entitled to it.

---

I'm sure if he could have avoided having his reputation smeared by the media and the democrats, he would have gladly taken it, even if it meant keeping his old job. I would imagine if he had the choice of reputation ruining coverage or no vote, he would choose no vote. The democrats have set a new low, that the republicans will gladly replicate. Gawd I hate the two parties.

---

Kavanaugh's reputation has not been ruined for conservatives, incluidng some judges. They believe he was unjustly attacked by a liar.

The people who bleieve Blasey Ford are people who already thought Kavanaugh was too partisan and a jerk.

It was clear the Republicans would not care and would not listen to any allegations. But the Democrats were in an impossible position. Ignore Blasey-Ford's allegations, and their base is angry that, yet again, they helped usher in a Republican judicial appointee facing allegations of sexual abuse and harassment. Let Blasey-Ford testity, and unleash the invective of the right-wing media and all the conspiracy nuts on themselves.

If they were going to interview someone and focus on something, perhaps they'd have been smarter to pay more attnetion to Ramirez, and insist investigators talk to Kavanaugh's dorm mates. By college, you're an adult, even if you're still young and foolish.

But I think you're wrong about Kavanaugh. He wanted this job. Clarence Thomas got through, and despite the fact that lots of people believe Anita Hill's charges, he's served ont he court for almost 30 years and gotten to influence jurisprudence from the nation's top court. Kavanaugh's in his 50s. He probbly has 30 years to sit in that seat. It'll be intersting to see what he does there.

---

Nobody with a brain believed Anita Hill. Not a single piece of corroborating evidence. Not a single personal to backup her story, other than people who said that Anita Hill told them her story. She painted him as some sort of sexual deviant, yet no one had ever made such allegations in his 40+ years of life. Meanwhile more than a dozen women who worked with Justice Thomas testified on his behalf. And then there is the fact that Anita Hill met with Thomas for dinners and meetings for years after she had left his employment... not something you would willingly do if you had been harassed in the manner she described. It was a lie, and everyone (even a few of the democrats in the dem controlled congress) knew it was a lie.

It is hilarious that the dems have tried this lie over and over again... and yet they are the true racists & perverted sickos.
Bill Clinton finally admitted to having sex with a girl only a few years older than his own daughter.
Teddy Kennedy and his decades of debauchery... including killing his pregnant mistress.
But my all time favorite is Anthony Wiener. That total scum went public with his angry lies about his innocence (very Clintonian), only to be proven guilty. Then he did it again and again, and even with underage girls (also very Clintonian).
Of course, now days we have creepy Uncle Joe to carry on the sexual sicko banner.

Whenever dems try to attack a Republican over sexual misconduct... just ask them if they voted for or supported the Clintons. Also remember that dems LOVE to lie about sex... it's like a cult for them.

---

Plenty of people with functioning brains don't share your opinion about Anita Hill or much of anything else. Opinions are like noses--everybody's got one. But people's senses of smell differ. I think Trump stinks to high heaven of the worst sort of corruption, while he passes the smell test of most evangelicals.

The one good thing the treatment of Anita Hill did was wake women up. Wish we'd changed politics, particularly Republican politics more than we have.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/hill/hillframe.htm

---

You and your hang ups with evangelicals. smh. Nearly 63 million people voted for Trump in 2016. Do you think they were all evangelical Christians? Seek help.

FormerFlash said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Plenty of people with functioning brains don't share your opinion about Anita Hill or much of anything else. Opinions are like noses--everybody's got one. But people's senses of smell differ. I think Trump stinks to high heaven of the worst sort of corruption, while he passes the smell test of most evangelicals.

The one good thing the treatment of Anita Hill did was wake women up. Wish we'd changed politics, particularly Republican politics more than we have.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/hill/hillframe.htm

---

You and your hang ups with evangelicals. smh. Nearly 63 million people voted for Trump in 2016. Do you think they were all evangelical Christians? Seek help.

---

It's not just evangelicals (although they're high on my disgust list right now because they supported Trump, who certainly doesn't live by the WWJD code of ethics.

I don't like any religious tradition where men claim God's devine authority to make women second-class citizens, eliminated from postiions of leadership and preferably relegated to home and unremitting childbirth. Those would include orthodox Jews, Muslims, Mormons, full quivers, cults like the FLDS, cultures like the Hindus where women don't even call their husbands by their first name, African cultures where male promiscuity is tolerated but female promiscuity strickly prohibited, cultures that practice genital mutilation (Egypt, North Africa and Pakistand have enclaves that do this), the Catholic Church (its teachings, which few members now follow, and certainly its leadership structure), Jehovah's Witnesses (where abuse is tolerated and covered up and women and children are urged to keep silent), some Mennonite communities (for behavior such as this, which reflects a breathtaking level of contempt for women), and so on.

Many religious traditions disadvantage and disregard and disenfranchise women.

I don't want that to also be relected int heir treatment from a secular government.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-14688458 - This is a good example of the kind of cultural blame some religious communities inflict on women:

The court heard that the men sprayed a substance derived from the belladonna plant normally used to anaesthetise cows through bedroom windows at night, sedating entire families.


They then raped the women and girls. The youngest victim was nine years old.

Mr Rivera said almost 150 had taken part in the trial, but he feared there could be another 150 too ashamed to give evidence.

He said some feared they would not be able to find a husband if it was known they had been raped, as women are expected to abstain from sex until marriage.

Jinx 2 said:

---

It's not just evangelicals (although they're high on my disgust list right now because they supported Trump, who certainly doesn't live by the WWJD code of ethics.

I don't like any religious tradition where men claim God's devine authority to make women second-class citizens, eliminated from postiions of leadership and preferably relegated to home and unremitting childbirth. Those would include orthodox Jews, Muslims, Mormons, full quivers, cults like the FLDS, cultures like the Hindus where women don't even call their husbands by their first name, African cultures where male promiscuity is tolerated but female promiscuity strickly prohibited, cultures that practice genital mutilation (Egypt, North Africa and Pakistand have enclaves that do this), the Catholic Church (its teachings, which few members now follow, and certainly its leadership structure), Jehovah's Witnesses (where abuse is tolerated and covered up and women and children are urged to keep silent), some Mennonite communities (for behavior such as this, which reflects a breathtaking level of contempt for women), and so on.

---

bigotry - intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
[url=https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=how+to+pronounce+bigotry&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOMIfcRoyS3w8sc9YSmDSWtOXmPU4uINKMrPK81LzkwsyczPExLmYglJLcoV4pbi5GJPykzPLymqtGJRYkrN41nEKpGRX65Qkq9QANSSD9STqgBVAQCvN897WQAAAA&pron_lang=en&pron_country=us&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj9nrrcs-rkAhUD0awKHZoyAYcQ3eEDMAB6BAgEEAg][/url]

Osodecentx said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

It's not just evangelicals (although they're high on my disgust list right now because they supported Trump, who certainly doesn't live by the WWJD code of ethics.

I don't like any religious tradition where men claim God's devine authority to make women second-class citizens, eliminated from postiions of leadership and preferably relegated to home and unremitting childbirth. Those would include orthodox Jews, Muslims, Mormons, full quivers, cults like the FLDS, cultures like the Hindus where women don't even call their husbands by their first name, African cultures where male promiscuity is tolerated but female promiscuity strickly prohibited, cultures that practice genital mutilation (Egypt, North Africa and Pakistand have enclaves that do this), the Catholic Church (its teachings, which few members now follow, and certainly its leadership structure), Jehovah's Witnesses (where abuse is tolerated and covered up and women and children are urged to keep silent), some Mennonite communities (for behavior such as this, which reflects a breathtaking level of contempt for women), and so on.

---

bigotry - intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
[url=https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=how+to+pronounce+bigotry&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOMIfcRoyS3w8sc9YSmDSWtOXmPU4uINKMrPK81LzkwsyczPExLmYglJLcoV4pbi5GJPykzPLymqtGJRYkrN41nEKpGRX65Qkq9QANSSD9STqgBVAQCvN897WQAAAA&pron_lang=en&pron_country=us&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj9nrrcs-rkAhUD0awKHZoyAYcQ3eEDMAB6BAgEEAg][/url]

---

Like people who support a woman's right to choose?

Jinx 2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

It's not just evangelicals (although they're high on my disgust list right now because they supported Trump, who certainly doesn't live by the WWJD code of ethics.

I don't like any religious tradition where men claim God's devine authority to make women second-class citizens, eliminated from postiions of leadership and preferably relegated to home and unremitting childbirth. Those would include orthodox Jews, Muslims, Mormons, full quivers, cults like the FLDS, cultures like the Hindus where women don't even call their husbands by their first name, African cultures where male promiscuity is tolerated but female promiscuity strickly prohibited, cultures that practice genital mutilation (Egypt, North Africa and Pakistand have enclaves that do this), the Catholic Church (its teachings, which few members now follow, and certainly its leadership structure), Jehovah's Witnesses (where abuse is tolerated and covered up and women and children are urged to keep silent), some Mennonite communities (for behavior such as this, which reflects a breathtaking level of contempt for women), and so on.

---

bigotry - intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
[url=https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=how+to+pronounce+bigotry&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOMIfcRoyS3w8sc9YSmDSWtOXmPU4uINKMrPK81LzkwsyczPExLmYglJLcoV4pbi5GJPykzPLymqtGJRYkrN41nEKpGRX65Qkq9QANSSD9STqgBVAQCvN897WQAAAA&pron_lang=en&pron_country=us&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj9nrrcs-rkAhUD0awKHZoyAYcQ3eEDMAB6BAgEEAg][/url]

---

Like people who support a woman's right to choose?

---

Choose to get pregnant or not? Of course!

Jinx 2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

It's not just evangelicals (although they're high on my disgust list right now because they supported Trump, who certainly doesn't live by the WWJD code of ethics.

I don't like any religious tradition where men claim God's devine authority to make women second-class citizens, eliminated from postiions of leadership and preferably relegated to home and unremitting childbirth. Those would include orthodox Jews, Muslims, Mormons, full quivers, cults like the FLDS, cultures like the Hindus where women don't even call their husbands by their first name, African cultures where male promiscuity is tolerated but female promiscuity strickly prohibited, cultures that practice genital mutilation (Egypt, North Africa and Pakistand have enclaves that do this), the Catholic Church (its teachings, which few members now follow, and certainly its leadership structure), Jehovah's Witnesses (where abuse is tolerated and covered up and women and children are urged to keep silent), some Mennonite communities (for behavior such as this, which reflects a breathtaking level of contempt for women), and so on.

---

bigotry - intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
[url=https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=how+to+pronounce+bigotry&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOMIfcRoyS3w8sc9YSmDSWtOXmPU4uINKMrPK81LzkwsyczPExLmYglJLcoV4pbi5GJPykzPLymqtGJRYkrN41nEKpGRX65Qkq9QANSSD9STqgBVAQCvN897WQAAAA&pron_lang=en&pron_country=us&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj9nrrcs-rkAhUD0awKHZoyAYcQ3eEDMAB6BAgEEAg][/url]

---

Like people who support a woman's right to choose?

---

I don't hate people who are Pro-choice. I disagree with them. I've never been uncivil towards them