Blumenthal said the broad is not qualified and unfit to serve on the bench... She might as well withdraw her name
Trump judicial nominee won't say if she agrees with ruling that ended racial segregation in schools
- Thread starter 88m3
- Start date
I think you're probably right, and the bold is unfortunate. If only because I'd like to hear the argument.
Don’t hit me with a 
but as a lawyer, I must say that her argument (I think) is that she won’t comment on the merits of ANY case. It just so happened that he was asking about Brown. That’s a standard answer from judicial nominees. That said, Trump likes her so she’s probably a racist. 
but as a lawyer, I must say that her argument (I think) is that she won’t comment on the merits of ANY case. It just so happened that he was asking about Brown. That’s a standard answer from judicial nominees. That said, Trump likes her so she’s probably a racist. 
ORDER_66
I dont care anymore 2026
Is the argument being made in this thread that there is absolutely no grounds for objection/disagreement with the ruling outside of being a racist?
If you can't answer a simple yes or no question something is fukking wrong with you!!!
we need to paint them with broad brush strokes just like they do us until proven otherwise... 
we are being exterminated and we can't treat them with kids gloves anymore...Is the argument being made in this thread that there is absolutely no grounds for objection/disagreement with the ruling outside of being a racist?
Oh y’all(yall= You and those who dapped) believe Jim crow was a function/creation of the free market... and not the state.
#higherlearning
AndroidHero
Superstar
Don’t hit me with a
:Nonikkas:
Yes we are telling you thatIs the argument being made in this thread that there is absolutely no grounds for objection/disagreement with the ruling outside of being a racist?
The argument isn't new. You know what it is. Brown v. Board of Education was a unanimous decision. You serious right now? It was ruled that the prevailing laws were a violation of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment and were premised on the concept of African-American inferiority. Are you going to argue that segregation strictly on the basis of race meets a compelling government interest and did not create the idea of African-American inferiority?
Last edited:
Yes, individual states that are opposed to federal government oversight and intervention.Oh y’all(yall= You and those who dapped) believe Jim crow was a function/creation of the free market... and not the state.
newworldafro
DeeperThanRapBiggerThanHH
Oh y’all(yall= You and those who dapped) believe Jim crow was a function/creation of the free market... and not the state.
Was it not both though??
That definitely isn't new, but because Vitter refused to comment I don't know what her argument is- if there even us one.
Yapdatfool
Superstar
Yes, individual states that are opposed to federal government oversight and intervention.
Take it a step lower so he can understand.
individual counties that are opposed to state government oversight and intervention
OR
individual cities that are opposed to county government oversight and intervention
OR
individual villages that are opposed to city government oversight and intervention.
I will add that these entities are made up of people like her and Trump, which just so happen to make up the super majority of US libertarians... that is not a coincidence.