North Dakota Fishing and Hunting Forum banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,851 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I always considered it racist if you made decisions against people if they were black. I also consider it racist if you make decisions for people based on the color of their skin be it white, black, or something else. Biden said he woukd put a black woman on the supreme court. That's racist and sexist. I guess the words of Martin Luther King ( Judge a person by their character not the color of their skin) don't mean as much when they find themselves on top of the pile.

Race should not enter into decisions. You cant be for white or black without being against black or white. Things like this do not unite a nation they divide it. If Biden thought this woman was the best for the job simply make her your choice and keep your mouth shut about race or gender. What Biden did was turn half the country against her before she even gets on the job.

Watch what happens in the senate. I dont think this woman even if a radical liberal will face the viciousness that Trumps nominees did. For those with half a brain this will expose who the tolerant are, and who the respectfull are.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden on Friday will nominate federal appeals court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court, according to a person familiar with the matter, making her the first Black woman selected to serve on a court that once declared her race unworthy of citizenship and endorsed segregation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,336 Posts
This is 100% correct.

If she is the best for the job then GREAT and I hope she gets the job. But to bring up race and gender for every little thing is making the world go backwards. It is sad but a true statement.

I would only point to our VP and see how good of a job people think she is doing? That shows you that the only reason why she got the job was because of race and that she is a woman. That again is sad but true statement.

Like I talked about in a previous post. People are trying to out "woke" each other. Or trying to show how "progressive/tolerant" they are. When in fact they are actually being intolerant. I mean how many judges who might be the a good or even possibly better canidate but they are getting over looked because they dont "check a box". I will even say that when Coney Barret was nominated. Did she just get the job because she was a woman? It is something to think about.

But like you mentioned. Lets see how the proceedings go in the Senate and see how everyone interviews this nomination.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,851 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Jackson's record isn't very good. She has more overturned decisions than anyone else. One court called her decision illogical. She makes decisions based on her political prejudice rather than our constitution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,336 Posts
I never knew any of this about his nomination. It will be interesting to see if people ask tough questions during the process.

Like I mentioned... it seems all He (his political party) cares about is "checking boxes" than what people actually contribute or qualifications. I will even mention that about ACB. Did Trump just "check off boxes" when he nominated her? I dont know... I thought she was a good canidate but did they skip others who could have been more qualified?? Dont know?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,336 Posts
The issues the GOP may focus on Jackson's Supreme Court hearings (msn.com)

Here is a little background on Judge Jackson..... Many things in this I didn't know about.

Things to watch when the nomination process/interviews happen. Will she get grilled hard by both sides or do some already have the "rubber" stamp ready to vote on this one. This goes for a yes and a no vote with the rubber stamp comment.

Like I always say.... if anyone votes along party lines only they are doing a dis-service to the country. 40% lean left, 40% lean right.... and 20% are independents or go either way depending on the issue. So just party lines you are in the minority.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,336 Posts
Some things to look at here and is what is getting questioned about this nomination. Her past on how she treated or wanted treatment of some child sex offenders. Or I should say her track record defending them and also opinions on them when she was a judge.

Now just wait.... some on the left will call republicans "racist" because they dont want someone on the supreme court that has her views and published opinions on sex offenders.

Again this is something to keep an eye on and to actually see how she responds or if things are mis -reported about her past decisions and what not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,336 Posts
So if anyone has been watching the process.

One of the big things is that Jackson has been light on child porn sentencing or sentencing on sex offenders.

Her rationale is that since the internet can send, look at, etc thousands of pictures in a matter of minutes.

SO since this is a hunting form.... By her logic there shouldn't be any restrictions on guns that hold more shells or can shoot faster. Well because "technology". I mean if someone kills one person with a six shooter and another kills 5 people with a high capacity AR style weapon or an Assault weapon the sentencing should be the same or "LESS" for the AR style because ... well it was "technologies" fault that a weapon could put more rounds down range.

YEAH... .LET THIS ALL SINK IN. I wish one of the republicans would actually think this way and ask a question like that or bring up the 2A and "Assault" weapons with her logic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Wow, your point of view is 100% the same as mine!
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top