General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAnimus/revenge in SCotUS decisions should be disqualifying. Clarence THOMAS declared 43 yrs revenge.
Add that to the nominees who lied under oath in confirmation hearings.
************QUOTE******
https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-051733128.html
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told his law clerks he intended to serve on the highest court of the land to make the lives of liberals "miserable," according to a 1993 report from The New York Times. ....
In a conversation with his law clerks two years following his confirmation, The New York Times reported Thomas expressed his desire to serve on the court until the year 2034.
"The liberals made my life miserable for 43 years," a former clerk remembered Thomas who was 43 years old when confirmed saying, according to The New York Times. "And I'm going to make their lives miserable for 43 years."
Thomas, considered the most conservative justice on the court, joined the majority opinion on Friday which overturned federal abortion protections established in Roe v. Wade. In a concurring opinion, Thomas indicated he also believes the Supreme Court should "reconsider" decisions from the cases Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell, which established the federal right to use birth control and legalized same-sex activity and gay marriage, respectively. ....
******UNQUOTE****
Irish_Dem
(47,453 posts)Then wants everyone to get over it.
UTUSN
(70,744 posts)The oh-so-MILD/innocent/sweet Poppy pioneered the Repuke dirty trick of picking nominees from the Dems' Minority constituent groups to break up the coalition a bit and make it whatever bit harder for Dems to oppose.
The Repukes have been doing it ever since, like Shrub trying it with Miguel ESTRADA for the Court, and Alberto GONZALES and Linda CHAVEZ for other things. The BUSHes have a connection to Hispanics, and are pragmatic about USING whatever circumstance for their own advantage.
Orrin HATCH would put on his Shirley TEMPLE pout and ask, "How can Democrats claim to be for minorities and be opposed to Mee-GWELL Estrada?"
See what he did there? He was making a RACIST argument, that Dems should support somebody just BECAUSE of the race/ethnicity. What if it were turned around and be said that somebody should be supported just BECAUSE they were White?
And Dems actually *did* feel put over a barrel, sheepish and having to put on kid gloves to oppose those nominees.
The answer is simple: Mee-GWELL is a *wingnut* - so we'll take him at his word and oppose him *HARD* just on the grounds of wingnuttiness, without reference to race/ethnicity/sexuality.
Irish_Dem
(47,453 posts)Gaugamela
(2,496 posts)liberals made his life miserable? Does he think hed be on the Supreme Court without it? Does he despise MLK?
This guy is arrogant and delusional, and not very smart.
turbinetree
(24,720 posts)down the toilet....she should be brought before a committee and explain herself.....with him sitting right behind her.....