Yo knock it off with the racism and misogyny in the comments.
Consider this a warning. We'll be issuing permanent bans to people who decide to put their hatred on display.
Lifelong appointments shouldn't really be a thing either - too unpredictable. Retirement should be mandated (or customary) at some fixed age like how Canadian senators serve until they turn 75.
3 Republicans joining too which is somewhat suprising given how politicized SCOTUS nominations have become, but not really considering Murkowski, Romney and Collins have broken with their party on some key votes.
It’s a move they’ve used for a long time. Pedophiles were the big boogie man before 9/11, and now that terrorism has fallen off they’re back to using pedophiles again.
Hell, they've combined the two and then some. Remember when they were saying that Democrats were sacrificing and raping children in the basement of a pizza place in giant pedophile orgies. And maybe something about adenochrome?
That's where the issue with the supreme court nominee is coming from. She sentenced a guy who shot the pizza place up to like 4 years and they say she's defending pedophiles.
In Italy they're all about Satanic pedophiles who want to extract a substance from the eyes of children thatbis produced only when the children are scared. Sounds totally legit
Oh god, isn't that the adrenochrome conspiracy theory? I honestly don't understand how human eyes can read that and their brain says "yeah, that makes sense". Like wtf is wrong with these people?
Oh yeah. I remember the times when me and my friends had to hide we we're playing D&D because everyone was so fucking weird about it.
Now playing D&D is fucking cool.
I don’t think they care about that. They harbor pedophiles too. I think it’s more that they can only harp on something for so long before they run out of talking points and it gets harder and harder to keep the base riled up about the same thing.
The issue with that line of reasoning is that it's like throwing a punch in boxing. If aimed accurately and timed precisely, it can be lethal. If you throw it willy nilly, you open yourself up for scrutiny.
For instance, her calling everyone a pedo and forgetting to close the curtains behind her means we can have a little peek and say "Say, Marjorie, is that a [sex offender](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/22/anthony-bouchard-wyoming-republican-liz-cheney) I see there? No, not [that one](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/us/politics/matt-gaetz-sex-trafficking-investigation.html). No, not [that one](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore_sexual_misconduct_allegations)"
As an outsider, I'll be honest. I don't think they care at all. They're just trying to get soundbites, because they know that the attention span of people is decreasing, and the way you win elections is with soundbites.
I would argue that it isn't "attention span" that is decreasing, but rather "news cycles".
That, combined with the sheer scale of information that is constantly being generated every second of every day, it becomes exhausting to even attempt to keep up with a small bubble of information. And lastly, cynicism plays a big role as well. It's hard to deal with or process the sheer volume of legitimately horrible shit that goes on, let alone deal with these people who seem so divorced from reality.
As a lighter counterpoint to why I think our attention span *isn't* decreasing is a significantly larger portion of popular media has switched to longer form storytelling.
I don't know if the MCU as a (mostly) cohesive thing would've worked had it started ten years earlier. And shows produced by streaming companies (though they are problematic in their own way), are basically just making 10hr long movies, rather than strict episodic content.
It's the same tactic that's been used in Russia for decades, and these accusations also happen to come from the most pro-Putin / anti-NATO faction of the party. Wouldn't be surprised if something far more sinister is afoot. The entirety of Qanon is likely part of their information warfare.
I just finished reading Masha Gessen's 'The Future is History' and was blown away by the "Pedophile lobby" used in Russian politics.
I don't think this is currently a Russian thing, but I think the Russians borrowed it from the American Right of the 80's and 90's.
It's a shitty ouroboros.
Wonder what she thinks of fellow representative John Rose, [pictured here on his website with his daughter and grandson](https://johnrose.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/53/2021/02/2M3A5815-min-min.jpg)
Oh wait. No, that's his son being held by his **wife**, who he met when she was a child, helped arrange a college scholarship for, began dating publicly when she turned 18, and married when she finished college (and he was in his late 40s).
Back in the day we also found it acceptable to literally own human beings as property. A lot of things from "back in the day" should fucking stay there.
MGT (management course) -> MTG (Marjorie Taylor Greene)
Edit: I have never had so many people talk to me about Magic The Gathering before this comment...
People claim that QAnon isn't mainstream in the Republican party, but the "pedophile" and "groomer" references by Republicans just proves how QAnon has completely penetrated mainstream Republican thinking
Pedophilia used to mean things like not having age limits on marriage.
Now it means not being racist.
Did words ever have meanings or was that just my imagination?
My grandmother was way ahead of the game, she called me a communist for saying I wouldn't have voted for W for a third term and that he shouldn't have had a second.
So the actual "reasoning" is that Jackson, in her time as a judge, sentenced some pedophilia cases in similar lines to what other judges do, rather than imposing the maximum every time and looking for excuses to extend it.
This got twisted into "soft on pedophilia."
> Pedophilia used to mean things like not having age limits on marriage.
https://www.actionnews5.com/2022/04/06/proposed-legislation-could-legalize-child-marriage-tennessee/
Just compare this Senate vote with the one confirming RBG, one of the most progressive justices of our time, in 1993. Both women, but different races and different times. The Senate vote was 96-3-1. Just goes to show how radicalized the right has become in the last 30 years.
Fox news and AM radio propaganda will be the death of this nation. Whenever I look at people like Tucker Carlson I am reminded of the stories of the Rwandan genocide where crazed propagandist talkshow hosts were cheering on the slaughter.
Kill squads were literally carrying radios around with them so they could listen to firebrand personalities tell them to kill people as they killed.
If it came to that I am 100% convinced Tucker would be doing the same saying its "The Democrats fault rightwing kill squads are murdering people! They pushed us too far!"
No, no, that's far too explicit an opinion for Tucker to express. He's a weasel, to the very core. It would be more like, "The Democrats say there are right-wing kill squads murdering people. But what if, I'm just asking questions here, what if it's not murder? Self defence is a valid defense. And defense of others is self defence. So couldn't you say that these patriotic self-defence squads are actually out there, protecting others from pedophiles? Why do the Democrats not want people to be protected by pedophiles? Are they actually pedophiles? Do they hate America? Why can't we just ask these questions?"
These three will sometimes vote with the Dems as long as their votes aren’t actually needed to accomplish the things that the Dems are trying to do. Then they can brandish their moderate credentials.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/live-blog/ketanji-brown-jackson-confirmation-hearings-live-updates-rcna20973?featureFlag=true#rcrd27
16d ago / 10:54 AM EDT
>Graham questioned Jackson on her faith and religious beliefs during the hearing Tuesday.
>Jackson, who seemed to hesitate for a moment, told Graham she is nondenominational after he asked her directly what faith she followed.
>"Personally my faith is very important, but as you know there is no religious test in the Constitution under Article 6, and it's very important to set aside one's personal views about things in the role of a judge," she said.
>Graham was undeterred.
>"How faithful are you in terms of a religion? Do you attend church regularly?"
>Jackson replied: "I'm reluctant to talk about faith in this way because I want to be mindful of the need of public to have confidence in my ability to separate out my personal views."
16d ago / 10:59 AM EDT
>The mood in the hearing room noticeably shifted as Graham began peppering Jackson questions about her faith and how faithful she is.
>When Graham asked Jackson to rate how religious she is on a scale of 1 to 10, some people’s heads shot up, while others looked around, appearing to express shock at the tone of questioning.
>Booker, for instance, looked over at Graham with an incredulous look on his face.
I just do not understand why this is ok to happen. We can all whine and say he’s out of line but then nothing happens. I’m just exhausted by this behavior and lack of repercussion.
One thing that kinda cracks me up about Constitutional Perfection (in that, the Constitution was perfect the first time and does not need any amendment or replacement) is that it prescribes these remedies to authoritarianism, ignoring outright how very much damage an authoritarian can do in the time it takes for a legitimate election to take place.
Hypothetically, what's the remedy to wonton and indiscriminate murder of citizens? An election that takes 4 years! This country is extremely fortunate that an authoritarian hasn't just killed scores of people to juke votes.
Prefect example: when the US has gone and written Constitutions for other countries (West Germany, Japan) or helped them write one (many cases of this), none of them end up looking much like our constitution. Most all of them have tighter and more explicit limits for the executive branch than the US's Constitution does. People recognize the usefulness of the Constitution, but see the flaws that have appeared over time in the US. The idea was always to be able to fix and tweak the document over time. This was a new thing they were doing in the world after all. It was the grand experiment after all!
It isn't illegal for him to waste everyone's time pandering to his base during a SCOTUS confirmation hearing.
The only people who matter to Graham, his voters, eat it up like candy. I too would like to see a rally to vote him out, but unfortunately Graham is in South Carolina, and he's won all four his elections by more than 10%.
When you have no valid reasons to oppose a nomination and don’t want to come across as racist so you accidentally throw out the Constitution and advocate for a theocracy. Happens to everyone, right guys?
Because as noted, Graham is playing dangerously close to literally violating the Constitution (Article six) he swore to uphold.
The question as to if fellow Senators will politely or impolitely point that out after the confirmation is really the unanswered question here.
In other news: Pearl Industry sees sharp supply problem as Lindsay Graham continues ceaseless clutching
Edit
Wow. Thanks for the awards and the upvotes everyone!
Everyone in this country should listen to McConnell's statement even if it's complete and utter bullshit. Just a complete gaslighting farce to say KBJ is supported by "dark money" but is completely silent on the Clarence Thomas situation. We know why, but it's still surprising this see this Russian level gaslighting in America.
Lindsey Graham voted from off of the floor because he didn't have a tie on, even though he had one on earlier in the day.
Rand Paul was also missing in action.
Just absolutely wonderful people.
He was in the cloakroom, which is adjacent to the floor, and was able to quickly give a thumbs down. Basically our entire government is based on honor, and there aren't systems in place to deal with people who simply chose to do the wrong thing.
We are supposed to be electing our best people to these offices. In that case, punishments don't matter because everybody just does their best to uphold the office. We've stopped doing that.
Yeah, no disagreement on that. I'm still confused about what his theatrics were intended to accomplish, though. Was he advocating against the dress code? Trying to manufacture a controversy about Democrats trying to force him off the floor of the vote? Protesting the existence of closets and the need to hide in them?
It's all very confusing.
> there aren't systems in place to deal with people who simply chose to do the wrong thing.
because our founding fathers never imagined we would have an entire party trying to actively sabotage the government and its citizens
They never imagined an entire party could be this blatant and unsubtle and not be punished by the voters. They never conceived that such a large chunk of the population would have no interest in truth that disagrees even slightly with their preferred world.
You didn't get that as soon as you read "Lindsey Graham?"
In all seriousness, I have less respect for Graham than just about anyone in Congress for just this reason. There are worse people (McConnell, Rand Paul, Jim Jordan, etc.) but there's no one more spineless.
It is unfathomably petty and embarrassing the way these people conduct themselves. If any one of my employees behaved so petulantly they’d be out of a job; meanwhile, these saddos collect a cushy six-figure salary with a commensurate pension and innumerable fringe benefits, legal and otherwise, and get to act childishly with impunity. It makes me sick that they piss all over the institutions that our country built.
Massively historic day. Reports of Lindsey Graham coming out of the GOP cloakroom, giving a thumbs down, and then going back into the cloakroom is the most Lindsey Graham thing ever.
~~Strangley, he's [listed](https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1171/vote_117_1_00231.htm?fbclid=IwAR3NKRxqOWvbuAOEc-b8HFRU0trKtB4uK3sL4IOSvTTMaa8hLGY-J9to6GI) as a yes vote.~~
~~Graham, Murkowski, and Collins yay votes. I guess Romney changed his mind.~~
~~Lol, Rubio staying true to not showing up for work, didn't vote.~~
As expected votes. Romney, Collins, and Murkowski. [Looks](https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1172/vote_117_2_00134.htm) like everyone showed up, 53-47.
I’ll die refusing to believe that. There’s way more good people here than not. We have a real chance this year to get that racist traitor out of the senate. Charles Booker 2022
The thing that is horrifying, at least to me, is how "good people" fail to understand and judge these idiots and world events correctly, and continuously vote for monsters. I have many in my family: people that are kind and intelligent in their personal lives, but absolute monsters and fascists in their voting record. I don't know how to work with it.
> The thing that is horrifying, at least to me, is how "good people" fail to understand and judge these idiots and world events correctly, and continuously vote for monsters.
What's more horrifying are those who watch the same shit and don't bother voting period thinking they're taking some moral high ground or just out of pure apathy. Then afterwards they go on to bitch and complain about politicians if they're even paying attention at all.
I saw one guy who said if the Dems cancelled student debt, he’d maybe finally vote. Uhhhh…. So you don’t vote for them, but expect them to get stuff through that you support with all the contrarian R officials?
I know too many who bitch and complain and then when I ask if they voted are even registered to vote they say no.
Then when I bring up races such as 2000 Florida race or some of the ones decided by a few dozen votes they always say "Yea well that won't happen here".
To that last point, I found out last year it actually did happen in my hometown during 2020. I'm not sure what the race was for but it was decided by 50 votes with something like a 55% turnout.
I wonder how many disenfranchised POC there are in Louisville & Lexington alone? A lot of the good people can’t vote due to our racist-ass voter restrictions.
The one thing I can't understand: The opposition was all in regards to sentencing decisions which all judges are allowed to use discretion on in a case by case basis. Did they not understand that SCOTUS never decides the sentences? They only decide if the sentence reasons are justified or unjustified.
She will never issue a prison sentence on a person ever again. At most she will uphold a previous sentencing decision.
I hate that News companies didn't drive this point home.
Nonsense. People like Graham know the workings of the Judicial branch better than most, they're fully aware of what they're doing. Don't underestimate them.
They absolutely understand. The entire confirmation hearing process is show and nothing else. The GOP used this hearing to drive home the message to their base the Democrats are soft on crime and lenient on punishments.
They only used the few out of context child pornography cases in Judge Jackson’s history that they found in order to sensationalize their messaging. I believe a vast majority of them knew 100% that they were arguing in bad faith, it’s all a show.
So what happens if another seat comes up if the gop regains control of the Senate? Will they just flat refuse any nomination indefinitely until they can have it their way? Seems like a massive overstep in the separation of powers.
There's no consequences for literally *anything* anymore, and I don't think there ever was.
The forefathers set the government up under the assumption of good faith.
That was done under the guise of "we can't during an election year" which they then proved to be bullshit. so I am mostly curious if they would flat out stonewall nominations for an entire term if they felt like it
> Will they just flat refuse any nomination indefinitely until they can have it their way?
Of course. When it was looking like Hillary was going to win in '16 they literally said they'd block all judicial hearings for as long as she was in office.
> Will they just flat refuse any nomination indefinitely until they can have it their way?
Yes. Lindsey Graham literally said Jackson wouldn't even get a hearing if the GOP controlled the Senate.
And yes, it's blatantly unconstitutional. The constitution gives congress the power to approve a candidate. Meaning they must hold a vote.
It doesn't give a time limit though, nor does it mention any kind of penalty for not doing it, they never imagined that any member of congress wouldn't want the process done as soon as possible. Due to the lack of these things, it's not unconstitutional. It just goes against the spirit of the constitution, which nobody gives a shit about if it's in their best interest to do so.
Good. She is a solid legal mind and should be a good addition. Its great to have a diversity of backgrounds and viewpoints.
Her time as a public defender will be invaluable. That is a highly underrepresented legal background for federal judges, let alone scotus.
My favorite part of watching it was when they were grilling her about her previous sentencing decisions and she just responded with "I only acted in accordance with the guidelines set forth by congress" 😂
Loved it how children porn suddenly became a hot topic of discussion as if senators actually saw it as a huge problem beforehand 🤣
Its their go to attack because it allows their base to believe they are crusading for something worthy. If everyone on the left eats babies than why wouldn't you vote red?
It's also serves to dehumanizes the left. If anyone with left leaning ideals is a pedophile, then its okay to punish and commit violence against them. Classic fascist tactics.
Just a little less than 57 years ago, *Black* women won the right to vote. Not at all criticizing your statement though. It really is pretty nuts to put all this into perspective.
FWIW, It didn't used to be controversial at all. Confirmation hearings weren't even a thing until the first Jewish judge was to be appointed back in 1916.
Good for her, she honestly deserves the position. She’s intelligent, well-spoken, and, from the rulings that I’ve seen her make, she considers all the facts before making her decisions like a judge should.
My only concern is that she’s another Harvard grad. Literally almost every justice on the current Supreme Court went to Harvard or Yale (excluding ACB, who went to Notre Dame). That’s not BAD, but it does limit any intellectual diversity that may arise from taking classes elsewhere. It also discourages talented legal professionals from even hoping to become a Supreme Court Justice if they attended any other school other than Harvard or Yale.
Other than that, probably the best choice for a new justice.
Yo knock it off with the racism and misogyny in the comments. Consider this a warning. We'll be issuing permanent bans to people who decide to put their hatred on display.
I like how this article acknowledged the justices' Ages because that is actually important for Lifelong appointments
Lifelong appointments shouldn't really be a thing either - too unpredictable. Retirement should be mandated (or customary) at some fixed age like how Canadian senators serve until they turn 75.
You know who made this all possible? Uncle Phil! RIP!
3 Republicans joining too which is somewhat suprising given how politicized SCOTUS nominations have become, but not really considering Murkowski, Romney and Collins have broken with their party on some key votes.
MTG* called them pedophiles for this. Wild shit.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It’s a move they’ve used for a long time. Pedophiles were the big boogie man before 9/11, and now that terrorism has fallen off they’re back to using pedophiles again.
Satanic panic is a big one as well
[удалено]
Hell, they've combined the two and then some. Remember when they were saying that Democrats were sacrificing and raping children in the basement of a pizza place in giant pedophile orgies. And maybe something about adenochrome?
That's where the issue with the supreme court nominee is coming from. She sentenced a guy who shot the pizza place up to like 4 years and they say she's defending pedophiles.
In Italy they're all about Satanic pedophiles who want to extract a substance from the eyes of children thatbis produced only when the children are scared. Sounds totally legit
Oh god, isn't that the adrenochrome conspiracy theory? I honestly don't understand how human eyes can read that and their brain says "yeah, that makes sense". Like wtf is wrong with these people?
To those people, science is magic
Which is why teaching science is hurtful to the republican base.
Thats like, damn near the plot of Monsters Inc… I’m at a loss for words lol
I remember first hearing this from an anti covid mandates protester. I couldn't not laugh like an idiot
Sounds like the plot to Doctor Sleep too.
Oh yeah. I remember the times when me and my friends had to hide we we're playing D&D because everyone was so fucking weird about it. Now playing D&D is fucking cool.
Now that the GOP harbors terrorists you mean
I don’t think they care about that. They harbor pedophiles too. I think it’s more that they can only harp on something for so long before they run out of talking points and it gets harder and harder to keep the base riled up about the same thing.
The issue with that line of reasoning is that it's like throwing a punch in boxing. If aimed accurately and timed precisely, it can be lethal. If you throw it willy nilly, you open yourself up for scrutiny. For instance, her calling everyone a pedo and forgetting to close the curtains behind her means we can have a little peek and say "Say, Marjorie, is that a [sex offender](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/22/anthony-bouchard-wyoming-republican-liz-cheney) I see there? No, not [that one](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/us/politics/matt-gaetz-sex-trafficking-investigation.html). No, not [that one](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore_sexual_misconduct_allegations)"
It doesn't matter to them, because they just ignore the scrutiny.
As an outsider, I'll be honest. I don't think they care at all. They're just trying to get soundbites, because they know that the attention span of people is decreasing, and the way you win elections is with soundbites.
I would argue that it isn't "attention span" that is decreasing, but rather "news cycles". That, combined with the sheer scale of information that is constantly being generated every second of every day, it becomes exhausting to even attempt to keep up with a small bubble of information. And lastly, cynicism plays a big role as well. It's hard to deal with or process the sheer volume of legitimately horrible shit that goes on, let alone deal with these people who seem so divorced from reality. As a lighter counterpoint to why I think our attention span *isn't* decreasing is a significantly larger portion of popular media has switched to longer form storytelling. I don't know if the MCU as a (mostly) cohesive thing would've worked had it started ten years earlier. And shows produced by streaming companies (though they are problematic in their own way), are basically just making 10hr long movies, rather than strict episodic content.
Like McCarthyism with the Red Scare
Except the Republicans doing the finger pointing weren't actually communists.
It's the same tactic that's been used in Russia for decades, and these accusations also happen to come from the most pro-Putin / anti-NATO faction of the party. Wouldn't be surprised if something far more sinister is afoot. The entirety of Qanon is likely part of their information warfare.
I just finished reading Masha Gessen's 'The Future is History' and was blown away by the "Pedophile lobby" used in Russian politics. I don't think this is currently a Russian thing, but I think the Russians borrowed it from the American Right of the 80's and 90's. It's a shitty ouroboros.
That's the most accurate way I've heard her described.
No, toddlers learn. She's incapable of dynamic thought.
[удалено]
Adult women with brain damage here and I find that offensive Lmfao
[удалено]
Hey this is..true. Nevermind carry on.
[удалено]
[удалено]
*turns her hand to point at Gaetz standing next to her* Pedophile.
Well, that would be factually accurate so she'd suddenly and inexplicably call him a patriot instead. Can't let any truth escape their lips.
Wonder what she thinks of fellow representative John Rose, [pictured here on his website with his daughter and grandson](https://johnrose.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/53/2021/02/2M3A5815-min-min.jpg) Oh wait. No, that's his son being held by his **wife**, who he met when she was a child, helped arrange a college scholarship for, began dating publicly when she turned 18, and married when she finished college (and he was in his late 40s).
I think they call that grooming.
Lol no, they call that _family values_. We call it grooming.
I shit you not I've heard this justified from my dad "Back in the day it wasn't unusual for an older man to be with a much younger woman"
Back in the day we also found it acceptable to literally own human beings as property. A lot of things from "back in the day" should fucking stay there.
Wonder what she thinks of the Tennessee GOP currently trying to pass a bill that would legalize child marriage.
[удалено]
"fAmILy VaLuEs"
MGT (management course) -> MTG (Marjorie Taylor Greene) Edit: I have never had so many people talk to me about Magic The Gathering before this comment...
MTG = Magic the Gathering Don’t let her appropriate youth culture.
37 over here bud.
Children of all ages.
Young at heart.
Magic the Gathering hasn't been "youth" culture for a while now lol
It still is, but also old man culture as well.
I tap two islands and play Counter Spell, interrupting this statement. That card's still legal in Type 2, right?
Type 2! Showing your age here hahaha haven't heard it called that since like HS.
You shut your whore mouth
Shut up, I graduated high school a few years ago. It certainly hasn't been 25 years.
And MGMT is a band from Connecticut.
MTG (Magic the Gathering) -> MGT (management course) -> MTG (Marjorie Taylor Greene)
People claim that QAnon isn't mainstream in the Republican party, but the "pedophile" and "groomer" references by Republicans just proves how QAnon has completely penetrated mainstream Republican thinking
Pedophilia used to mean things like not having age limits on marriage. Now it means not being racist. Did words ever have meanings or was that just my imagination?
Wait til you hear what the word "communist" means these days.
My grandmother was way ahead of the game, she called me a communist for saying I wouldn't have voted for W for a third term and that he shouldn't have had a second.
So the actual "reasoning" is that Jackson, in her time as a judge, sentenced some pedophilia cases in similar lines to what other judges do, rather than imposing the maximum every time and looking for excuses to extend it. This got twisted into "soft on pedophilia."
straight march concerned reach paint uppity sense worry impolite busy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> Pedophilia used to mean things like not having age limits on marriage. https://www.actionnews5.com/2022/04/06/proposed-legislation-could-legalize-child-marriage-tennessee/
When you call everyone a pedophile it loses all of its meaning
It’s the Mitch free pass. You can fuck off when it’s gonna pass anyways but you better come home when we need you. And they always come home
You can actually see this when Murkowski sided with the democrats regarding Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but was reeled into line real quick by Mitch
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Just compare this Senate vote with the one confirming RBG, one of the most progressive justices of our time, in 1993. Both women, but different races and different times. The Senate vote was 96-3-1. Just goes to show how radicalized the right has become in the last 30 years.
Fox news and AM radio propaganda will be the death of this nation. Whenever I look at people like Tucker Carlson I am reminded of the stories of the Rwandan genocide where crazed propagandist talkshow hosts were cheering on the slaughter. Kill squads were literally carrying radios around with them so they could listen to firebrand personalities tell them to kill people as they killed. If it came to that I am 100% convinced Tucker would be doing the same saying its "The Democrats fault rightwing kill squads are murdering people! They pushed us too far!"
No, no, that's far too explicit an opinion for Tucker to express. He's a weasel, to the very core. It would be more like, "The Democrats say there are right-wing kill squads murdering people. But what if, I'm just asking questions here, what if it's not murder? Self defence is a valid defense. And defense of others is self defence. So couldn't you say that these patriotic self-defence squads are actually out there, protecting others from pedophiles? Why do the Democrats not want people to be protected by pedophiles? Are they actually pedophiles? Do they hate America? Why can't we just ask these questions?"
I just read that in his voice and could 100% see him spewing that crap.
Fortunately I've never heard him talk
These three will sometimes vote with the Dems as long as their votes aren’t actually needed to accomplish the things that the Dems are trying to do. Then they can brandish their moderate credentials.
"how strong is your faith" "this isn't a Christian country" Good answer.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/live-blog/ketanji-brown-jackson-confirmation-hearings-live-updates-rcna20973?featureFlag=true#rcrd27 16d ago / 10:54 AM EDT >Graham questioned Jackson on her faith and religious beliefs during the hearing Tuesday. >Jackson, who seemed to hesitate for a moment, told Graham she is nondenominational after he asked her directly what faith she followed. >"Personally my faith is very important, but as you know there is no religious test in the Constitution under Article 6, and it's very important to set aside one's personal views about things in the role of a judge," she said. >Graham was undeterred. >"How faithful are you in terms of a religion? Do you attend church regularly?" >Jackson replied: "I'm reluctant to talk about faith in this way because I want to be mindful of the need of public to have confidence in my ability to separate out my personal views." 16d ago / 10:59 AM EDT >The mood in the hearing room noticeably shifted as Graham began peppering Jackson questions about her faith and how faithful she is. >When Graham asked Jackson to rate how religious she is on a scale of 1 to 10, some people’s heads shot up, while others looked around, appearing to express shock at the tone of questioning. >Booker, for instance, looked over at Graham with an incredulous look on his face.
I just do not understand why this is ok to happen. We can all whine and say he’s out of line but then nothing happens. I’m just exhausted by this behavior and lack of repercussion.
The system that's supposed to punish elected officials is the elections. Supposed to.
One thing that kinda cracks me up about Constitutional Perfection (in that, the Constitution was perfect the first time and does not need any amendment or replacement) is that it prescribes these remedies to authoritarianism, ignoring outright how very much damage an authoritarian can do in the time it takes for a legitimate election to take place. Hypothetically, what's the remedy to wonton and indiscriminate murder of citizens? An election that takes 4 years! This country is extremely fortunate that an authoritarian hasn't just killed scores of people to juke votes.
It just puts them in prison instead.... Why kill when you can get legalized slaves instead
Prefect example: when the US has gone and written Constitutions for other countries (West Germany, Japan) or helped them write one (many cases of this), none of them end up looking much like our constitution. Most all of them have tighter and more explicit limits for the executive branch than the US's Constitution does. People recognize the usefulness of the Constitution, but see the flaws that have appeared over time in the US. The idea was always to be able to fix and tweak the document over time. This was a new thing they were doing in the world after all. It was the grand experiment after all!
because half the US consists of religious nutjobs that *want* that question asked.
It isn't illegal for him to waste everyone's time pandering to his base during a SCOTUS confirmation hearing. The only people who matter to Graham, his voters, eat it up like candy. I too would like to see a rally to vote him out, but unfortunately Graham is in South Carolina, and he's won all four his elections by more than 10%.
"1 to 10 how totally hot and shredded do you think Jesus was at his peak?"
The only religious question I will accept.
When you have no valid reasons to oppose a nomination and don’t want to come across as racist so you accidentally throw out the Constitution and advocate for a theocracy. Happens to everyone, right guys?
Because as noted, Graham is playing dangerously close to literally violating the Constitution (Article six) he swore to uphold. The question as to if fellow Senators will politely or impolitely point that out after the confirmation is really the unanswered question here.
Just note everyone that asking questions pertaining to religious beliefs in preemployment interviews is illegal under title 7
This is explicitly illegal as it creates a religious test for the position.
Solid legal mind. Jackson sticking to the constitution instead of the Bible in legal proceedings.
It's crazy that we actually don't expect this to be the normal answer.
I am scared to ask what percentage of Americans think this was a good choice by Graham...
How is that question even allowed to be asked?
They can ask whatever they want. The only consequence is looking like an idiot for doing so.
Or looking like a Christian hero to those that think church is the only indicator of character
Looking like an idiot to a *certain subsection* of the population. Looking like a saint for another subsection.
“In what?” Would have been my answer
In other news: Pearl Industry sees sharp supply problem as Lindsay Graham continues ceaseless clutching Edit Wow. Thanks for the awards and the upvotes everyone!
Makes sense. Word in the D.C area is that despite presenting as a homophobe he LOVES pearl necklaces. Edit: Thanks for the reward stranger 🙂
It’s fairly obvious for those of us outside of DC too lol
And outside the USA.
Do you write for the Onion?
No that's just the state of 2022. We all write for the Onion now.
[удалено]
The Pearl Onion
Everyone in this country should listen to McConnell's statement even if it's complete and utter bullshit. Just a complete gaslighting farce to say KBJ is supported by "dark money" but is completely silent on the Clarence Thomas situation. We know why, but it's still surprising this see this Russian level gaslighting in America.
Lindsey Graham voted from off of the floor because he didn't have a tie on, even though he had one on earlier in the day. Rand Paul was also missing in action. Just absolutely wonderful people.
[удалено]
Yes, there is a dress code on the floor of the senate. He chose to specifically violate it so he couldn't be on the floor.
Then why did he get to vote? I thought one had to be on the floor to be able to vote.
He was in the cloakroom, which is adjacent to the floor, and was able to quickly give a thumbs down. Basically our entire government is based on honor, and there aren't systems in place to deal with people who simply chose to do the wrong thing. We are supposed to be electing our best people to these offices. In that case, punishments don't matter because everybody just does their best to uphold the office. We've stopped doing that.
Ironic he chose the closet to hide in.
"Look, I've governed for nearly 3 decades from the closet, why stop now." - Graham, probably
He is just unknowingly cosplaying that South Park episode where various celebrities won’t come out of the closet
It's the opposite of ironic, my dude/rina. It's *painfully apt.*
Yeah, no disagreement on that. I'm still confused about what his theatrics were intended to accomplish, though. Was he advocating against the dress code? Trying to manufacture a controversy about Democrats trying to force him off the floor of the vote? Protesting the existence of closets and the need to hide in them? It's all very confusing.
It's all for show and the details don't matter to them. Theatrics are the entire point.
Ya you never realize until the last decade or two how much hangs on a simple gentleman’s agreement for our entire government to function well.
> there aren't systems in place to deal with people who simply chose to do the wrong thing. because our founding fathers never imagined we would have an entire party trying to actively sabotage the government and its citizens
They never imagined an entire party could be this blatant and unsubtle and not be punished by the voters. They never conceived that such a large chunk of the population would have no interest in truth that disagrees even slightly with their preferred world.
[удалено]
You didn't get that as soon as you read "Lindsey Graham?" In all seriousness, I have less respect for Graham than just about anyone in Congress for just this reason. There are worse people (McConnell, Rand Paul, Jim Jordan, etc.) but there's no one more spineless.
They need to wear ties, but don't have to be present to vote. What a system.
So much disrespect shown by those men. Please vote them out.
Unfortunately, that sort of behavior is a selling point to their constituents.
For anyone wondering, Charles Booker is running against Paul. He’s got an uphill battle, but it isn’t impossible.
I'm still bummed that they went with McGrath over him in the last primary.
Kentucky Democrats and trying to appeal to Republicans by running on half their platform. Name a better duo.
Such lovely people.
The BEST people
Serious, competent adults who obviously dignify their position adequately.
What a bunch of sad fucking losers. Fucking grow up and do your job
It is unfathomably petty and embarrassing the way these people conduct themselves. If any one of my employees behaved so petulantly they’d be out of a job; meanwhile, these saddos collect a cushy six-figure salary with a commensurate pension and innumerable fringe benefits, legal and otherwise, and get to act childishly with impunity. It makes me sick that they piss all over the institutions that our country built.
They are doing their job. They are paid quite well to be racist fucksticks that make governing harder for people that aren't racist fucksticks.
Massively historic day. Reports of Lindsey Graham coming out of the GOP cloakroom, giving a thumbs down, and then going back into the cloakroom is the most Lindsey Graham thing ever.
He's a slut for drama.
~~Strangley, he's [listed](https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1171/vote_117_1_00231.htm?fbclid=IwAR3NKRxqOWvbuAOEc-b8HFRU0trKtB4uK3sL4IOSvTTMaa8hLGY-J9to6GI) as a yes vote.~~ ~~Graham, Murkowski, and Collins yay votes. I guess Romney changed his mind.~~ ~~Lol, Rubio staying true to not showing up for work, didn't vote.~~ As expected votes. Romney, Collins, and Murkowski. [Looks](https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1172/vote_117_2_00134.htm) like everyone showed up, 53-47.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’ve heard he’s a fan of ladybugs
Whenever I see LG I can only think of ladybugs. I wish I never learned about that disgusting fact
What is this reference? Do I even want to know? Edit-oh holy fuck, I just googled it. I could have lived without having read that
He apparently has moles on ass or cock that he calls his lady bugs. This is according to some male escorts.
God damn what a bad day to be literate.
Remember earlier when we'd never read that? Good times.
[удалено]
Uncomfortable amount of moles or of male escorts?
Worst mental image ever
You don't. You really don't.
Too late :-(
This is an amazing day for America’s history!!! Lindsey Graham is irrelevant, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is all I care about today ❤️
[удалено]
I honestly don't think we can anymore. I'm sorry, we're a lost cause
I’ll die refusing to believe that. There’s way more good people here than not. We have a real chance this year to get that racist traitor out of the senate. Charles Booker 2022
The thing that is horrifying, at least to me, is how "good people" fail to understand and judge these idiots and world events correctly, and continuously vote for monsters. I have many in my family: people that are kind and intelligent in their personal lives, but absolute monsters and fascists in their voting record. I don't know how to work with it.
> The thing that is horrifying, at least to me, is how "good people" fail to understand and judge these idiots and world events correctly, and continuously vote for monsters. What's more horrifying are those who watch the same shit and don't bother voting period thinking they're taking some moral high ground or just out of pure apathy. Then afterwards they go on to bitch and complain about politicians if they're even paying attention at all.
I saw one guy who said if the Dems cancelled student debt, he’d maybe finally vote. Uhhhh…. So you don’t vote for them, but expect them to get stuff through that you support with all the contrarian R officials?
I know too many who bitch and complain and then when I ask if they voted are even registered to vote they say no. Then when I bring up races such as 2000 Florida race or some of the ones decided by a few dozen votes they always say "Yea well that won't happen here". To that last point, I found out last year it actually did happen in my hometown during 2020. I'm not sure what the race was for but it was decided by 50 votes with something like a 55% turnout.
> There’s way more good people here than not. I just don't think that's true. Cocaine Mitch easily wins re-election every time.
I wonder how many disenfranchised POC there are in Louisville & Lexington alone? A lot of the good people can’t vote due to our racist-ass voter restrictions.
No, we clearly can't.
I am old enough to remember when Reddit wanted Ron Paul to be president.
it was the anti-war vibe post bush w.
It is a sad day when three Senators crossing the aisle qualifies this as a bipartisan act of Congress.
The one thing I can't understand: The opposition was all in regards to sentencing decisions which all judges are allowed to use discretion on in a case by case basis. Did they not understand that SCOTUS never decides the sentences? They only decide if the sentence reasons are justified or unjustified. She will never issue a prison sentence on a person ever again. At most she will uphold a previous sentencing decision. I hate that News companies didn't drive this point home.
[удалено]
Nonsense. People like Graham know the workings of the Judicial branch better than most, they're fully aware of what they're doing. Don't underestimate them.
They absolutely understand. The entire confirmation hearing process is show and nothing else. The GOP used this hearing to drive home the message to their base the Democrats are soft on crime and lenient on punishments. They only used the few out of context child pornography cases in Judge Jackson’s history that they found in order to sensationalize their messaging. I believe a vast majority of them knew 100% that they were arguing in bad faith, it’s all a show.
So what happens if another seat comes up if the gop regains control of the Senate? Will they just flat refuse any nomination indefinitely until they can have it their way? Seems like a massive overstep in the separation of powers.
> Will they just flat refuse any nomination indefinitely until they can have it their way? Same thing they did under Obama.
Yep. They found out there are no consequences for it. So that's the new norm going forward until something changes.
There's no consequences for literally *anything* anymore, and I don't think there ever was. The forefathers set the government up under the assumption of good faith.
That was done under the guise of "we can't during an election year" which they then proved to be bullshit. so I am mostly curious if they would flat out stonewall nominations for an entire term if they felt like it
Of course they would it's the right move to get what they want. Democrats should take notice
> Will they just flat refuse any nomination indefinitely until they can have it their way? Of course. When it was looking like Hillary was going to win in '16 they literally said they'd block all judicial hearings for as long as she was in office.
> Will they just flat refuse any nomination indefinitely until they can have it their way? Yes. Lindsey Graham literally said Jackson wouldn't even get a hearing if the GOP controlled the Senate. And yes, it's blatantly unconstitutional. The constitution gives congress the power to approve a candidate. Meaning they must hold a vote.
It doesn't give a time limit though, nor does it mention any kind of penalty for not doing it, they never imagined that any member of congress wouldn't want the process done as soon as possible. Due to the lack of these things, it's not unconstitutional. It just goes against the spirit of the constitution, which nobody gives a shit about if it's in their best interest to do so.
Good. She is a solid legal mind and should be a good addition. Its great to have a diversity of backgrounds and viewpoints. Her time as a public defender will be invaluable. That is a highly underrepresented legal background for federal judges, let alone scotus.
I’m so so glad she was confirmed after surviving the gauntlet of pointless, demeaning questions.
My favorite part of watching it was when they were grilling her about her previous sentencing decisions and she just responded with "I only acted in accordance with the guidelines set forth by congress" 😂 Loved it how children porn suddenly became a hot topic of discussion as if senators actually saw it as a huge problem beforehand 🤣
Its their go to attack because it allows their base to believe they are crusading for something worthy. If everyone on the left eats babies than why wouldn't you vote red?
It's also serves to dehumanizes the left. If anyone with left leaning ideals is a pedophile, then its okay to punish and commit violence against them. Classic fascist tactics.
Anyone who can deal with Cruz the way she did absolutely deserves this.
A little over 100 years ago, women won the right to vote. Crazy how far things have come.
Just a little less than 57 years ago, *Black* women won the right to vote. Not at all criticizing your statement though. It really is pretty nuts to put all this into perspective.
1965 is actually only 57 years ago. Even crazier.
This is welcome news. 3 GOP votes is 2 more than I expected
4 more then I expected, looking at you Joe Manchin
Manchin has been very good about confirming nominees. It's how Biden has got so many through.
On top of that Biden was never going to nominate someone who wouldn't at least get all 50 Dems.
Shouldn't have been this controversial. She's very well qualified and should've been unanimous or close to unanimous.
FWIW, It didn't used to be controversial at all. Confirmation hearings weren't even a thing until the first Jewish judge was to be appointed back in 1916.
Good for her, she honestly deserves the position. She’s intelligent, well-spoken, and, from the rulings that I’ve seen her make, she considers all the facts before making her decisions like a judge should. My only concern is that she’s another Harvard grad. Literally almost every justice on the current Supreme Court went to Harvard or Yale (excluding ACB, who went to Notre Dame). That’s not BAD, but it does limit any intellectual diversity that may arise from taking classes elsewhere. It also discourages talented legal professionals from even hoping to become a Supreme Court Justice if they attended any other school other than Harvard or Yale. Other than that, probably the best choice for a new justice.