The Biden/Harris Administration Accomplishments Thread

[volinbham]

Said every white man ever.

LOL - more bigoted commentary from you.

You know next to nothing about me and my experiences yet you lump we in with everyone else of my same gender and race. Typical

 

[luthervol]

That's a legislative function; judging should simply be taking established law and determining did you or did you not break it. Anything else is not justice it's tampering with justice and justifying it with social games.

lol.....So why all the hoopla over every SC nominee?
We all obviously know that there are massive differences between even the most "qualified" justices.

 

[UT_VOLS13]

Said every white man ever.

Talk about RACIST!

 

[hndog609]

Said every white man ever.

Said the racist SJW.

 

[RavinDave]

For those interested:
Using Luther's premise (a woman who prefers a female gyno) as foundation, I will try to illustrate where he has "lutherized" his example.
Let's say the woman chooses a female gyno and has a great relationship. The gyno consults with the patient throughout her pregnancy. The gyno is at hospital and delivers the woman's baby. But the baby is born with severe complications. The gyno is attending to the mother while a crash team enter the room to administer care to her newborn. Does the woman have the discretion to dictate the gender, race, or age of the team members rendering care to her baby in crisis?

Is it germane to this scenario whether the baby ‘s a boy or a girl? And are its genitalia an acceptable basis for assigning its gender?

 

[luthervol]

LOL - more bigoted commentary from you.

You know next to nothing about me and my experiences yet you lump we in with everyone else of my same gender and race. Typical

Talk about RACIST!

I'm not the one hyperventilating over Biden's judicial picks.
Are either one of you nuts enough to think that our current SC justices are the most qualified in the nation for the job?
Are either one of you nuts enough to think the current group of federal judges are the most qualified for the job?
Are either one of you nuts enough to think that the federal judges from any point in time were the most qualified for the job?
At best, and hopefully, many are. Also hopefully the ones that aren't the most qualified are at least not incompetent.
For the 200 years of picking pretty much nothing but white men, how often to you think we were actually picking the best qualified?

 

[Rickyvol77]

See if this helps...............

I am going to open an athletic training facility for youth in Gwinnett County (very diverse).
I plan to have 6 coaches/trainers in my initial start up.
I will not hire 6 white guys.
I will not hire 6 black guys.
I will not hire 6 women.
My business plan dictates that the wisest move would be to have a diverse staff.
I will have at least one white male, at least one black male, at least one white female, at least one black female, and at least one Hispanic.
If my first four hires are male, my next two will be female.....PERIOD.
If my first three hires are black, my next three hires will be white or Hispanic.

Fire away!!!!!!

This may be your dumbest post. And that’s saying a lot

 

[McDad]

That's a legislative function; judging should simply be taking established law and determining did you or did you not break it. Anything else is not justice it's tampering with justice and justifying it with social games.

This is the central principle in my scenarios posted earlier. Pts exercise discretion on who provides medical services. Just as people choose who represents them in a legal matter. Pts can require care where their discretion is no longer valid because providers have a duty to the patient and medicine. Likewise, the judge has a duty to the litigant and the law. It doesn't (or shouldn't) matter what color or gender they are.

 

[McDad]

Is it germane to this scenario whether the baby ‘s a boy or a girl? And are its genitalia an acceptable basis for assigning its gender?

It isn't. The baby can be a hermaphrodite if that is your preference. The baby's pronouns are yet to be assigned.

 

[Ttucke11]

it does change the point - race or gender is a very crude tool that tells us very little about a person. my degree of feeling someone represents me is based upon so much more than this characteristic and merely possessing this one characteristic does little to guarantee a match.

This sounds very MLKjr esque. Which in today's society means you're a racist.

 

[volinbham]

I'm not the one hyperventilating over Biden's judicial picks.
Are either one of you nuts enough to think that our current SC justices are the most qualified in the nation for the job?
Are either one of you nuts enough to think the current group of federal judges are the most qualified for the job?
Are either one of you nuts enough to think that the federal judges from any point in time were the most qualified for the job?
At best, and hopefully, many are. Also hopefully the ones that aren't the most qualified are at least not incompetent.
For the 200 years of picking pretty much nothing but white men, how often to you think we were actually picking the best qualified?

I did not even comment on Biden's judicial picks.

None of this changes your bigoted comment.

 

[luthervol]

This is the central principle in my scenarios posted earlier. Pts exercise discretion on who provides medical services. Just as people choose who represents them in a legal matter. Pts can require care where their discretion is no longer valid because providers have a duty to the patient and medicine. Likewise, the judge has a duty to the litigant and the law. It doesn't (or shouldn't) matter what color or gender they are.

Does it matter what political leanings they have?

 

[Ttucke11]

This may be your dumbest post. And that’s saying a lot

I've been doing a lot of the hiring at my job recently. I'm just wondering where he's finding all these candidates.

Also how stupid would it be if your best white female candidate was your 20th best applicant overall and you hired her just to check a couple diversity boxes? Someone would be running a **** business.

 

[McDad]

Does it matter what political leanings they have?

Who is the "they" in your question?
If it is the judge or the provider, It does not. Or, should not.

 

[luthervol]

I've been doing a lot of the hiring at my job recently. I'm just wondering where he's finding all these candidates.

Also how stupid would it be if your best white female candidate was your 20th best applicant overall and you hired her just to check a couple diversity boxes? Someone would be running a **** business.

What's up with you guys and the "checking a diversity box" nonsense? Is that something they say on Fox frequently?
If hiring a woman would increase your business and not hiring a woman would cause you to lose business but you hire a man anyway because using your faulty "criteria" you deem the man to be the more qualified candidate - then you're stupid and shouldn't be in the position of hiring.

 

[luthervol]

Who is the "they" in your question?
If it is the judge or the provider, It does not. Or, should not.

It shouldn't, but it does.
Otherwise, why all of the drama surrounding SC picks.

 

[McDad]

It shouldn't, but it does.
Otherwise, why all of the drama surrounding SC picks.

Seems self evident to me. Yall pick sides based on your politics, draw battle lines, and drop drama bombs because you enjoy it.

 

[HammondB3Vol]

To the last two it's the same thing we've been over before. If you are genuinely considering all applicants then the "qualifications" are up to whomever is doing the hiring. For the umpteenth time the absolute bright line here is the boldened. If you want to put a face on it 100% of all coaches that flatly stated they'd only consider a white male assistant would be considered racist misogynists. So what exactly should be thought of someone that is looking to fill a position and knows going in it's going to be, say, a black female?

It's kind of sad you haven't been able to better support a simple argument that, without introducing gender qualifications, a female (or POC, or whatever) can absolutely be the best candidate for X job. You've been (and deservedly so) getting pummeled for running with this idea there's some kind of inherent virtue in diversity hires in an area that really, really needs to hold as much as possible to the standards of a meritocracy. Begin and end qualifications based on merit. Anything else is settling for exclusionary lower standards and virtue signaling.

This^^^^

 

[DonjoVol]

lol.....So why all the hoopla over every SC nominee?
We all obviously know that there are massive differences between even the most "qualified" justices.

You mean like all the hysteria and fits democrats threw over Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas.

 

[luthervol]

Seems self evident to me. Yall pick sides based on your politics, draw battle lines, and drop drama bombs because you enjoy it.

Presidents vs. opposing Senates in Supreme Court nominations - National Constitution Center
In recent years, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter were nominated by Republican Presidents and confirmed by a Democrat-controlled Senate. But to find a Supreme Court nominee from a Democrat President, approved by a Republican-controlled Senate, you need to go back to 1895.

The last Supreme Court nominee to come from a President whose party didn’t control the Senate was Clarence Thomas in 1991, who was nominated by President George H.W. Bush. The Democrats had 55 seats in the Senate, compared with the Republicans’ 45 seats, and it took 11 Democrats swinging their votes to Thomas for his successful nomination.

Once again, the dems try to play more fairly.

It seems as if most everyone accepts the fact that something like political party affiliation is an important factor and worthy of consideration when selecting a judge, but many of those same people will become apoplectic at the notion that race or gender might be worthy of consideration.

Talk about disingenuous and inconsistent.

 

[luthervol]

You mean like all the hysteria and fits democrats threw over Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas.

Careful where you tread.........

Presidents vs. opposing Senates in Supreme Court nominations - National Constitution Center
In recent years, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter were nominated by Republican Presidents and confirmed by a Democrat-controlled Senate. But to find a Supreme Court nominee from a Democrat President, approved by a Republican-controlled Senate, you need to go back to 1895.

The last Supreme Court nominee to come from a President whose party didn’t control the Senate was Clarence Thomas in 1991, who was nominated by President George H.W. Bush. The Democrats had 55 seats in the Senate, compared with the Republicans’ 45 seats, and it took 11 Democrats swinging their votes to Thomas for his successful nomination.

Once again, the dems try to play more fairly.

 

[GroverCleveland]

This may be your dumbest post. And that’s saying a lot

You missed the one where he imagines in the future men will give birth.

 

[85SugarVol]

I agree, we need both and desperately need to avoid having neither.

Which gets us the most bang for the buck?

 

[McDad]

Presidents vs. opposing Senates in Supreme Court nominations - National Constitution Center
In recent years, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter were nominated by Republican Presidents and confirmed by a Democrat-controlled Senate. But to find a Supreme Court nominee from a Democrat President, approved by a Republican-controlled Senate, you need to go back to 1895.

The last Supreme Court nominee to come from a President whose party didn’t control the Senate was Clarence Thomas in 1991, who was nominated by President George H.W. Bush. The Democrats had 55 seats in the Senate, compared with the Republicans’ 45 seats, and it took 11 Democrats swinging their votes to Thomas for his successful nomination.

Twitter would ban you. There were only a few times when D presidents were coupled with R controlled Senates. The nominations and appointments are listed. Check your "source" next time.

R Controlled Senate. Presidential Party Affiliation
1895 -1913 R, R, R.
1919 - 1933 D, R, R, R
1947 - 1949 D
1953 - 1955 R
1981 - 1987 R, R
1995 - 2001 D, D
2003 - 2007 R
2015 - 2021 R
Woodrow Wilson nominated 3 associate justices.
All confirmed. 14, 14, 16
Truman nominated 4. All confirmed 45, 46, 49, 49
Clinton nominated 2. Both confirmed 93 and 94

 

[McDad]

Careful where you tread.........

Presidents vs. opposing Senates in Supreme Court nominations - National Constitution Center
In recent years, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter were nominated by Republican Presidents and confirmed by a Democrat-controlled Senate. But to find a Supreme Court nominee from a Democrat President, approved by a Republican-controlled Senate, you need to go back to 1895.

The last Supreme Court nominee to come from a President whose party didn’t control the Senate was Clarence Thomas in 1991, who was nominated by President George H.W. Bush. The Democrats had 55 seats in the Senate, compared with the Republicans’ 45 seats, and it took 11 Democrats swinging their votes to Thomas for his successful nomination.

Once again, the dems try to play more fairly.

Goebbels would be proud of your often told lie.