JGKAMIN
4 years ago

so you're pizzed he's changed? HA!

No one wants to go back and forth with examples of hypocrisy, we both know it would be a pretty even score between right and left, right?

Yeah, I know, supposedly people don't change...but they do, often subtly little by little.
Or not at all.
Or greatly.

Sometimes people do things or allow for things or even vote for things they are personally against...like several Supreme Court appointees have done. Once in a while it's courageous.

And sometimes people do things because their marketing people told them it would boost their popularity/electability.
Maybe add Biden to Reagan and Bush and treat each the same?

Bigger problems are out there.

frankj1 wrote:


He’s changed? Not one bit. He made this about race and gender, but it’s only such because of his own actions to previously prevent it. He couldn’t care less about race/gender if not for fulfilling promises to those than propped him up like a Weekend at Bernies sequel and got him into office.
View All Posts by User
DrMaddVibe
4 years ago

Biden has not changed. He just older.

HockeyDad wrote:



And dumber too!
View All Posts by User
frankj1
4 years ago

He’s changed? Not one bit. He made this about race and gender, but it’s only such because of his own actions to previously prevent it. He couldn’t care less about race/gender if not for fulfilling promises to those than propped him up like a Weekend at Bernies sequel and got him into office.

JGKAMIN wrote:


so, I offered up several reasons people move in opposite directions from where they were years before. I even said some reasons are more noble than others. Some more self serving than others.

And now he's made a move totally opposite what he did to upset you two decades ago...for whatever reason good or bad... and you use that as for the same accusations?

Someone stole money from you 20 years ago. They give it back today.
You gonna say keep it cuz it's stolen money?

You don't want it to be better.

View All Posts by User
DrMaddVibe
4 years ago
🐴


Biden’s Supreme Court Pick Shielded Top Clinton Aide Amid Email Scandal



President Joe Biden’s Supreme Court nominee shielded one of Hillary Clinton’s top State Department aides from scrutiny about his use of a personal email account to conduct official business.

Then-U.S. district judge Ketanji Brown Jackson in 2015 denied Gawker’s request for details about press aide Philippe Reines's stewardship of the account in the context of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, which sought emails Reines traded with 34 different media outlets. Jackson blocked Gawker’s request, calling it "extraordinary" and claiming there was no proof that Reines had acted in "bad faith" by using a personal email address.

Like Clinton, Reines often communicated with the press via a personal email account. That meant his communiqués were not preserved on State Department systems. When Gawker filed a FOIA request for Reines’s emails in September 2012, State Department officials were thus unable to turn up responsive records, prompting the lawsuit.

The State Department asked Reines to turn over whatever government records were in his possession around the time of the Gawker lawsuit, which he did via his lawyers in July 2015, two years after he left government service. Jackson therefore agreed to give the State Department additional time to sort through the "new" Reines records and turn them over to Gawker. Jackson supervised that process and lawyers for the parties kept her up to date on their progress via status hearings and reports.

Gawker put the screws to Reines, seeking affidavits that swore he had turned over all relevant documents and describing his methods for surrendering records to State.

"It is difficult to view the timeline of events surrounding the compilation of records responsive to Gawker’s FOIA request as anything short of a bureaucratic and managerial catastrophe," lawyers for Gawker wrote in a 2015 filing. "State has provided scant information regarding why it was not until 2015 that it finally sought to gather the records from Mr. Reines."

Jackson denied that request, calling it "extraordinary." She said that the State Department had no obligation under FOIA "to solicit or produce" documents in an ex-official’s sole possession. And there’s a crucial difference, she added, between producing requested documents—which is within the scope of FOIA—and the initial decision whether to retain said documents.

"An agency’s threshold determination regarding which records to retain in its files is entirely distinct from the agency’s subsequent search of maintained records pursuant to the FOIA—and these two duties should not be conflated," she wrote in an opinion denying Gawker’s request.

The decision was the only opinion Jackson handed down over the course of the dispute.

Jackson’s opinion parted ways with a colleague on the Washington federal trial court, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan. In a separate lawsuit, Sullivan required Clinton herself and two of her top aides, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, to submit affidavits along the lines Gawker sought. Gawker’s request mentioned Sullivan’s order and may have been based upon it.

Jackson said the Reines case was different because there was evidence that Clinton’s email system was designed to skirt FOIA altogether. In the Reines-Gawker fracas, she said there was a "total absence of any indicia of bad faith" on Reines’s part.

In fact, Reines explicitly wrote, "I want to avoid FOIA" on an email exchange from his personal account with John Heilemann and Mark Halperin in February 2009, around the time he joined the State Department. That indicia of bad faith was not in the record before Jackson so far as the Washington Free Beacon could tell.

Reines’s colorful if bizarre exchanges with the Free Beacon over his spat with Gawker helped cost him a job on Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. The clash ended when Gawker abandoned the case in 2017.

https://freebeacon.com/courts/bidens-supreme-court-pick-shielded-top-clinton-aide-amid-email-scandal/ 

And Black ...and Female...TRIFECTA!
View All Posts by User
8trackdisco
4 years ago
Saw the person Biden is nominating for the Supreme Court.
She's met his qualifications. She appears to be female and black.
If I were her, I'd feel devalued as being female and black wasn't an accomplishment- unless being born a specific gender or color automatically is an accomplishment.

The little bit I have reviewed about her real qualifications (other than the female and black things) is she isn't that far left.
Wrote an opinion friendly to union busting and agreeing siding with Trump on another case.

She's young (51), been approved by a few republicans on her last promotion. All and all, she may be to the right of Breyer.
View All Posts by User
JGKAMIN
4 years ago
Interested in seeing if she’ll be met with the same dignity and respect in the process as the past couple of nominees.
View All Posts by User
rfenst
4 years ago

The little bit I have reviewed about her real qualifications (other than the female and black things) is she isn't that far left.
Wrote an opinion friendly to union busting and agreeing siding with Trump on another case.

8trackdisco wrote:





Harvard Law (you don't get in w/o the brains and grades even if you are a minority)
Harvard Law Review Editor (not an affirmative action job) (can write opinions real well)
Clerked for a SCOTUS Justice (already knows how things work)
Was a public defender. No others on the bench.
Was a federal trial judge.
Was a federal appellate justice in the most political jurisdiction in the country.

Therefore, she is qualified, absent something crazy popping up...
View All Posts by User
RayR
4 years ago
Braindead Biden said Ketanji Brown Jackson is "one of our nation's top legal minds" 🤔
How does Biden come to that conclusion that she is "one of our nation's top legal minds"? :-k
OK, so his handlers told him to say that.

That should make any inquisitive mind wonder what leftist crazy chit she's done and why Biden would want her on his plantation to dutifully rubber-stamp all his unconstitutional chit.
As Tucker Carlson found out, just asking why Joey B. didn't share what her LSAT score was got him called a RACIST!
View All Posts by User
Sunoverbeach
4 years ago
We were talking briefly about cocaine...yeah. Anything that makes you paranoid and impotent, give me more of that!
- Robin Williams
View All Posts by User
8trackdisco
4 years ago

[quote=8trackdisco]The little bit I have reviewed about her real qualifications (other than the female and black things) is she isn't that far left.
Wrote an opinion friendly to union busting and agreeing siding with Trump on another case.[/q]

Harvard Law (you don't get in w/o the brains and grades even if you are a minority)
Harvard Law Review Editor (not an affirmative action job) (can write opinionsreal well)
Clerked for a SCOTUS Justice (already knows how things work)
Was a public defender. No others on the bench.
Was a federal trial judge.
Was a federal appellate justice in the most political jurisdiction in the country.

Therefore, she is qualified, absent something crazy popping up...

rfenst wrote:



Thank you, Robert.
That is the biggest problem with Affirmative Action. You don't know if they earned or were gifted what they got.
View All Posts by User
frankj1
4 years ago
Clarence Thomas used it and then was against it.
RayR, is he uppity like Jackson?
View All Posts by User
HockeyDad
4 years ago
She is the most qualified black woman for the job and that should be good enough.
View All Posts by User
RayR
4 years ago

Clarence Thomas used it and then was against it.
RayR, is he uppity like Jackson?

frankj1 wrote:



Frank, if you call a black woman lawyer that's married into white privileged society, "uppity", that makes you a racist...I think. 🤔
View All Posts by User
frankj1
4 years ago

Frank, if you call a black woman lawyer that's married into white privileged society, "uppity", that makes you a racist...I think. 🤔

RayR wrote:


um, you're the one who said the word applied when asked.

Personally, I think it's disgusting, but the leaks are sprouting.
View All Posts by User
Stogie1020
4 years ago

[quote=8trackdisco]The little bit I have reviewed about her real qualifications (other than the female and black things) is she isn't that far left.
Wrote an opinion friendly to union busting and agreeing siding with Trump on another case.[/q]

Harvard Law (you don't get in w/o the brains and grades even if you are a minority)
Harvard Law Review Editor (not an affirmative action job) (can write opinionsreal well)
Clerked for a SCOTUS Justice (already knows how things work)
Was a public defender. No others on the bench.
Was a federal trial judge.
Was a federal appellate justice in the most political jurisdiction in the country.

Therefore, she is qualified, absent something crazy popping up...

rfenst wrote:



Let's just hope like hell she didn't drink any beer in high school or go to any parties.
View All Posts by User
Sunoverbeach
4 years ago
Cricket is basically baseball on Valium.
- RW
View All Posts by User
Users browsing this topic
Mobile! Terms | Privacy | Contact Us | Help | © 1998-2026, CigarBid.com