Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 75
  1. #46
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    21,327
    surely Biden won't run again for the presidency? He may intend to but surely instead he could assist in finding and grooming a more active and appealing candidate.
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  2. #47
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    18,405
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-f...on-of-a-bitch/

    Great replacement for Tramp...he must have forgotten (happens in old age) that he was in a news conference.
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  3. #48
    CC Grandmaster Ian Murray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,671
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-f...on-of-a-bitch/

    Great replacement for Tramp...he must have forgotten (happens in old age) that he was in a news conference.
    He seems to be hangin' in there better than most for an old guy: "... Mr. Biden, who held a nearly two-hour news conference with reporters last week, has occasionally become frustrated with reporters' questions. ..."

  4. #49
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    21,327
    About this stage of Trump's presidency he was being impeached.
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  5. #50
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    21,211

    Biden's racist and sexist SCOTUS nomination

    Can the President Constitutionally Restrict His Nomination to a Black Woman?
    by Alan M. Dershowitz [himself a Biden voter]
    Gatestone Institute, 28 Jan 2022

    • Supporters of President Biden's announcement will argue that there is a big difference between prohibiting a person from serving based on religion, race or gender, and affirmatively giving preference based on these criteria. That is sophistry. By limiting his choice to a Black woman, President Biden has disqualified every non-Black woman and man in America. There are a considerable number of highly qualified Black women, and I would applaud the nomination of any one of them. But that is not the issue. The issue is exclusion.
    • The Supreme Court has a long history of exclusion.... The Supreme Court was [for many years] an institution reserved primarily for white Protestant males. That was wrong and unconstitutional. But two wrongs, even if one of them is a "good" wrong, do not make a constitutional right.
    • The Black woman who is eventually nominated for the job will suffer reputationally from the president's announcement. She will not be regarded as the most qualified person to be nominated, but only as the most qualified Black woman. That is insulting, even if not intended to be.
    • President Biden should direct Attorney General Garland to prepare a list of the 25 most qualified nominees. No one should be excluded on the basis of race or gender. Such a list, if fairly compiled would include several Black women. (It should not include Kamala Harris, because she might have to cast a tie-breaking vote on herself!)

    Imagine a president announcing that since no Muslim has ever been appointed to the Supreme Court, he pledges to nominate the first Muslim justice. That would undoubtedly be unconstitutional since Article VI of the Constitution specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The spirit of that prohibition — coupled with the 14th and 19th amendments—would certainly seem to apply to race and gender as well. It is wrong, and perhaps unconstitutional, for a president to impose a racial or gender test for nomination to the Supreme Court. If a president were to announce that he intended to nominate only a white male, constitutional scholars would rightfully object.

    We live in an age of identity politics, when race and gender seem to count more than merit. The Supreme Court may soon confront that issue when it decides whether Harvard and the University of North Carolina violated the law by apparently preferring African American over Asian-American applicants. If the justices decide that race alone may not properly be considered as a factor in admissions, they may well send a message to President Biden and future presidents regarding race and gender as criteria for nominations to the High Court.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  6. #51
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    21,327
    CaPa I am certain that you wrote every word of that above piece your self
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  7. #52
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,475
    The whole supreme court is far too political and judges are chosen for the wrong reasons all the time anyway. That Biden is setting up his own criteria is hardly surprising given who he chose to be his vice president.

  8. #53
    Account Banned Sir Cromulent Sparkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Westside
    Posts
    3,478

  9. #54
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    21,327
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Cromulent Sparkles View Post
    If that's how you feel about Brandon.
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  10. #55
    Account Banned Sir Cromulent Sparkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Westside
    Posts
    3,478
    Quote Originally Posted by antichrist View Post
    If that's how you feel about Brandon.
    f795ef40f60e0e6f4ea4b374fd566b5a.jpg

  11. #56
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    21,327
    Stormy Daniels more my type
    Last edited by antichrist; 30-01-2022 at 05:04 AM.
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  12. #57
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    21,211
    “This the Constitution Forbids”: Biden’s Race and Gender Criteria for the Court Were Rejected By The Court in Past Cases
    Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University
    30 Jan 2022

    Below is my column in the Wall Street Journal on President Joe Biden’s promise almost two years ago that he would only consider a black female for the first vacancy on the Supreme Court. The column produced a significant response from commentators. However, in all of the commentary that followed the column, no one is contesting the primary point: that this type of exclusionary rule has been found unconstitutional or unlawful in schools or businesses. While there may be legitimate points of distinction with a Court appointment, there is little discussion of why we should use a threshold exclusionary rule for admission to the highest court that the Court would not allow in any admission to a school or business. It is worth discussing even if one believes that the Court membership is a type of bona fide occupational qualification or if one simply rejects the very premise of the Court’s barring such criteria in past cases. The benefit of having a diverse Court is obvious but, if we want to use an express exclusionary rule, we should be able to discuss why it is appropriate for the Court and those institutions or businesses barred in past case.

    Instead, commentators suggested that I ignored that prior presidents made such preferential picks. That is not true. My point was that Biden’s pledge was entirely unnecessary since he could have stated that he wanted to appoint a black female without barring consideration of other candidates on the basis of their race or gender. It is the difference between a preferential and exclusionary process. Commentators insisted that Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump, and George H.W. Bush made the same pledge. That is also false. While seeking to appoint women and African Americans, none of the three excluded other races or genders from consideration and had diverse short lists. Yet, even if they did, the question remains: should admission to the Court be based on an exclusionary threshold qualification that the Court has rejected as unconstitutional or unlawful for schools and businesses?

    n 2003 the justices considered two different University of Michigan admissions programs. In Grutter v. Bollinger, they upheld one that evaluated applicants based on individual merit, then used race as a “plus factor.” In Gratz v. Bollinger, they rejected one that applied individual considerations after a “threshold” use of race. (Justice Breyer voted with the majority in both cases.) Mr. Biden, by contrast, promised not only to take account of race (and sex) before all other criteria, but to exclude all male or nonblack nominees regardless of their credentials. Similar uses of race—including prioritizing black farmers for pandemic relief—have prompted courts to strike down Biden administration programs as raw racial discrimination.

    Mr. Biden’s use of such threshold exclusions is neither unlawful nor judicially reviewable. Yet it’s also unnecessary. Mr. Biden could have selected a black woman for the court while maintaining, as universities do, that he would consider all possible candidates on the totality of their records. He wanted to go beyond other candidates and expressly pledge to apply what is by definition a discriminatory threshold criterion. It was a pledge meant to blunt criticism from other Democrats, including Sen. Kamala Harris, that he had opposed school busing and affirmative action early in his career. In 1975, for example, Sen. Biden declared “I do not buy the concept, popular in the ’60s, which said, ‘We have suppressed the black man for 300 years and the white man is now far ahead in the race for everything our society offers. In order to even the score, we must now give the black man a head start, or even hold the white man back, to even the race.’ ”

    Mr. Biden is now going to create one of the more jarring and incongruous moments in the history of the Supreme Court. This fall, in the Harvard and University of North Carolina cases, the justices will hear arguments that the use of race in admissions is unlawful discrimination. One of them will have gained her seat in part through exclusionary criteria of race and sex.

    Justice Powell declared in Bakke that “preferring members of any one group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake.” By keeping his 2020 pledge, Mr. Biden will engage in discrimination for his own sake.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  13. #58
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    18,405
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  14. #59
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    21,327
    Jen Psaki maybe capable of being POTUS candidate
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  15. #60
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,475
    Quote Originally Posted by antichrist View Post
    Jen Psaki maybe capable of being POTUS candidate
    Seems highly unlikely

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 30-11-2019, 12:06 PM
  2. Croydon, VIC - The President's Cup - 9 May to 20 Jun
    By Ian CCC in forum Completed Tournaments
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 21-06-2019, 08:59 AM
  3. Best Recent-Ish US President
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Politics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 13-06-2018, 07:57 AM
  4. SACA AGM - New President
    By Oepty in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 15-02-2005, 02:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •