The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

Isn't it racist and sexist to consider ONLY black females for this job, or any job?

Of course, it is...

I am surprised to see see johnforbes and sillydummy attack President Reagan this way.

So what is your problem with Brown Jackson, johnny?

Do you have a thought in your head about her actual qualifications? (<---rhetorical, of course)

Do you believe that having criminal law experience is a negative attribute for a Supreme Court Justice to have?

So.....WTF....apparently Jackson isn't crying or talking about how much she likes beer.

So all of you right wingnuts who went out and supported the some guy who was so bombed out drunk all the way through high school and college that he literally has no idea how many women he assaulted......please go and just shut the fuck up about this Supreme Court nominee who is actually qualified to do the job.

It is racist and sexist to ONLY consider black females.

After all, America now has a look at an affirmative action VP and Kamala is, well, a cackling fool.

I feel sorry for young Elkin trying to defend the many votes he cast on Nov 3, 2020 for senile Joe and Kackling Kamala.

It is racist and sexist to ONLY consider white females the way Reagan did when he announced in advance that he was going to appoint a female, and then looked at an all-white list of possible female appointees.

Back then, as today, johnforbes couldn't care less if a Republican did it.

But his hypocritical handlers told him to get his panties in a bunch when a Democrat does it.


"I feel sorry for young Elkin trying to defend the many votes he cast on Nov 3, 2020 for senile Joe and Kackling Kamala."-john"hypocrite"forbes

Remember back when johnforbes used to constantly criticize liberals here for using "childish" names for politicians? johnny would act all 'holier than thou' about it.

Now he consistently calls Democrats all the humorless names Trump and the rest of his asinine Republican buddies use and considers himself quite clever and sophisticated when he does it.

It is racist and sexist to limit consideration of candidates to only black females.

Also, this nominee couldn't even state what a woman is.

Some things are very clear, such as Clown's definition as a socialist.

^^^^^^^ Look at 'im squirm impotently once he realized that he was insulting Republican Reagan for his sexism and racism.

It's the perennial problem for partisan hypocrites like johnforbes.

His handlers never bother to warn him that he's gong to make an abject fool of himself by mindlessly regurgitating their partisan talking points.

Not at all.

It is wrong for any president, at any time, to use irrelevant factors.

Saying you will choose a woman, or a black female, or whatever accident of birth, is wrong.

That applies to Reagan just as much as senile Joe.

Not only is it wrong to say you will ONLY consider black females for a job, it is also illegal.*


__________________________
* Of course, Democrats are above the law

"It is wrong for any president, at any time, to use irrelevant factors."-johnflubs

So johnforbes is now criticizing every American President before Johnson as being racist and sexist because they only considered white males for the jobs on the Supreme Court. (As did several more Presidents after Johnson.)

Who could have imagined that a conservative would ever admit that for centuries, America has been led by racist and sexist white men? Then, after just admitting that America has been led by racist and sexist white men, he has the gall to deny that there is institutionalized racism in America.


johnforbes will no doubt be surprised to learn that being black or being female (or being a minority) are not "irrelevant factors".

Such fundamentally different life experience from a privileged white male changes one's perspective on the law and the Constitution. And that perspective can result in a different interpretations of the Constitution, just as the experience of being conservative or liberal or Republican or Democrat can result in a different interpretations of the Constitution.

Meanwhile, johnforbes' life experience as a privileged white male has given him such a narrow and ignorant perspective that he actually denies to this day that there is racism in America that must be remedied through law.

Yes, it is always wrong to consider accidents of birth (race, gender, height, whatever) as assignments of moral merit.

Historically, it is well known that only pale males were considered for some jobs.

It is equally wrong to delimit consideration to only black females.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

johnny, pretend there had never been a lawyer on the Court, and some president came along and said they would only consider lawyers for his next appointment because a lawyer would provide a valuable and needed perspective on interpreting the law that had been lacking up until that time.

That wouldn't make him wrong to only consider lawyers for his appointment. Being a lawyer is not a legal requirement for the job, but lawyers have a different perspective on the law from that of non-lawyers.

So it is with the life experience of black women. All who Biden considered were already eminently qualified as judges. But they have the added qualification of valuable and needed perspective that has been lacking on the Court up till now.

Our country needs it. You are the one who said that it's wrong that millions of Americans don't have faith in our electoral system and so that problem needs to be remedied because America can't function without it. But you have no problem with millions of Americans lacking faith in our judicial system. Apparently you think America can function without a huge swath of the population having respect for the law. It can't.

It's incredible that you can be that hypocritical and still maintain a straight face.

Why you fear a true diversity of qualified judges only tells me you are a bigot who fears losing his historical privilege. This is despite her being a highly qualified judge.

A lot of Republicans told me so. Even you think so.

Well, Clown, in your "pretend" scenario if the President said he wants to consider only white woman lawyers...
Can you see the problem now?

silly, every President has their own critical criteria for their Supreme Court appointments. Their criteria are not mine, nor are they yours or johnforbes'. The President has that power. You or I don't have it.

Presidents may appoint anyone they wish to the Supreme Court, either for many reasons or for no reason at all.

Now, if their choice is not confirmed by the Senate, then they must start over and do it again.

You don't have to like it, but you have to accept it. It's the way our Constitution works.

Can you see there's no problem now?

It is racist and sexist to have the criteria be racist and sexist ones.

Joe delimited consideration to ONLY black females.

And, as we now know, he wanted the youngest radical loon available -- a person so leftist she couldn't even define a "woman."

Fake Lawyer johnforbes is pretending employment opportunity laws apply to Presidential appointments.

They don't. Presidential appointments have never been open equally to all Americans. Never. EVER.

Historically, one the most common criteria for a Presidential appointment has been whether or not someone contributed huge sums to their campaign. And that is not legal under employment laws either. johnforbes is not starting multiple threads about that for some reason.


But let's pretend Biden is "racist and sexist" because of his appointment of highly qualified Brown Jackson.

Biden is still not one iota more "sexist and racist" than EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT we have ever had. Even the ones johnny himself voted for. So who cares about this phony diversion from a highly qualified appoinmnet?

johnforbes has never gotten his panties in a bunch over any Republican "racist and sexist" appointments to the Court.

Why is that, do you imagine? Could it be...oh, I don't know.....PARTISAN HYPOCRISY!!!!!?

It is always wrong to limit consideration by race and gender.

But, in limiting consideration to only black females, Joe was racist and sexist.

And he ended up with a leftist loon who can't define the word "woman"...

"It is always wrong to limit consideration by race and gender."-johnfibs

No, it isn't, dimwit.

If I were to cast a movie about the life of Martin Luther King Jr., I would always limit my consideration to only black males to play the role of Martin.

I know you would prefer some butch woman in blackface, like other Republicans who have had their pictures taken with shoe polish on their faces, but such racist behavior is not acceptable in the modern civilized world.

But it was a hoot to catch you admitting that for centuries, America has been led by racist and sexist white men, and then, after just admitting that America has been led by racist and sexist white men, you maintain that there is no institutionalized racism in America.

Keep trying to distract from that one, dummy.

If I were to cast a movie about the life of Martin Luther King Jr., I would always limit my consideration to only black males to play the role of Martin.

Then Clown, using your logic, all members of the Supreme Court should be white men...

^^^^^^^^ Geezus fucking cryst, that dimwit is YOUR people, johnny.

He is just as logical and rational as you are, which is not at all.

He's probably wearing blackface at a Republican White Nationalist rally as we speak.

Look across the room, johnny, you may see him there.

I'd like to thank Clown for calling me logical, rational, and -- if memory serves -- handsome, charming, and always correct.

I urge Clown to hang on:

It is encouraging to see johnforbes questioning his faulty memory for a change instead of his usual doubling down on recollections of things that demonstrably never happened.

Perhaps now he will let go of all his Russian/Putin propaganda and Trump-supporter delusions and lies he has been promoting here that have been making him look like a babbling fool for years.

At some point this might even lead to his release from the mental facility of which he has been an involuntary resident for the past decade. After all, if Ashley Biden can improve from her teenage years, perhaps there is hope for a reduction in johnforbes' babbling as well. The record of this forum will be seen as quite the 'Diary' of johnforbes' unfortunate partisan psychosis.

As johnforbes surprisingly admitted recently that America has always been led by racists and sexists which has led to systemic racism in America, johnny may surprise us further by developing the ability to admit that Brown Jackson is inarguably a highly qualified judge, regardless of one's partisan politics and delusional belies in conspiracy theories.

If Biden had said he would pick the most qualified candidate and then picked Brown ,,,no one would have said a thing..
But from the start he said he was going to pick a black woman..and he did..
Paint it any way you want Clown...it is racist..

^^ As you can see right now....the "fuck your feelings" right wing loons sure have alot of strong feelings about having a black woman on the supreme court.

Today, I am only responding to black females who post here.

Even though Elkin does have a somewhat feminine appearance, and a dusky hue, my staffers have concluded that Elkin is not a black female.

Therefore, I regret my inability to respond to Elkin's meritless and mendacious morning mess.

Great! Since I am not a black female, I get a day without dunderhead johnny posting inane nonsense at me!



If this goes well today, we should arrange it as a regular thing, eh?

In Clown's case, that won't work inasmuch as he identifies as a black female.

As Judge Watusi -- described on MSNBC as a brilliant legal thinker with a secret LSAT score -- pointed out, she cannot define a "woman."

Thus, even an objecively ugly male such as Clowntoker is ipso facto a black female.

So, along with Perry Mason, I now rest my case.

Well, that several days without any yammering from dimwit johnny was a wonderful and blessed event.

Looks like it's over now, unfortunately.

It appears we must again endure more of his mindless, unsupported, partisan hypocrisy and babbling.

I agree with Clowntoker that, in the wake of the persuasive argument put forward by Mr Forbes, we all deserve a few days of calm repose as we allow the salient and incisive nature of his honed remarks to settle in our minds.

Still, as gaze back upon them, they form a logical syncytium at which we can only marvel in silence.

^^^^^^^^ "It appears we must again endure more of his mindless, unsupported, partisan hypocrisy and babbling."


I called it again. johnny's last post was a heaping helping of the rambling, babbling nonsense he is famous for.

Every time Kamala "speaks," all listeners (if any) have to endure her mindless babbling.

Nonetheless, I agree with Clowntoker that, in the wake of the persuasive argument put forward by Mr Forbes, we all deserve a few days of calm repose as we allow the salient and incisive nature of his honed remarks to settle in our minds.

Still, as gaze back upon them, they form a logical syncytium at which we can only marvel in silence.

Every time johnforbes "speaks," all listeners (if any) have to endure his mindless babbling.

Just look at the post above this one.

Q.E.D.

Kamala gives new, fresh meaning to mindless babbling.

It is now beyond question that she was an affirmative action VP.

Never mind her LSAT score.

It was a miracle that she could have read a road map and even found a college.

Nonetheless, I agree with Clowntoker that, in the wake of the persuasive argument put forward by Mr Forbes, we all deserve a few days of calm repose as we allow the salient and incisive nature of his honed remarks to settle in our minds.

Still, as gaze back upon them, they form a logical syncytium at which we can only marvel in silence.