Vowing to only nominate a female to replace RBG.
Not just getting the confirmation votes either.
For instance, overturning Roe v Wade will be more meaningful if not done by all men.
The media is very powerful, and perception is nowadays a component of reality.
(no message)
...but I don't know that I put the idea of replacing a qualified woman with a qualified woman (who was under finalist consideration last time) in quite the same category as committing up front to a female running mate.
Vowing to nominate a woman to replace a woman.
(no message)
(no message)
But in the make-up of the Supreme Court, I do think it's necessary to make sure that there is some direct representation of women and minorities. Mind you, I think it's important that this representation is qualified from an expertise standpoint, but that never seems to be a problem.
But I hope that at some time in the future it's the most qualified 9 humans and we can dispense with this bullshit.
(no message)
It's not enough to represent "women" or minorities. The Midwest and South and Big Sky need representation on SCOTUS, and they have none.
Something tells me we will get a lot of New England and Mid-Atlantic academicians, with token Stanford representation.
It's the same constitution regardless of gender, creed, region, etc.
If the Dems pack the court with more Kagans and Sotomayor's, you might as well not have a constitution. Or as Chris would put it, the end of the Republic.
...whatever that faith may be.
I believe in unlimited potential.
(no message)
(no message)
If you do not reside in one of the few swing states your presidential vote is meaningless
(no message)
their policies,New Yorker Ned and I understand the back and forth,completely bummed out about the Wake Forest game,I need Irish ☘️ football this year and want to see Foskey,Hamilton and the defense against Clemson
1) A major pandering moment to pull in the "suburban housewives". It would be a bigger pandering move if he goes with the Cuban judge from Florida. That would reach Democrat level pandering. If it's good for them, why not try it.
2) Maybe, in his eyes, the females are more qualified.
(no message)
Didn't like it then. Don't know much about the Justices on the short list but if it's just for pandering purposes, it's wrong. As with any job, the most qualified should get the position.
(no message)
Against white cisgender males. It's not that I feel sorry for white cisgender males, we probably have privilege at some level.since we're so smart and talented, but you can't solve discrimination/biases with discrimination/biases. If both parties engage in this nonsense, we're screwed.
The Dems have become professionals at pandering, don't need both parties doing it. I do enjoy the line about us being smart and talented though.