The Texas/Cuban/Canadian Ted Cruz, "It Should Illegal For Biden To Announce Black SCOTUS Pick.

[marindem01]

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) suggested on Sunday that it should be "illegal" for President Joe Biden to announce that he will nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court without considering white people.

https://www.rawstory.com/ted-cruz-supreme-court/.

"Democrats today believe in racial discrimination, they're committed to it as a political proposition," Cruz told Fox News host Bill Hemmer. "I think it is wrong to stand up and say we're going to discriminate, this administration is going to discriminate. What the president said is that only African-American women are eligible for this slot. They said that 94% of Americans are ineligible."

"I think our country has such a troubled history on race, we ought to move past discriminating based on race," he continued. "The way Biden ought to do it is to say I'm going to look for the best justice, interview a lot of people. And if he happened to nominate a justice who was an African-American woman, great. But you know what? If Fox News put a posting, we're looking for a new host for Fox News Sunday and we will only hire an African-American woman or a Hispanic man or a Native American woman, that would be illegal. Nobody else can do what Joe Biden did."

Cruz also vowed to consider Biden's nominee based on their qualifications, not their race.

[marindem01]

Only White Americans (minus Clarence Thomas) are qualified. Fucking Racist.

[ProfX]

So it's weird. Presumably, in the centuries before this moment, justices were considered according to what Cruz claims is his so-called "color blind" view, and yet, how many black women have there been on SCOTUS? The number isn't nonzero. And don't tell me, even despite a history of there not being many Black women graduating law school and becoming federal justices and being in the eligibility pool until the last 70 years or so, there weren't clearly qualified ones being passed over ....

Kinda reminds me of why people ask there isn't a White History Month.

[carmenjonze]

He wants to be considered white so bad.

[marindem01]

Cruz kicked his wife and his daughters under the bus, now he is proving WN asshole he is.

[carmenjonze]

So it's weird. Presumably, in the centuries before this moment, justices were considered according to what Cruz claims is his so-called "color blind" view, and yet, how many black women have there been on SCOTUS? The number isn't nonzero. And don't tell me, even despite a history of there not being many Black women graduating law school and becoming federal justices and being in the eligibility pool until the last 70 years or so, there weren't clearly qualified ones being passed over ....

Kinda reminds me of why people ask there isn't a White History Month.

They should be forced to just admit that they only want white males and their admirers on the SCOTUS.

[marindem01]

Doughy Pant Load Cruz Takes Fire After Criticism Directed At Mexico.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ted-cruz ... c343f6259c.

Mexican government officials have fired back at Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), after he accused the country of “undermining the rule of law.”

“If he praised me, I might start thinking we weren’t doing things right,” Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador said Friday. “But if he says we are wrong, well that for me is something to be proud of.”

He said Cruz’s criticism was “expected” given their political differences, the Dallas Morning News reported.

The exchange followed the senator’s criticism of the country over recent killings of journalists and politicians there, with Cruz describing “deepening civil unrest in Mexico and the breakdown there of civil society, the breakdown of the rule of law.”

Mexico’s ambassador to the U.S., Esteban Moctezuma Barragán, also responded to Cruz, publishing an open letter to him on Thursday.

In his letter, Barragán said that at least Mexico’s political candidates accept defeat when they lose elections.

[Glennfs]

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) suggested on Sunday that it should be "illegal" for President Joe Biden to announce that he will nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court without considering white people.

https://www.rawstory.com/ted-cruz-supreme-court/.

"Democrats today believe in racial discrimination, they're committed to it as a political proposition," Cruz told Fox News host Bill Hemmer. "I think it is wrong to stand up and say we're going to discriminate, this administration is going to discriminate. What the president said is that only African-American women are eligible for this slot. They said that 94% of Americans are ineligible."

"I think our country has such a troubled history on race, we ought to move past discriminating based on race," he continued. "The way Biden ought to do it is to say I'm going to look for the best justice, interview a lot of people. And if he happened to nominate a justice who was an African-American woman, great. But you know what? If Fox News put a posting, we're looking for a new host for Fox News Sunday and we will only hire an African-American woman or a Hispanic man or a Native American woman, that would be illegal. Nobody else can do what Joe Biden did."

Cruz also vowed to consider Biden's nominee based on their qualifications, not their race.

I didnt click on the link but, in the part you quoted nowhere does he say it should be illegal. Cruz simply spoke the truth
1 The democratic party openly believes in racial discrimination
2 what the Biden administration is doing would be illegal for private industry
3 we have a troubled history on race and we should move past race based discrimination
4 94% of Americans are ineligible for this opening

Every word is 100% true. In fact the only lie I can find is in your title.

[ProfX]

When Trump said - "I intend to pick a woman SCOTUS justice" - and did (ACB) - was that sexism?

[gounion]

I didnt click on the link but, in the part you quoted nowhere does he say it should be illegal. Cruz simply spoke the truth
1 The democratic party openly believes in racial discrimination
2 what the Biden administration is doing would be illegal for private industry
3 we have a troubled history on race and we should move past race based discrimination
4 94% of Americans are ineligible for this opening

Every word is 100% true. In fact the only lie I can find is in your title.

Ah yes it's only discrimination if it's not 100% white men. After all, they are superior, right?

If the GOP doesn't believe in discrimination, why haven't they nominated a black person this century?

[carmenjonze]

I didnt click on the link but, in the part you quoted nowhere does he say it should be illegal. Cruz simply spoke the truth
1 The democratic party openly believes in racial discrimination

And the general public accepts racism against whites, too.

Right?

[carmenjonze]

Ah yes it's only discrimination if it's not 100% white men. After all, they are superior, right?

If the GOP doesn't believe in discrimination, why haven't they nominated a black person this century?

They’ve only nominated one Black person, ever, and that was to replace the one other Black person ever nominated.

White supremacists like Glennfs think even ONE nomination in the course of 232 years is “racial discrimination.”

Three nominations on the court — ever — is white genocide to these unhooded WNs.

[carmenjonze]

By the way, Glennfs, you really should read links when posted. All you’ve done is regurgitate EVERY SINGLE talking point Ted I Sure Wish People Would Think of Me As White Cruz made.

From the article, this is the quote:

If Fox News put a posting, we're looking for a new host for Fox News Sunday and we will only hire an African-American woman or a Hispanic man or a Native American woman, that would be illegal. Nobody else can do what Joe Biden did."

The reason it’s illegal is because of white conservatives and your sh#tty history of exclusion of literally everyone else except white males.

You guys do these things based on the delusion of white superiority and male superiority.

Never in this country’s history has any other group made 400 years of racially-discriminatory laws and policies to impose it on everyone else. It’s not the case now, either. Joe Biden nominating “A Black Woman” or anyone else but a white man is not in the service of Black Female supremacism. So you guys can dry those big crocodile tears about being discriminated against.

[marindem01]

And the general public accepts racism against whites, too.

Right?

When the Ronnie God announced he would a woman (Sandra Day O'Connor) is was not illegal.

When Bush 41 appointed Clarence Thomas, was it an act of discrimination.

How the fuck is it illegal for Mr. Biden to announce an African-American Female for SCOTUS?

[carmenjonze]

When the Ronnie God announced he would a woman (Sandra Day O'Connor) is was not illegal.

When Bush 41 appointed Clarence Thomas, was it an act of discrimination.

How the fuck is it illegal for Mr. Biden to announce an African-American Female for SCOTUS?

Conservative whites and their grinning, tapdancing minions are just looking for another pretext to feel victimized by “blacks” and Black women.

Lol these people literally think this nontroversy about this particular nomination is somehow equivalent to their brutal suppression of everybody else in their path. :problem:

[Number6]

I didnt click on the link but, in the part you quoted nowhere does he say it should be illegal. Cruz simply spoke the truth
1 The democratic party openly believes in racial discrimination
2 what the Biden administration is doing would be illegal for private industry
3 we have a troubled history on race and we should move past race based discrimination
4 94% of Americans are ineligible for this opening

Every word is 100% true. In fact the only lie I can find is in your title.

I think the point you're missing is a Supreme Court Justice isn't hired like other government employee are. Let me explain. In the vast majority of government jobs, there are laws to ensure equality in hiring. That means the government can't exclude a candidate based on issues such as sex, race, creed, color, religion, etc... All job candidates must be evaluated using the same criteria. I've been part of a group interviewing candidates for a government job and we were required to ask the same question of each of the candidates. We weren't allowed to include factors like sex, race, color, creed, religion, etc... It was based upon the qualifications of the candidates and their responses to the question we asked.

In a Supreme Court Justice nomination, the President doesn't "hire" the justice but nominates a person and it's up to the Senate to "interview" and evaluate the nominee and either approve or reject the nominee. Under the Constitution, the President can nominate anyone he wants to and he can, if he wants, state his preference as to whether the person is male/female, Black/White, sexual preference, a specific ethnicity, etc... If Cruz or any other Senator wants or doesn't want a Black female on the Supreme Court then they have one vote they can cast.

[carmenjonze]

I think the point you're missing is a Supreme Court Justice isn't hired like other government employee are. Let me explain. In the vast majority of government jobs, there are laws to ensure equality in hiring. That means the government can't exclude a candidate based on issues such as sex, race, creed, color, religion, etc... All job candidates must be evaluated using the same criteria. I've been part of a group interviewing candidates for a government job and we were required to ask the same question of each of the candidates. We weren't allowed to include factors like sex, race, color, creed, religion, etc... It was based upon the qualifications of the candidates and their responses to the question we asked.

In a Supreme Court Justice nomination, the President doesn't "hire" the justice but nominates a person and it's up to the Senate to "interview" and evaluate the nominee and either approve or reject the nominee. Under the Constitution, the President can nominate anyone he wants to and he can, if he wants, state his preference as to whether the person is male/female, Black/White, sexual preference, a specific ethnicity, etc... If Cruz or any other Senator wants or doesn't want a Black female on the Supreme Court then they have one vote they can cast.

Lol conservatives are so full of sh#t.

None of them threw this tantrum over Sandra Day O'Connor or Clarence Thomas. As long as it's a white male or their friendlies, they're perfectly fine with designations by race and gender.

RBG argued 6 cases before the SCOTUS itself. We heard a peep out of these dimwits when it was revealed that Amy Coney Barrett has never argued a case before any court in her whackodoodle white Evangelical life.

Lol the same people then want to bellyache about "qualifications" to be on the court, or anywhere else. They're just mad that the "qualifications" are no longer 1- being white and 2- being male.

[carmenjonze]

Relevant to this thread: White men as victims: America's most dangerous fantasy - Salon, commentary

The notion that white men are a persecuted minority isn't just ludicrous — it paves the way for racist violence

One of the most popular lies being circulated by the Republican Party and the larger white right is that white men are somehow oppressed in America. To say that such a claim is absurd would be an understatement. To be white is to have access to unearned advantages in almost every arena of American society and throughout the world. And to be male is also to have access to resources and life opportunities that in general are de facto still denied to women and girls.

By almost all indicators, men as a group dominate and control America's networks of power, influence, wealth and other resources.

Ultimately, white male victimology has historically proven itself to pose an extreme threat to pluralistic democracy. When the group with the most power believes in delusions and fantasies about its oppression, violence is the likely result. This is justified through claims of self-defense against an imaginary threat.

It has happened over, and over, and over, and over, and over in this and other white-settler countries.

[ProfX]

Lol the same people then want to bellyache about "qualifications" to be on the court, or anywhere else. They're just mad that the "qualifications" are no longer 1- being white and 2- being male.

Massive gambling debts, fondness for beer bong boofing, and a life of drunken debauchery and attempted rape now seem to be strong plusses, too.

[carmenjonze]

Massive gambling debts, fondness for beer bong boofing, and a life of drunken debauchery and attempted rape now seem to be strong plusses, too.

#prolife #profamily #traditionalfamilyvalues

[carmenjonze]

Oh my goodness Mitch woke crt pc reverse racism socialismcommunism McConnell! Next he’ll be telling us he liked the Super Bowl halftime show!
__________

Seung Min Kim
@seungminkim

McConnell: “I heard a couple of people say they thought it was inappropriate for the president to announce he was going to put an African American woman on the court. Honestly, I did not think that was inappropriate."

https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/ ... 69216?s=21

[Glennfs]

When Trump said - "I intend to pick a woman SCOTUS justice" - and did (ACB) - was that sexism?

Worse than that he was pandering to attempt to improve his poll numbers among females.

[gounion]

Worse than that he was pandering to attempt to improve his poll numbers among females.

And Reagan was pandering too.

[Glennfs]

Lol conservatives are so full of sh#t.

None of them threw this tantrum over Sandra Day O'Connor or Clarence Thomas. As long as it's a white male or their friendlies, they're perfectly fine with designations by race and gender.

RBG argued 6 cases before the SCOTUS itself. We heard a peep out of these dimwits when it was revealed that Amy Coney Barrett has never argued a case before any court in her whackodoodle white Evangelical life.

Lol the same people then want to bellyache about "qualifications" to be on the court, or anywhere else. They're just mad that the "qualifications" are no longer 1- being white and 2- being male.

First things have changed since 40plus years ago.
Today no group of people are excluded there is no reason to break things into subsets.

As for Thomas he was only selected because of his race. Now if a person believes that about a liberal you call them racist. I doubt you have the same opinion about people who believe that about Thomas

[Glennfs]

And Reagan was pandering too.

Reagan had no reason to pander. Any Republican candidate would have defeated carter in 80.