Hypocritic President

Started by thaikhan, Jul 01, 2022, 12:28 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

thaikhan

Jul 01, 2022, 12:28 AM
Apparently Biden agrees with the Supreme Court justices in regards to Roe vs Wade.  Sad.  President Biden speaking against the Supreme Court and then barely a week later poised to nominate a candidate who's anti-abortion to a lifetime term in Kentucky.  Maybe Biden is having a senior moment and forgot who the nominee was or maybe he'll realize he's not as popular as he thinks with his party and will fall in line with his party.  Regardless, it's a nice show of how politicians don't care about what they say as long as they can get what they want with what they say.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-democrats-incensed-secret-biden-204733710.html

bats

#1
Jul 01, 2022, 01:07 AM
Quote from: thaikhan on Jul 01, 2022, 12:28 AMApparently Biden agrees with the Supreme Court justices in regards to Roe vs Wade.  Sad.  President Biden speaking against the Supreme Court and then barely a week later poised to nominate a candidate who's anti-abortion to a lifetime term in Kentucky.  Maybe Biden is having a senior moment and forgot who the nominee was or maybe he'll realize he's not as popular as he thinks with his party and will fall in line with his party.  Regardless, it's a nice show of how politicians don't care about what they say as long as they can get what they want with what they say.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-democrats-incensed-secret-biden-204733710.html
The article says the anti-abortion guy would be nominated for a district court judgeship under a deal Biden has supposedly made with McConnell. The article does not say what Biden would be getting in return. That's important.

In any case, the district courts are the federal trial courts. There are something like 700 district court judges; I'm sure this dude won't be the first one who is anti-abortion.

At the district court level, he wouldn't be going anywhere near the further erosion of a woman's right to govern her own body.

Nice troll, though.

thaikhan

#2
Jul 01, 2022, 01:59 AM
Nominating a federal judge, who is against abortion rights, to a life time position is okay dependent upon what Bien gets in return? How about nominating someone who is for abortion rights? How is nominating someone to a lifetime position at a federal district Court not able to erode women's rights? Is that some kind of troll joke? Who do you think is blocking abortion bans right now in the courts now that states are allowed to ban abortions? To say that they can't affect abortions or not and so it's okay because I'm certain Biden will get something. Da fawk kind of weak troll post is that from you? So you're saying it's okay because it's not affecting you and you'll benefit from Biden's back alley agreement?

bats

#3
Jul 01, 2022, 02:55 AM Last Edit: Jul 01, 2022, 02:58 AM by bats
Quote from: thaikhan on Jul 01, 2022, 01:59 AMNominating a federal judge, who is against abortion rights, to a life time position is okay dependent upon what Bien gets in return? How about nominating someone who is for abortion rights? How is nominating someone to a lifetime position at a federal district Court not able to erode women's rights? Is that some kind of troll joke? Who do you think is blocking abortion bans right now in the courts now that states are allowed to ban abortions? To say that they can't affect abortions or not and so it's okay because I'm certain Biden will get something. Da fawk kind of weak troll post is that from you? So you're saying it's okay because it's not affecting you and you'll benefit from Biden's back alley agreement?


District court judges don't set any precedent with respect to abortion bans, or anything else for that matter. The federal judicial system doesn't work that way.

Those judges rule on individual cases. Precedent is set only on appeal. And with abortion, even that doesn't matter until the Supreme Court does its bought-and-paid-for bullshit.

HighStepper

#4
Jul 01, 2022, 12:35 PM
I can't really speak to the necessity of the deal or if the benefits outweigh the negatives.
However, I would not have faith in Mitch McConnell to honor the deal.
Too much sex is still not enough.

dogwalker

#5
Jul 01, 2022, 12:48 PM
One thing among 83 that irks me is a lot of politics now seems like blackmail.
Pass my bill or I'll block yours.
If you lick my balls I will suck your dick but if you only want to dine at my O then I will only DFK you.
Some call that negotiation but in many cases it's not because they often say "do what I want OR ELSE."

HighStepper

#6
Jul 01, 2022, 01:14 PM
You cannot view this attachment.

Logrolling has a long history in the United States.
It can be traced back as far as 1790, when Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson presided over a deal known as the "Compromise of 1790."

And yes, I agree with you. Bills should be voted for or against base on the merits of the bill.
Too much sex is still not enough.

thaikhan

#7
Jul 01, 2022, 06:15 PM
Quote from: bats on Jul 01, 2022, 02:55 AMDistrict court judges don't set any precedent with respect to abortion bans, or anything else for that matter. The federal judicial system doesn't work that way.

Those judges rule on individual cases. Precedent is set only on appeal. And with abortion, even that doesn't matter until the Supreme Court does its bought-and-paid-for bullshit.
Quote from: bats on Jul 01, 2022, 02:55 AMDistrict court judges don't set any precedent with respect to abortion bans, or anything else for that matter. The federal judicial system doesn't work that way.

Those judges rule on individual cases. Precedent is set only on appeal. And with abortion, even that doesn't matter until the Supreme Court does its bought-and-paid-for bullshit.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/27/louisiana-judge-abortion-ban-roe-v-wade-supreme-court

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/10/06/us/politics/texas-abortion-law.amp.html

https://www.azpm.org/p/headlines/2022/6/29/211341-arizona-ag-will-ask-court-to-lift-injunction-on-state-abortion-ban/

It's very disingenuous to act like Democrats like Biden care about women's rights along with saying federal District court judges can't do anything when 2 of the 3 articles above entail a federal District judge blocking the ban on abortion and the third trying to lift the ban and force the enforcement of charges against those who have and/or aid an abortion. Furthermore, it's downright evil to say that it's okay to nominate someone who's anti abortion because women have lost their rights to an abortion already so this judge can't do any more damage... except that now you have another person against them who was put there by someone who claims to be a pro choice ally

Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions