“The decision comes after reports that both nominees made public comments celebrating groups or policies that were discriminatory.”
b) You’d think that whomever was in charge of vetting these guys BEFORE submitting their names to the Senate would have picked up on these statements (again, if they are real). If this wasn’t caught, then someone is an amateur.
Trump should simply wait until Congress is on vacation and then handle these as recess appointments.
It starts.
The “discrimination” monster is being fed a diet of devout biblical Christians who have been formerly respected for exactly the same positions they hold today.
But but but we have a majority remember lololololol
In most cases this is actually a good thing.
Open your eyes.
Even with a majority the Republicans will not do it.
They need to lose.
McConnell needs to resign or no vote for a Republican.
If they think they’re controversial then they must believe in the Constitution. That would be good for all us little people and we can’t have that.
But a woman who said that decisions should only be made by someone like herself because of her ethnicity is not discriminatory?
Guess we can only hire Wise Latinas to please Mr. Grassley.
considering their persecutors, they are most probably excellent and morally straight nominees. too bad, but of course expected. the uniparty probably feels emboldened by the turning back of Judge Moore.
But Kagan and Sotomayor and other far left radicals are OK?
I honestly believe that either of these two guys could be just as good as if not better than 90 percent of the sitting federal judges, who are so liberal and so lazy they can’t be bothered with interpreting the law!
Legislative sedition.
“He also seems to have written 16,381 posts—more than 3½ per day—on the University of Alabama fan message board TideFans.com....
...”Heaven forbid we let the facts get in the way of your righteous indignation, but Forrest, when he decommissioned his men, told them to make peace with the men they had fought and live as good citizens of the United States. It was only after the perceived depredations of the Union army during reconstruction that Forrest joined (it is highly unlikely that he founded or acted as the Grand Wizard) the first KKK, which was entirely different than the KKK of the early 19th Century. When the Klan turned to racial violence, he distanced himself from the organization as he had long supported the reconciliation of the races. In fact, he often spoke to black organizations.”
As best I can tell, the blog post was factual. Forrest DID distance himself from the KKK and DID speak to black groups. But this is turned into “defending the first KKK”?
ONLY if you lie about the post.
As for Mateer:
” Now, I submit to you, a parent of three children who are now young adults, a first grader really knows what their sexual identity? I mean it just really shows you how Satan’s plan is working and the destruction that’s going on.”
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/20/politics/kfile-jeff-mateer-lgbt-remarks/index.html
Works for me! This transgender stuff is a bunch of lies told by the Father of Lies. Want to know what sex you are? Check the plumbing. And allowing homosexual marriage WILL open the door, and we WILL see people pressing for the unimaginable. I saw a news report about a woman who was denied the right to marry...a train station!
And by making this post on FreeRepublic, I am of course no longer open to becoming a judge. Not that I have any background for it anyways.
To support their contention, the article mischaracterizes a quotation from Forrest where they have Forrest saying "I have no powder to burn killing negroes," where the imply he mean he WOULD kill negroes if he had powder. However that quotation is taken completely out of the context in which it was spoken. . . because he was having a discussion about the RADICALS among the veterans of the Confederates who were opposed to the Federal government in the KKK organization who might still take up arms and/or foment revolution again. Forrest went on in the very next sentence to state which makes the actual passage that Slate truncated read very differently: "I have no powder to burn killing negroes. I intend to kill the radicals." He goes on to state, "I have told them this and more. There is not a radical leader in this town but is a marked man; and if trouble should break out, not a one of them would be left alive. I have told them that they were trying to create disturbances and then slip out and leave the consequences to fall upon the Negro; but they can't do that. . ."
From those connected sentences in that discussion, Forrest indicates he is not opposed to the negroes but rather is intending to root out the radicals attempting to reignite the civil war, because that was the primary topic of the several paragraphs of the discussion, not hunting and killing blacks, but rather the vexatious problem of the radicals in his organization.
Yet the Slate article author, although linking to that entire passage, only extracts what appears to be a hint of "intended violence" toward negroes assumed by a 21st century reader who does not grasp the cadence of a 19th century speaker's actual negative connotation.
I suppose I should not be surprised that ignorance might be the reason that Slate actually links to the source document where the complete context IS provided, or, perhaps they just assumed that no would go and check their Liberal mischaracterization of what Forrest actually said which supports what the nominee explained in his online post.
The article's author also seems to be conveniently ignorant of the KKK's history. The Slate article also attempts to mischaracterize the founding of the KKK by imputing its foundation into the 20th Century, when its actual founding is well established in 1866. . . again, as the nominee's short but supposedly offensive online comment stated.
The honorable soldier Forrest disassociated himself from the organization as other leaders took the KKK into terrorism and violence to oust the Republican state governments in the South by suppressing the negro voters by any means including murder. By 1871, the early KKK had been disbanded. It was resurrected in 1915 as a White Supremacist organization by the Democrats.
They must believe in the constitution.
Why did Trump not defend these guys instantly?
Both of their statements were completely reasonable and completely factual.
Both of them testified about these statements in earlier Senate hearings.