dagblog - Comments for "#HimToo - the case to impeach Clarence Thomas?"

A Democratic majority could

rmrd0000 — Wed, 21 Feb 2018 01:33:01 +0000

In reply to So then you agree with what I

A Democratic majority could block a Trump SCOTUS nominee and vote on impeaching Thomas. A Republican majority will not impeach Thomas. We are no longer in normal times. Republicans are behaving like authoritarians.

So then you agree with what I

HSG — Wed, 21 Feb 2018 00:27:08 +0000

In reply to The Republican Congress is

So then you agree with what I wrote . . .

The Republican Congress is

rmrd0000 — Tue, 20 Feb 2018 20:52:06 +0000

In reply to So you think Abramson's

The Republican Congress is not going to impeach Clarence Thomas or Donald Trump.

So you think Abramson's

HSG — Tue, 20 Feb 2018 20:44:24 +0000

In reply to You said the we neede

So you think Abramson's proposal is viable given the make up of Congress?

You said the we neede

rmrd0000 — Tue, 20 Feb 2018 20:37:48 +0000

In reply to You don't don't take me

You said the we neede Progressive Democrats. I pointed out that there was a Supreme Court nominee who was better than the one Trump appointed. The Republicans stole a Supreme Court seat. That is a direct response to you.

Abramson is calling for

HSG — Tue, 20 Feb 2018 20:30:15 +0000

In reply to #HimToo - the case to impeach Clarence Thomas?

Abramson is calling for Thomas's impeachment because he committed perjury when he denied harassing Anita Hill and other women. Okay, he probably did lie but I'm not certain you could prove it as Thomas may well have believed what he said when he said it and good luck getting to admit now that he didn't. Another problem is that we all lie and if somehow Democrats had a big enough majority to impeach Thomas successfully, you can bet that the next time Republicans had a large majority, they'd go after progressive justices for lying during their confirmation hearings. Plus, what good would impeachment do anyway? Republicans would simply replace Thomas with a much younger equally extreme right-wing Justice.

If we want a progressive Supreme Court, we need to elect progressives to the White House and Senate.

You don't don't take me

HSG — Tue, 20 Feb 2018 20:29:32 +0000

In reply to Hal, the Republicans stole a

You don't don't take me seriously but you fail to present any argument in response to what I wrote. Doesn't that suggest that you should not be taken seriously?

Adding in the set up for

artappraiser — Tue, 20 Feb 2018 16:11:14 +0000

In reply to P.S. To be brutally and

Adding in the set up for those who care, see the Wikipedia section on his nomination. Conservatives were still angry and bitter about how Bork's nomination by Reagan had been derailed in 1987 (became a verb in the dictionary "to bork") Not exactly thrilled with Bush Sr.'s nomination of moderate Souter to replace Brennan. Keep in mind, the electoral politics of the GOP having to mollify the right wingers. So next up to mollify the conservative base, you've got to do a conservative. But it's Thurgood Marshall that has retired, liberal icon! Clarence Thomas seems ideal to them: ultra conservative, but a black man, how can liberals complain. Then Anita Hill shows up, and in their crazy minds, looks like liberals brilliantly ginned up a sexual harassment claim by a black woman. Then Clarence plays the race card.

Hal, the Republicans stole a

rmrd0000 — Tue, 20 Feb 2018 15:21:02 +0000

In reply to Abramson is calling for

Hal, the Republicans stole a seat on the Supreme Court.

Edit to add:

You always attack Democrats first. You are oblivious to the acts of Republicans. You cannot be taken seriously.

P.S. To be brutally and

artappraiser — Tue, 20 Feb 2018 08:01:56 +0000

In reply to I sorta disagree with the

P.S. To be brutally and bluntly clear to any young folks who weren't around to be there. This is the way I saw it: when he said high tech lynching, the prejudiced white men out there who were being woke to sexual harassment for the first time by their wives saying "me too", those guys were going: huh?! but this means a black woman lynching a black man! And this is why they had to rationalize that it is a Dem plot to get a black woman to lynch a black man. Because "those people" would normally stick together, a black woman would not attack a black man, unless their Dem overlords tell them to do something, so it must be fake. Clarence isn't the most brilliant guy on the planet, but he sure knew how to play that one.