And what about if that person were a female American Indian? Evil white lady Warren probably stole her scholarship all those years ago as well.
What does it matter at this point? The other two skirts are not qualified. Put Queen Latifa on the bench! Edit: Already have a black person on the bench, a jew, a beaner and a couple of honkys. Adding another black person would be over representation on the bench as it would 22% black. Blacks are 13% of population with half being women.
You used The Gateway Pundit as something serious and are calling someone else an idiot. That's high comedy right there.
Try Revolver News, try non-mainstream news. Any of the MSM are purveyors of propaganda. Tucker Carlson being the only objective voice at Feaux News.
OMG. The guy that Fox, itself, said in court should not be taken seriously. Fox Argues No Reasonable Viewer Would Take Tucker Carlson Seriously (businessinsider.com)
wikipedia is pretty reliable compared to the alternatives. In 2005, the peer-reviewed journal Nature asked scientists to compare Wikipedia's scientific articles to those in Encyclopaedia Britannica—"the most scholarly of encyclopedias," according to its own Wiki page. The comparison resulted in a tie; both references contained four serious errors among the 42 articles analyzed by experts. And last year, a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found that Wikipedia had the same level of accuracy and depth in its articles about 10 types of cancer as the Physician Data Query, a professionally edited database maintained by the National Cancer Institute. The self-described "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has fared similarly well in most other studies comparing its accuracy to conventional encyclopedias, including studies by The Guardian, PC Pro, Library Journal, the Canadian Library Association, and several peer-reviewed academic studies
