From the liberal Boston Globe: Monica Cannon-Grant’s meteoric rise never got the scrutiny it should have. When people asked what Violence in Boston really did with its money, people shrugged. When some raised questions about whether she was really equipped to handle the windfall her organization was reaping, those questions were dismissed as tasteless, rude, and possibly racist and sexist. racist and sexist. LOL. Sounds like leftist argument deflections we read here.
I can't understand why the nasty Democrats don't remove cannabis from Schedule 1. It's the most absurd thing in the world insisting that cannabis has no medicinal value - and having federal laws that put people in cages for using it. Democrats control both houses of congress and the white house. They can but they won't. Why? Cause they're nasty, corrupt, lapdogs of Big Pharma.
MAGAt Senator says he's open to the Supreme Court rescinding the ruling that legalized interracial marriage: https://www.nwitimes.com/watch-now-...deo_7ba67021-fa63-5544-b96e-ff04253d9ded.html If yesterday's performance by Republican Senators in the Supreme Court confirmation hearing didn't embarrass you then you're either a) a Democrat or b) a disgusting human being in your own right.
Well some Republican senators tried to get payback for the execrable way Kavannah and Coney Bryant we’re treated but only made fools of themselves
Again, I saw very little. I did see Graham walk out and he specifically talked about Democrat BS in these hearings over the years, and not just Kavanaugh. Also saw Cruz' opening statement, and saw nothing wrong with it.
So the democrats action in SCOTUS confirmation hearings has been slanderous, vile and disgusting. You need to review how the republicans acted yesterday in more detail. The opening statement about not revisiting the Kavannaugh hearing was called for. Unfortunately for the most part they demonstrated their lack of seriousness and ignorance rather than actually asking pertinent questions about her legal capabilities or philosophy.
I don't have time to go back and watch all of that. I have seen what a number of "influencers" are saying. The right wingers say she's getting a lot of questions about her apparent leniency in sentencing pedophiles. Sounds perfectly legitimate to me. The left wingers are mad she's being questioned about her opinions on CRT and transgenderism. I think its a valid complaint; she's never had to rule on those issues. But its also a valid line of questioning. It doesn't take an expert on the judicial landscape to know those issues are likely to find their way into the courts. Justices are appointed for life, and there's no job performance review. There are 8 seated justices who's opinions on those topics can only be speculated upon until they are brought into their court. Why not question the one who's being considered when you have the chance?
Well you can’t make a decision unless you know some of the facts. The sentences she handled down were within guidelines and per persecution recommendations. As a district judge she has limits in how much she can change the sentence. It is a tradition that appointees don’t provide specific answers to questions about law or current events. This is consistent for both republicans and democrat nominees including Coney Barrett, Kavanah etcetera
