What's up everyone. We are doing a contest with T.I. and we are giving away $1200 a day for the next 10 days. Just wanted to give you all a heads up.
https://www.allhiphop.com/ti

Reports: Racist Supreme Court Justice Scalia reportedly dead...

124

Comments

  • Swiffness!
    Swiffness! PART OF THE CONSPIRACY Members Posts: 10,128 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zzombie wrote: »
    liberals Today are far far more Left leaning and out of their minds.

    Lol yeah, not like today's reactionary-ass "conservative" right wingers. They're totally an exercise in moderation and restraint who aren't batshit crazy at all. Have you NOTICED the primaries? Dem side is a fight between the middle and the left. Repub side is a fight between the far right and the even more far right.

    The American Left doesn't hold avowed beliefs about climate science and Obama's birth being 🤬 conspiracies.

    I'm just waiting for the first talk radio host/fox news contributer willing to say on air that Obama had Scalia assassinated.
  • zzombie
    zzombie Members Posts: 11,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Swiffness! wrote: »
    zzombie wrote: »
    liberals Today are far far more Left leaning and out of their minds.

    Lol yeah, not like today's reactionary-ass "conservative" right wingers. They're totally an exercise in moderation and restraint who aren't batshit crazy at all. Have you NOTICED the primaries? Dem side is a fight between the middle and the left. Repub side is a fight between the far right and the even more far right.

    The American Left doesn't hold avowed beliefs about climate science and Obama's birth being 🤬 conspiracies.

    I'm just waiting for the first talk radio host/fox news contributer willing to say on air that Obama had Scalia assassinated.

    actually both the left and right are off kilter however the left is far more destructive socially with it's acceptance of homosexuality, abortion, feminism, atheism and the desire to import Muslim refugees.

    Not to mention the insane taxes and programs Bernie Sanders would want to implement what would absolutely destroy the American economy.

    Now some people on the American right hold baseless beliefs but comparatively none of them are as destructive
  • nawledge_god
    nawledge_god Lurk And Talk Shit Chiraq RefugeeMembers Posts: 5,622 ✭✭✭✭✭
    african-celebration-o.gif

    He Probably Didn't Like Immigants Either

    nzehvq.gif
  • PapaDoc223
    PapaDoc223 Brooklyn,NYMembers Posts: 2,162 ✭✭✭✭✭
    This is why this election is important. These cac conservatives where holding power in SCOTUS. Once they lose then you will see more butthurt domestic terrorist right wing attacks.
  • zzombie
    zzombie Members Posts: 11,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    PapaDoc223 wrote: »
    This is why this election is important. These cac conservatives where holding power in SCOTUS. Once they lose then you will see more butthurt domestic terrorist right wing attacks.

    Get ready to see more homosexuality,feminism and just over all degeneracy.
  • Swiffness!
    Swiffness! PART OF THE CONSPIRACY Members Posts: 10,128 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2016
    zzombie wrote: »
    Now some people on the American right hold baseless beliefs but comparatively none of them are as destructive

    Racism?

    Rushing to wage unjust, unnecessary, badly planned, completely counter-productive wars like Iraq?

    Destroying the environment?

    Man, OK. Keep thinking that some 🤬 holding hands is worse than #BlueLivesMatter and poisoning the water you drink. We all got our priorities, I guess.

    Ca51lfbW8AAVYXG.jpg
  • Swiffness!
    Swiffness! PART OF THE CONSPIRACY Members Posts: 10,128 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2016
    btw SCOTUSblog has revised their earlier opinion to predict that Obama will nominate LORETTA LYNCH in order to make the Republicans as miserable as 🤬 possible and exploit the obvious racism/sexism they'll display for the election. Shrewdest chess move for a nomination that will be stonewalled by the GOP....

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/how-the-politics-of-the-next-nomination-will-pay-out/

    The best candidate politically would probably be Hispanic. Hispanic voters both (a) are more politically independent than black voters and therefore more in play in the election, and (b) historically vote in low numbers. In that sense, the ideal nominee from the administration’s perspective in these circumstances is already on the Supreme Court: Sonia Sotomayor, the Court’s first Latina.

    On the other hand, I think the President personally will be very tempted to appoint a black Justice to the Court, rather than a second Hispanic. His historical legacy rests materially on advancing black participation and success in American politics. The role Thurgood Marshall previously played in that effort is inescapable. The President likely sees value in providing a counterpoint to the Court’s only black Justice, the very conservative Clarence Thomas.


    How bout that, eh? Sounds like Obama's priorities closer to some of ya'll pro-black desires than you might've assumed....



    For those reasons, I think the President will pick a black nominee. I’ve long said that the most likely candidate for the next Democratic appointment was California Attorney General Kamala Harris. She is fifty-one. A female nominee has significant advantages as well. That is particularly true for the candidacy of the likely Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton. For reasons I’ve discussed elsewhere, I think her nomination is difficult to oppose ideologically, given her history as a prosecutor.

    If Harris wanted the job, I think it would be hers. But I don’t think she does. Harris is the prohibitive favorite to win Barbara Boxer’s Senate seat in the 2016 election. After that, she is well positioned potentially to be president herself. If nominated, she would have to abandon her Senate candidacy and likely all of her political prospects. So I think she would decline.

    But Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who is fifty-six, is a very serious possibility. She is known and admired within the administration. At some point in the process, she likely would have to recuse from her current position, but the Department of Justice could proceed to function with an acting head. Her history as a career prosecutor makes it very difficult to paint her as excessively liberal.

    Perhaps Lynch’s age would give the administration some hesitancy. They would prefer to have a nominee who is closer to fifty. But because the nomination would principally serve a political purpose anyway, I don’t think that would be a serious obstacle.

    The fact that Lynch was vetted so recently for attorney general also makes it practical for the president to nominate her in relatively short order. There is some imperative to move quickly, because each passing week strengthens the intuitive appeal of the Republican argument that it is too close to the election to confirm the nominee. Conversely, a nomination that is announced quickly allows Democrats to press the bumper sticker point that Republicans would leave the Supreme Court unable to resolve many close cases for essentially “a year.”

    I think the administration would relish the prospect of Republicans either refusing to give Lynch a vote or seeming to treat her unfairly in the confirmation process. Either eventuality would motivate both black and women voters.

    Other black women have been mentioned as possible candidates. For example, California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger is well known as a former lawyer in the Obama administration, but at thirty-nine probably too young. I also discussed Danielle Gray above. She is widely admired, but lacks the stature of the attorney general.

    Two other potential white female nominees are likely to get close looks. Judge Jane Kelly is a young Obama appointee to the Eighth Circuit who was unanimously confirmed by the Senate. Homeland Security Advisor Lisa Monaco is even younger at forty-seven.

    In a previous version of this post I pointed to Paul Watford, an Obama appointee to the Ninth Circuit, as the most likely nominee. Watford is in his late forties. He is well respected and reasonably well known in Democratic legal circles. I still think he is a serious candidate, but the fact that Lynch is a woman gives her nomination a very significant advantage. The same goes for two well-respected appellate judges who are black, the Second Circuit’s Ray Lohier and the D.C. Circuit’s Robert Wilkins.

    The favorite candidate in Democratic legal circles is generally Judge Sri Srinivasan of the D.C. Circuit, followed by Patricia Millett of the same Court. Both are recent Obama appointees. Srinivasan is a Indian American. Millett is a woman. Both would fit the ideological profile that the administration would want. But neither provides the same political benefit.

    So while I will update my research on potential nominees, at this point I think that Attorney General Lynch is the most likely candidate. I think the administration is likely to nominate her, that the Senate will initially refuse to proceed with the nomination but ultimately accede after delaying the process significantly, and then vote her down on party lines. At that point, Republicans will slow-walk a follow-up nominee and claim that it is too close to the election to act on the candidate.


    Kamala Harris in a good spot right now, damn. Personally I'd rather have the Supreme Court seat - its For Life, you keep your privacy, no election 🤬 ever again, your influence shapes the country forever in a way that most Senators can only dream of....Presidency takes a ton of luck to get there and your reward is stress beyond comprehension.....
  • a.mann
    a.mann Members Posts: 19,746 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Swiffness! wrote: »
    zzombie wrote: »
    liberals Today are far far more Left leaning and out of their minds.

    Lol yeah, not like today's reactionary-ass "conservative" right wingers. They're totally an exercise in moderation and restraint who aren't batshit crazy at all. Have you NOTICED the primaries? Dem side is a fight between the middle and the left. Repub side is a fight between the far right and the even more far right.

    The American Left doesn't hold avowed beliefs about climate science and Obama's birth being 🤬 conspiracies.

    I'm just waiting for the first talk radio host/fox news contributer willing to say on air that Obama had Scalia assassinated.

    Yeah about that....

    Alex Jones: Obama Murdered Justice Scalia And Donald Trump Is Next

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/alex-jones-obama-murdered-justice-scalia-and-donald-trump-next

    In an “emergency transmission” to his Facebook fans today, conspiracy theorist radio host Alex Jones floated his suspicions that the late Justice Antonin Scalia was “murdered,” just like conservative activist Andrew Breitbart.

    While accusing Obama of a litany crimes, including secretly funding ISIS and blackmailing Supreme Court justices, Jones said that “this is the season of treason, this is the time of betrayal and we would be fools not to ask the question” if Scalia was assassinated, suggesting that bad actors may have slipped something into the justice’s drink to trigger a heart attack.

    - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/alex-jones-obama-murdered-justice-scalia-and-donald-trump-next#sthash.EjfwfHUl.dpuf
  • R.D.
    R.D. Members Posts: 20,156 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Just skimming through that 🤬 but how can someone 39 be too young

    Stop putting these old people in positions of power and start handing this 🤬 over

    This country/world going be in much better hands with this generation who just entered/entering the workforce (mid80s-early 90s)

  • StoneColdMikey
    StoneColdMikey mikeyismod CHITOWN THE BEST TOWNMembers, Moderators Posts: 33,543 Regulator
    R.D. wrote: »
    Just skimming through that 🤬 but how can someone 39 be too young

    Stop putting these old people in positions of power and start handing this 🤬 over

    This country/world going be in much better hands with this generation who just entered/entering the workforce (mid80s-early 90s)

    Tell these fools
  • Stiff
    Stiff Legion of Trill BG Members Posts: 7,723 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Swiffness! wrote: »
    btw SCOTUSblog has revised their earlier opinion to predict that Obama will nominate LORETTA LYNCH in order to make the Republicans as miserable as 🤬 possible and exploit the obvious racism/sexism they'll display for the election. Shrewdest chess move for a nomination that will be stonewalled by the GOP....

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/how-the-politics-of-the-next-nomination-will-pay-out/

    The best candidate politically would probably be Hispanic. Hispanic voters both (a) are more politically independent than black voters and therefore more in play in the election, and (b) historically vote in low numbers. In that sense, the ideal nominee from the administration’s perspective in these circumstances is already on the Supreme Court: Sonia Sotomayor, the Court’s first Latina.

    On the other hand, I think the President personally will be very tempted to appoint a black Justice to the Court, rather than a second Hispanic. His historical legacy rests materially on advancing black participation and success in American politics. The role Thurgood Marshall previously played in that effort is inescapable. The President likely sees value in providing a counterpoint to the Court’s only black Justice, the very conservative Clarence Thomas.


    How bout that, eh? Sounds like Obama's priorities closer to some of ya'll pro-black desires than you might've assumed....



    For those reasons, I think the President will pick a black nominee. I’ve long said that the most likely candidate for the next Democratic appointment was California Attorney General Kamala Harris. She is fifty-one. A female nominee has significant advantages as well. That is particularly true for the candidacy of the likely Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton. For reasons I’ve discussed elsewhere, I think her nomination is difficult to oppose ideologically, given her history as a prosecutor.

    If Harris wanted the job, I think it would be hers. But I don’t think she does. Harris is the prohibitive favorite to win Barbara Boxer’s Senate seat in the 2016 election. After that, she is well positioned potentially to be president herself. If nominated, she would have to abandon her Senate candidacy and likely all of her political prospects. So I think she would decline.

    But Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who is fifty-six, is a very serious possibility. She is known and admired within the administration. At some point in the process, she likely would have to recuse from her current position, but the Department of Justice could proceed to function with an acting head. Her history as a career prosecutor makes it very difficult to paint her as excessively liberal.

    Perhaps Lynch’s age would give the administration some hesitancy. They would prefer to have a nominee who is closer to fifty. But because the nomination would principally serve a political purpose anyway, I don’t think that would be a serious obstacle.

    The fact that Lynch was vetted so recently for attorney general also makes it practical for the president to nominate her in relatively short order. There is some imperative to move quickly, because each passing week strengthens the intuitive appeal of the Republican argument that it is too close to the election to confirm the nominee. Conversely, a nomination that is announced quickly allows Democrats to press the bumper sticker point that Republicans would leave the Supreme Court unable to resolve many close cases for essentially “a year.”

    I think the administration would relish the prospect of Republicans either refusing to give Lynch a vote or seeming to treat her unfairly in the confirmation process. Either eventuality would motivate both black and women voters.

    Other black women have been mentioned as possible candidates. For example, California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger is well known as a former lawyer in the Obama administration, but at thirty-nine probably too young. I also discussed Danielle Gray above. She is widely admired, but lacks the stature of the attorney general.

    Two other potential white female nominees are likely to get close looks. Judge Jane Kelly is a young Obama appointee to the Eighth Circuit who was unanimously confirmed by the Senate. Homeland Security Advisor Lisa Monaco is even younger at forty-seven.

    In a previous version of this post I pointed to Paul Watford, an Obama appointee to the Ninth Circuit, as the most likely nominee. Watford is in his late forties. He is well respected and reasonably well known in Democratic legal circles. I still think he is a serious candidate, but the fact that Lynch is a woman gives her nomination a very significant advantage. The same goes for two well-respected appellate judges who are black, the Second Circuit’s Ray Lohier and the D.C. Circuit’s Robert Wilkins.

    The favorite candidate in Democratic legal circles is generally Judge Sri Srinivasan of the D.C. Circuit, followed by Patricia Millett of the same Court. Both are recent Obama appointees. Srinivasan is a Indian American. Millett is a woman. Both would fit the ideological profile that the administration would want. But neither provides the same political benefit.

    So while I will update my research on potential nominees, at this point I think that Attorney General Lynch is the most likely candidate. I think the administration is likely to nominate her, that the Senate will initially refuse to proceed with the nomination but ultimately accede after delaying the process significantly, and then vote her down on party lines. At that point, Republicans will slow-walk a follow-up nominee and claim that it is too close to the election to act on the candidate.


    Kamala Harris in a good spot right now, damn. Personally I'd rather have the Supreme Court seat - its For Life, you keep your privacy, no election 🤬 ever again, your influence shapes the country forever in a way that most Senators can only dream of....Presidency takes a ton of luck to get there and your reward is stress beyond comprehension.....

    Ain't gonna matter who he nominate..Senate gonna stall until election
  • Swiffness!
    Swiffness! PART OF THE CONSPIRACY Members Posts: 10,128 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • VIBE
    VIBE Members Posts: 54,384 ✭✭✭✭✭
    [img]https://scontent-dfw1-1.🤬 .fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlt1/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/12733384_1288687761147084_2839045244254285595_n.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=2e7f9ee769ca02971f4cb2a2037e9250&oe=576FB2B2[/img]
  • Copper
    Copper The WickMembers Posts: 49,532 ✭✭✭✭✭
    He should nominate judge Mathis... He'll call every body a 🤬 head on the first day...

    “I know how Clarence gonna vote bc he a 🤬 head....yeah can't run game on me....I been in the game"
  • Shuffington
    Shuffington Members Posts: 3,775 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Liberal Black female judge or White conservative Judge.

    Sound like a very easy choice...... for some of us on here.
  • zzombie
    zzombie Members Posts: 11,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Swiffness! wrote: »
    zzombie wrote: »
    Now some people on the American right hold baseless beliefs but comparatively none of them are as destructive

    Racism?

    Rushing to wage unjust, unnecessary, badly planned, completely counter-productive wars like Iraq?

    Destroying the environment?

    Man, OK. Keep thinking that some 🤬 holding hands is worse than #BlueLivesMatter and poisoning the water you drink. We all got our priorities, I guess.

    Ca51lfbW8AAVYXG.jpg

    Liberals have done more damage to blacks in america than any racist police officers. The reason so many black men are in jail is because the black family is trash and we can thank liberals for that.
  • stringer bell
    stringer bell Members Posts: 26,212 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Pres. Barry Hussein is about to speak on that racist crackers death in like 3 mins...
  • A Talented One
    A Talented One stew Members Posts: 4,202 ✭✭✭
    zzombie wrote: »
    The argument isn't that blacks are to dumb to go to better schools it's that we should attend "lower " schools if we cannot meet the standards of higher schools. Would you rather be a D student at an A school or an A student at a B school. What we need to identify and address is why so many of our students cannot meet those academic standards.

    Also on principle I don't agree with affirmative action.

    Why don't you agree with affirmative action?
  • zzombie
    zzombie Members Posts: 11,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zzombie wrote: »
    The argument isn't that blacks are to dumb to go to better schools it's that we should attend "lower " schools if we cannot meet the standards of higher schools. Would you rather be a D student at an A school or an A student at a B school. What we need to identify and address is why so many of our students cannot meet those academic standards.

    Also on principle I don't agree with affirmative action.

    Why don't you agree with affirmative action?

    because first of all it helps white women more than it helps black people

    Second of all, i don't want a position to be given to me just for the sake of diversity i always want to be the best qualified person . My ego won't take anything less. EVEN the thought that someone was forced to hire/admit me BECAUSE of some forced governmental racial quota disgusts me.

    if you really want to know what i believe about many issues just read a few thomas sowell books mixed in with the teachings of marcus garvey. NOW I DON'T BELIEVE EVERY THING SOWELL SAYS BUT I BELIEVE A LOT
  • illedout
    illedout Members Posts: 8,194 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2016
    zzombie wrote: »
    I know nothing about this guy I just hope Obama doesn't pick some raging liberal ex hippie to replace him. The ideological balance of the supreme court should be maintained.


    balance my ass

    @obnoxiouslyfresh
    Please allow me to balance your ass,
    I can definitely help you with that..
  • A Talented One
    A Talented One stew Members Posts: 4,202 ✭✭✭
    zzombie wrote: »
    zzombie wrote: »
    The argument isn't that blacks are to dumb to go to better schools it's that we should attend "lower " schools if we cannot meet the standards of higher schools. Would you rather be a D student at an A school or an A student at a B school. What we need to identify and address is why so many of our students cannot meet those academic standards.

    Also on principle I don't agree with affirmative action.

    Why don't you agree with affirmative action?

    because first of all it helps white women more than it helps black people

    Second of all, i don't want a position to be given to me just for the sake of diversity i always want to be the best qualified person . My ego won't take anything less. EVEN the thought that someone was forced to hire/admit me BECAUSE of some forced governmental racial quota disgusts me.

    if you really want to know what i believe about many issues just read a few thomas sowell books mixed in with the teachings of marcus garvey. NOW I DON'T BELIEVE EVERY THING SOWELL SAYS BUT I BELIEVE A LOT

    2910441-0029940129-wat.g.gif
  • zzombie
    zzombie Members Posts: 11,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zzombie wrote: »
    zzombie wrote: »
    The argument isn't that blacks are to dumb to go to better schools it's that we should attend "lower " schools if we cannot meet the standards of higher schools. Would you rather be a D student at an A school or an A student at a B school. What we need to identify and address is why so many of our students cannot meet those academic standards.

    Also on principle I don't agree with affirmative action.

    Why don't you agree with affirmative action?

    because first of all it helps white women more than it helps black people

    Second of all, i don't want a position to be given to me just for the sake of diversity i always want to be the best qualified person . My ego won't take anything less. EVEN the thought that someone was forced to hire/admit me BECAUSE of some forced governmental racial quota disgusts me.

    if you really want to know what i believe about many issues just read a few thomas sowell books mixed in with the teachings of marcus garvey. NOW I DON'T BELIEVE EVERY THING SOWELL SAYS BUT I BELIEVE A LOT

    2910441-0029940129-wat.g.gif

    And this gif is supposed to mean what??? You are shocked by the fact that I don't hold the same impotent economic and social views that other blacks hold.
  • MarcusGarvey
    MarcusGarvey Members Posts: 4,569 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2016
    zzombie wrote: »
    Swiffness! wrote: »
    zzombie wrote: »
    Now some people on the American right hold baseless beliefs but comparatively none of them are as destructive

    Racism?

    Rushing to wage unjust, unnecessary, badly planned, completely counter-productive wars like Iraq?

    Destroying the environment?

    Man, OK. Keep thinking that some 🤬 holding hands is worse than #BlueLivesMatter and poisoning the water you drink. We all got our priorities, I guess.

    Ca51lfbW8AAVYXG.jpg

    Liberals have done more damage to blacks in america than any racist police officers. The reason so many black men are in jail is because the black family is trash and we can thank liberals for that.

    Intellectually dishonest.
    Black family is 🤬 because Black men haven't been 🤬 for 40 years and that's been aided by Federal and State governments policy (which both parties have led at one point or another) - giving no 🤬 about black people is bi-partisan.
    Conservative or Liberal government will not save the 🤬 , the black man accepting responsibility as the head of his family - protecting his family from threats both foreign and domestic.
  • illedout
    illedout Members Posts: 8,194 ✭✭✭✭✭
    So who will be the replacement ??
  • A Talented One
    A Talented One stew Members Posts: 4,202 ✭✭✭
    illedout wrote: »
    So who will be the replacement ??

    Sri Srinivasan or Paul Watford.
Sign In or Register to comment.