I don't blame you, considering how Biden has used the term on numerous occasions throughout his current presidential campaign, RBG used the term before her death, even a LGBTQ publication has used the term in a sincere context. So weird how that term only became controversial after ACB said it.

 

Yes, I found the article you posted interesting too.

The thing is though, that the courts have been "packed" by Republicans. McConnell also held up judicial appointments in the final two years of Obama's term that Jabba then filled when he slithered into office. There were 100 vacancies in the lower courts, along with 17 on the Court of Appeals.

What's most striking though about the Garland nomination isn't that he was rejected, but that he wasn't even given a hearing or a vote. It's not surprising considering McConnell's character, but these are things Democrats need to remember as we move forward.

Dianne Feinstein, who should've retired rather than running for reelection in 2018, is sounding much too concliatory when it comes to expanding the Supreme Court.

It must be done. But it can't be arbitrary. You can't say we're increasing it by 2 seats because McConnell is a bad man and stole Obama's pick. lol

I would set the standard at 13 seats, to correspond with the number of circuit courts. It's a good way to sell it, and it makes sense. Then Brett "I like beer" Kavanaugh and The Handmaid's Tale lady can stay on the court into their 80s. Who cares. They can debate the idiocy of "constitutional originalism" at lunch and yearn for the good old days of the 1950s, or in some cases the 1850s.

This is about power, and exercising it when you have it. The next 2 years need to be like FDR on steroids. Pass legislation, make changes, add protections to our broken system and institutions etc. Just get things done. Republicans will lie anyway about this stuff, so you might as well do it. No fence sitting. And toss some stuff out for the far left so that they don't break away for the 2022 midterms. There are many things I don't agree with there, but I'd rather live with that then the far right, neo-fascism we've seen in recent years. We need more unity and focus.

We have to turn McConnell's tactics back around on the Republicans.

 

I've been watching Kansas with interest this election, because it's one of the more hopeful things going on now in terms of our long term national outlook. After being subjected to Sam Brownback's horrendous tenure as governor, they're moving more toward rational, 21st century leadership. A Democrat is now governor of the state, and the recent polls have Bollier leading Marshall by 3.5%. If she wins it'd be the first time a Democrat was Senator of Kansas since 1932. Biden is also doing quite well here. It's one to watch on November 3rd.

 

I will say this, the Harris-Biden campaign seems to be more cautious about this than the Trump-Pence campaign is.

Did I say Harris before I said.....? My bad.

 

I suppose you and ole Chuck Grassley know more than the Constitution Center article writers whose excerpts I posted. You should write them a letter refuting their findings. Cite Chuck Grassley.

The only reason the Republicans didn’t follow through with their plans was because Ms. Clinton did not win. Good sense had nothing to do with it.

 

Yes, I will finish the article but Chuck Grassley is hardly a neutral source which I tried to provide.

I did read your answer about the fetal stem cells. While we may be at odds there, I didn’t ask so I could argue with what you felt.
Thank you. It was a thoughtful reply.

 

https://nypost.com/2020/10/15/merri...al-preference-as-offensive-after-scotus-spat/

An interesting article about how Merriam-Webster amended the definition of the word "preference" the day AFTER Sen. Mazie Hirono lectured ACB about using the term "sexual preference".

 

Yeah it's pretty revealing. This also reeks of manufactured controversy.

The day that ACB used the term "sexual preference" an MSNBC producer Tweeted about how the term was "offensive and outdated". That Tweet then spreads like wildfire across the interwebs.

The following day, Hirono conveniently uses that exact verbiage when she decides to lecture ACB.

Meanwhile, there's a slew of Democratic party leaders/left leaning public figures who've used the same exact term when talking about the LGBTQ community, and they've said them VERY recently as well.

RBG used the term in 2017
Joe Biden did this year
https://reason.com/2020/10/13/amy-c...rence-joe-biden-confirmation-hearings-hirono/
Diane Feinstein also used the term in 2017
https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pu...YW3g-5bbrxh59I7o99WXw_LQtULMm8cSXGaHt4ydahC3A
Several other prominent Democratic party leaders did so as well. And not 20 years ago. Recently....
https://freebeacon.com/courts/barre...e-but-biden-democrats-have-said-it-for-years/

Yet we hear zero negative comments from anyone about it. No condemnation. No lectures. No outrage. No controversy. Then ACB uses the term and KABOOM... All of the above happens.

 

Being an older individual, it can be a bit daunting to keep up with what’s PC or not. My daughter corrects me all the time when she thinks I’m using an outdated or offensive term. Even I knew it should be sexual orientation rather than preference. Older politicians need someone on staff willing to speak up and apprise them of the current terminology if need be.

I think it makes a difference with ACB because she’s younger and should know better...eh....or because up and above mere semantics what terms she chooses to use are considered indicative of her thoughts on the matter, since she refuses to answer where she stands on many issues. Does it reflect a bias one way or the other if it comes down to a decision on her part? People are going to be looking closer because it could directly effect their lives should a challenge arise to rights recently gained.

 

I personally don't see why or how one's age should make difference on the matter one way or the other. It seems like a very flimsy excuse and holds little relevance to the issue with regard to whether that term is deemed offensive or not. The term was even used in an LGBTQ publication. Is the age of the magazine being called into question? No because it's irrelevant.

It's quite ponderous that no one on social media, in the news media, colleagues, staffers, political opponents, interviewers, etc, never bothered to correct any of those older individuals, who all happen to be Democrats by the way, and inform them that this term was offensive. But now it's a really big deal because someone who's conservative says it.

 

Trust me. Depending on what generation you belong to, it can effect your terminology and even understanding of certain situations. Of course, younger people may not have a good idea of generational differences. All I can say to anyone who would think this isn’t valid is wait for it. If one tends to think this bogus, talk to your parents about some of these issues (LGBTQ, abortion even climate change) Take note what terminology they use or how they perceive an issue. I’d bet money that the vast majority wouldn’t be considered “woke”.

We have no idea if the above cited politicians were corrected out of the spotlight. Unfortunately for ACB she’s the star of a very public “reality” show at the moment that over laps a very charged, fast approaching election. Shit ‘s flying fast and furious. I do want to reiterate that what ACB says will be scrutinized more because of the job she is being considered for. Her future actions have the potential for very real consequences effecting people’s lives because she’s ”conservative”.