Woman gets job for life, old white men are furious

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreak...protest_after/


The poor chaps tried to block the black woman from getting a job for life, and instead of being respectful, they storm off like children. These are the children running the country

Prolly 'cause the people there (men and women - if I can even mention those
terms these days) didn't believe the b ... what didja say? black woman??
WHY you gotta see colour in everything??

Anyhow - the men and women DIDN'T BELIEVE that the lady was
qualified for the job.

Pretty standard stuff there with job applicants, mate.
They DO look at resumes' ...

### Salty

If they didn't believe she was qualified for the job, then there would be equal old white men from both the democratic and republican side. But only republicans walked out.



It's almost like the party itself is based on old white men being racist against anyone who is darker then them. I bet they'd do the same thing if it was an older black man being nominated for the supreme court

If they didn't believe she was qualified for the job, then there would be equal old white men from both the democratic and republican side. But only republicans walked out.

It's almost like the party itself is based on old white men being racist against anyone who is darker then them. I bet they'd do the same thing if it was an older black man being nominated for the supreme court Originally Posted by onawbtngr546

What about Clarence "Pubes in the Coke" Thomas? I think he's "black"??

How do you know it’s a woman? This “woman” was unable to provide a definition of what a woman is. If he/she/it/whatever can’t tell us what a woman is, maybe THAT is the problem, not her/his/its/whatever’s gender.

The fact that there was no appreciable objection from Republicans to the nominations of Amy Coney Barett, Sandra Day O’Conner, or truth be told even Sonia Sotomayor or Ruth Baden Ginsberg puts the lie to your insinuation that the objection here is solely due to gender. I also recall no real objection to Clarence Thomas or Thirgood Marshall, so race is not the objection either.

She’s a good choice for a high court that needs to be softer on pedos.

She's the new offensive coordinator mandated by the NFL.

There because he was forced to appoint a black woman.

Barry bonds on steroids, forever an asterisk beside her name.

The poor chaps tried to block the black woman Originally Posted by onawbtngr546

Woman?????

How do you know she is a woman?

Are you a biologist?

She could not even define what a woman is.

If they didn't believe she was qualified for the job, then there would be equal old white men from both the democratic and republican side. But only republicans walked out.

It's almost like the party itself is based on old white men being racist against anyone who is darker then them. I bet they'd do the same thing if it was an older black man being nominated for the supreme court Originally Posted by onawbtngr546

I have seen some really dumb takes posted by libs here but this take is in the running for the award winner.

So by your logic all the libtards who did not vote to confirm Barret, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are all racist pieces of shit

Barrett, Amy Coney 52-48
Kavanaugh, Brett 50-48
Gorsuch, Neil M. 54-45

And I guess you never heard of

Thomas, Clarence 52-48 - yeah, how many libtards voted to confirm him?

And I guess you also never heard of

Marshall, Thurgood 69-11 - this liberal justice only had ONE single Republican vote NOT to confirm him. It was the racist Democrats who put 10 votes against this black man. I mean, seriously - Marshall was a libtard and 10 racist libtards did not vote to confirm him

To be clear, I don’t object to the confirmation of Justice Brown Jackson. She is certainly a left-winger with whom I disagree on many if not most issues, but she was appointed by a left-wing administration and confirmed ina mostly left-wing controlled Senate. She’s no worse than any other nominee that could have been expected to be picked in the current political climate.

What I do object to is the insinuation that simply because of the Justices’s biological gender and the melanin content of her skin, that she is immune from questioning or criticism and that her confirmation must be celebrated simply for those reasons. The questions that she was asked and the criticisms she received were entirely focused on her judicial record and political opinions. Unlike the Kavanaugh and Barrett proceedings, I heard no criticism of any personal nature in this hearing. Criticism of a black woman is NOT always based on race or gender. In this case, it almost certainly was not. It is unsurprising that GOP Senators were opposed to this confirmation, based solely on the judicial record and the political beliefs of the nominee. These are legitimate reasons for opposition, not automatically evidence of sexism or racism.

The Republicans should have brought in her high school basketball team and accused her of participating in a drunken gang bang.

That would be the equivalent of what occured to Kavanaugh.