Is climate change constitutional? Yes or no?
She hasn’t read any books or articles about racial disparities in the criminal justice system because she doesn’t have to critically think about racism despite issuing opinions in cases where it was a prominent feature.
The next president of the United States, on the other hand, is a firsthand expert on racial disparities in the criminal justice system.
WASHINGTON — In September 1994, as President Bill Clinton signed the new Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in an elaborately choreographed ceremony on the south lawn of the White House, Joseph R. Biden Jr. sat directly behind the president’s lectern, flashing his trademark grin.
For Mr. Clinton, the law was an immediate follow-through on his campaign promise to focus more federal attention on crime prevention. But for Mr. Biden, the moment was the culmination of his decades-long effort to more closely marry the Democratic Party and law enforcement, and to transform the country’s criminal justice system in the process. He had won.
“The truth is,” Mr. Biden had boasted a year earlier in a speech on the Senate floor, “every major crime bill since 1976 that’s come out of this Congress, every minor crime bill, has had the name of the Democratic senator from the State of Delaware: Joe Biden.”
Now, more than 25 years later, as Mr. Biden makes his third run for the White House in a crowded field of Democrats — many calling for ambitious criminal justice reform — he must answer for his role in legislation that criminal justice experts and his critics say helped lay the groundwork for the mass incarceration that has devastated America’s black communities. That he worked with segregationiststo write the bills — — New York Times
Ding ding ding !!
racism it is. Just a matter of time with the Dems.
hey, if the shoe fits. I put this on the GOPs inability to properly screen SC nominees
Is it supposed to be a talent to predict the obvious qualities of a Republican nominee?
“The idea that the Senate should sit on its hands when a Supreme Court vacancy occurs is an extremist position and dangerous abdication of duty according to virtually every pro-Democrat legal expert.”
As Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, J. Biden (no less), in June of 1992,
said, “It is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, president Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.”
In January, 1992, George H. W. Bush nominated John Roberts to the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but was denied a hearing.
Roberts was not alone in being denied. That year a total of 52 Bush judicial nominees did not receive hearings.
John Roberts was again denied a hearing in 2001 when George Bush nominated him on May 10.
After the election of 2000, Senate Democrats, upped the level of obstruction in 2003
with the first-ever filibusters of qualified judicial nominees who enjoyed majority (and bipartisan) support.
Later, Sen. Chuck Schumer said in July 2007 that no George W. Bush nominee to the Supreme Court should be approved, except in extraordinary circumstances, 19 months before a new president was set to be inaugurated.
As Roland would say…