CNN now does hit pieces on federal judges

a reply to: TheRedneck

The face mask is a symbol of the obedience to authority.

That's all it's ever been.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I do not recognize that authority. Neither does Judge Mizelle, and neither does the law.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Daughter2

Appointment of unqualified judges is bad regardless of whether you like their politics - nothing will change as long as it's ok if your side does it.

And if someone did a full investigation you would most likely find most are this way. Does anyone think ambassadors are picked because they are the best for the job, as example?

CNN no longer holds influence over any group now. They were a big piece in the anti Trump era, but they will not effect any future elections.

a reply to: Xtrozero

The Bar Association does an analysis of every person nominated for federal judgeship. That's where the "unqualified" label for Mizelle came from.

Since 1989, the Bar has only labeled 22 people as unqualified. 16 of those people went on to be confirmed. 9 of those people were nominated by Trump.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254

The Bar Association does an analysis of every person nominated for federal judgeship. That's where the "unqualified" label for Mizelle came from.

Since 1989, the Bar has only labeled 22 people as unqualified. 16 of those people went on to be confirmed. 9 of those people were nominated by Trump.

OK, same with Obama and Bush and Clinton I bet...

originally posted by: CptGreenTea

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Leave it to CNN to blaze the trail in media propaganda tactics.

Ah, c'mon! Trump was a true trailblazer in unique and bizarre techniques for attacking federal judges! Especially judges that were appointed by Obama and Clinton and judges that have Mexican ancestors. LOL

Right.. People like to say "globalist democrats" to focus everything on one side, but Republicans do the same stuff.

And those who watch cnn or fox news are a lost cause anyway.

My approach towards this wasn't necessarily a left vs. right issue but more of focus on the media shilling for authoritative measures. As others mentioned, this ruling isn't banning masks on public transport. If you'd like to wear a mask, have a blast! But it's certainly an overreach to force people to wear masks to prevent a virus that has a 99%+ survival rate.

Does CNN benefit from trashing the judge who made this decision? Why do they care to uphold an unconstitutional measure? That's the issue.

a reply to: Xtrozero

So far, of Biden's 75 appointments, none has been rated as not qualified. The majority (66) have gotten the highest rating of well qualified.

Clinton had four judges rated as not qualified but withdrew the nomination for one of those.

Bush nominated eight judges that were rated not qualified and withdrew the nomination for three.

Obama nominated no judges rated as not qualified.

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: CptGreenTea

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Leave it to CNN to blaze the trail in media propaganda tactics.

Ah, c'mon! Trump was a true trailblazer in unique and bizarre techniques for attacking federal judges! Especially judges that were appointed by Obama and Clinton and judges that have Mexican ancestors. LOL

Right.. People like to say "globalist democrats" to focus everything on one side, but Republicans do the same stuff.

And those who watch cnn or fox news are a lost cause anyway.

My approach towards this wasn't necessarily a left vs. right issue but more of focus on the media shilling for authoritative measures. As others mentioned, this ruling isn't banning masks on public transport. If you'd like to wear a mask, have a blast! But it's certainly an overreach to force people to wear masks to prevent a virus that has a 99%+ survival rate.

Does CNN benefit from trashing the judge who made this decision? Why do they care to uphold an unconstitutional measure? That's the issue.

Said member is a leftist cheerleader but at least they threw FOX in there as if any of us believe a word that those charlatans say either...

Obvious hit piece is obvious.

Shame on CNN. Again.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

You place a lot of faith in people you do not know...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Xtrozero

So far, of Biden's 75 appointments, none has been rated as not qualified. The majority (66) have gotten the highest rating of well qualified.

Clinton had four judges rated as not qualified but withdrew the nomination for one of those.

Bush nominated eight judges that were rated not qualified and withdrew the nomination for three.

Obama nominated no judges rated as not qualified.

So, the takeaway is that democrats are obviously superior at picking qualified candidates?
It couldn't be the obvious bias of the organization doing the "ratings", no way!

LOL

a reply to: underpass61

Presidents appoint hundreds of judges. In his four years, Trump appointed 226 judges. Bush appointed 322 in his eight years. Other than the small handful of judges that were rated not qualified the other nearly 600 judges received a rating of qualified or well qualified.

This lack of bias is further confirmed by looking at the Bar Association's campaign contributions. They pretty much give money to whatever party happens to be in power at the time.

the Bar Assoc has turned into just another Democrat support group. like AARP. or CNN.

I saw a brief CNN report on the Florida textbooks and it was obvious the reporter had no idea of the issues or facts so he just waxed snarky. waste of time and opportunity.

So if someone now targets this judge she can sue CNN and make them file bankruptcy?

Asking for a friend.

originally posted by: iwanttobelieve70
So if someone now targets this judge she can sue CNN and make them file bankruptcy?

Asking for a friend.

Unlikely. CNN and all media, fall back on "freedom of the press" and makes them immune to law suites.

Spam

originally posted by: Daughter2
Sorry I have to agree with CNN on this one.

It looks like she was appointed based on her status of a wife of an insider. Less than 10-years experience and from a third tier law school? No special accomplishments like bringing a significant case to the Supreme Court? NEVER would have happened without connections.

Her placement was totally political whether or not you agree with the outcome. Amy Coney Barrett was very qualified and conservative so I'm not just saying this based on politics.

Appointment of unqualified judges is bad regardless of whether you like their politics - nothing will change as long as it's ok if your side does it.

How about appointment of judges based

1) skin color first and above all else
2) then we get to their merit and achievements

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

You do know the expression two wrongs don't make a right. Everyone is cheering for their side so much no one pays attention to the core issues.

The bar basically rubber stamps everyone unless there is something very, very wrong. It's really not an opinion, just a set of criteria.

Yes, the best person should be picked for the job. But ethically in my little opinion, it's one thing to take a group of qualified people and then select an under-represented minority from that group and a totally different to choose an unqualified person based on being married to your buddy.

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
And why did CNN do this? Simply because this judge declared the government doesn't have the right to force you into wearing a mask to prevent a virus with a 99%+ survival rate.

Correction: this was about the CDC and the fact that it doesn't have the authority.

The CDC is not a government agency, it is one of those intentionally grey-area fascist quasi-NGO's whose purpose is to hide the fascist nature of those who lay claim to being our masters.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: carewemust

Yet she says Congresswoman Greene can be prevented from holding office due to supporting an inssurrection.

That's not what her decision says at all. It says that the case has enough merit to move forward to determine if MTG took part in an insurrection, and if so, whether she can be barred from holding office.

I mean with her extremely bad memory of her part in one of the most important political events why would anyone want her holding office?

As for CNN or any other entity or person calling out our leaders, judges, whathaveyou, on their BS, I say it's everyone's duty.

originally posted by: Daughter2
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

You do know the expression two wrongs don't make a right. Everyone is cheering for their side so much no one pays attention to the core issues.

The bar basically rubber stamps everyone unless there is something very, very wrong. It's really not an opinion, just a set of criteria.

Yes, the best person should be picked for the job. But ethically in my little opinion, it's one thing to take a group of qualified people and then select an under-represented minority from that group and a totally different to choose an unqualified person based on being married to your buddy.

With respect, the statistics didn't and don't support the idea that African-Americans were or are under-represented in the makeup of SCOTUS.

Clarence Thomas, being one of the 9 SCOTUS justices, was 11% of the court (black males comprising roughly 7% of the U.S. population).

Now after forcing out Breyer and implanting the new judge, African American justices are a little less than 1/4 (22%) of the court, vs 14% of the population.

Sorry, not at all under-represented, in fact it's the opposite.

I don't mind having a diverse court makeup at all, but when Biden explicitly said they'd only look at nominating a black female SCOTUS appointee, it's quite obvious that none of this is about re-calibrating representation, it's about exacting reparations.

When do we get an Asian member of the SCOTUS, since we're speaking abut under-representation?