https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...oard-ruling-that-concerns-some-legal-experts/fakkity slave sambo babble. And sucking Rolie's nuts.FOH.
You must vote DEMOCRAT🐴 🔵 for ONE single reason; The GOP make WHITE ONLY COURTS 👨🏼⚖️ for 40+ YEARS
- Thread starter ☑︎#VoteDemocrat
- Start date
Lots of smart-dumb people in here.
No one is going to tell me an HRC presidency would be worse than what we are currently witnessing.
People don't vote, down vote, and other things of that nature. Meanwhile those bigoted azz rednecks in one horse towns in fly over country move in lock-step.
No one is going to tell me an HRC presidency would be worse than what we are currently witnessing.
People don't vote, down vote, and other things of that nature. Meanwhile those bigoted azz rednecks in one horse towns in fly over country move in lock-step.
i just did
point is those same “liberals” are racist tooRIGHT!!! This is what I’m trying to figure out.
ExodusNirvana
Change is inevitable...
OP wasting his time
TLR is full of simpleton smart dumb nikkas looking for the next YouTube charlatan to tell them how to be Black
And CACS waiting to assimilate into the next wave so they can appear to be Black on The Coli
TLR is full of simpleton smart dumb nikkas looking for the next YouTube charlatan to tell them how to be Black
And CACS waiting to assimilate into the next wave so they can appear to be Black on The Coli
Real N Quotes
East Is In The House OMG
Trump is out here nominating COMPLETELY unqualified people in their 30s and 40s to serve on federal courts!!!!!!!!
MANY OF WHOM HAVE NEVER TRIED CASES!!!!!!! OR WRITTEN BRIEFS!!!!!
Sign In | Bloomberg Law
Jonathan Kobes is one of six Trump judiciary nominees to receive a "not qualified' rating from the American Bar Association. He was confirmed to the appeals bench.
Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Trump Picks More ‘Not Qualified’ Judges (1)
Dec. 17, 2018, 4:33 AM ; Updated: Dec. 19, 2018, 1:11 PM
- Six judicial nominees rated “not qualified” in two years
- Past four presidents had only four total in same time frame
More of Donald Trump’s judicial picks have received “not qualified” ratings from the American Bar Association than did those nominated by his four most-recent predecessors in the first two years of their presidencies, Bloomberg Law research shows.
The ABA has given that rating to six of Trump’s nominees, while four judges total nominated to lifetime positions by Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in their first two White House years received the lowest rating. None of George H.W. Bush or Barack Obama’s appointees over the same period fell into that category.
The appointments by past presidents were to trial, or district, courts, and all four were confirmed. In contrast, two of Trump’s “not qualified” nominees were to federal appeals courts. Appellate circuits are the highest courts that federal cases generally reach.
Both of Trump’s “not qualified"-rated nominees were confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, including Jonathan Kobes, whose standing generated the most recent controversy when his confirmation Dec. 11 required a tie-breaking vote by Vice President Mike Pence.
Kobes had “neither the requisite experience nor evidence of his ability to fulfill the scholarly writing required” of a federal appellate judge, according to the ABA committee responsible for rating nominees.
A Partisan Cast
Judicial ratings have been in the spotlight during the record-setting push by Trump and Senate Republicans to reshape the federal courts with conservative appointments. Democrats have forcefully objected to lower-rated nominees and others with shortcomings they deem unworthy for the judiciary.
To “have nominees that are not judged qualified by the bar association is deeply disturbing,” Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said previously.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has repeatedly said confirming Trump judges is a priority of the Republican-led Senate, and the GOP has forged ahead.
The Senate has confirmed 30 of Trump’s appellate nominees, two U.S. Supreme Court justices, and 53 district court judges. Senate leaders from both parties were said to be negotiating possibly moving a new slate of district court judges. A vote could come as early as Wednesday night.
The ABA ratings process became part of Brett Kavanaugh’s bitter Supreme Court confirmation battle this past fall. He’s now the newest justice.
The ABA gave him its highest rating, but indicated it would reevaluate it after his fiery confirmation hearing testimony took a decidedly partisan turn. It dropped the reevaluation as moot after Kavanaugh was confirmed.
Bias Alleged
The ABA ratings are purportedly non-partisan, but conservatives have been claiming that the ratings process is biased against them since the 1980s.
“No one who looks seriously at instances of the ABA’s negative assessments of conservative candidates—especially on the malleable topic of judicial temperament—can dispute that the ABA’s liberal bias sometimes comes into play,” Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, who has been vocal in supporting Trump’s judicial nominees, told Bloomberg Law by email.
“How often and how intensely that happens depends largely on the composition of the ABA committee from year to year,” Whelan, who often contributes to the conservative National Review, said.
Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston who also writes for National Review, suggested the ABA has gotten it wrong more than once.
“The ABA has given unqualified ratings to people who went on to become prominent jurists, including” Judges Richard Posner and Frank Easterbrook, Blackman said.
Posner and Easterbrook received “Qualified/Not Qualified” ratings, with the majority of the ratings committee rating them as qualified. Still, their ratings have often been described as low.
ABA President Hilarie Bass defended the ratings process as non-partisan last year, noting that nearly all of Trump’s picks had been rated “qualified” or “well qualified.”
No Pre-Clearance
Ratings are conducted by the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, an independent arm of the ABA. They’re advisory and have been used for decades.
Trump’s relatively large number of low-rated nominees is likely at least in part due to his decision not to participate in the ABA’s process for pre-clearing candidates.
Every president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has participated except for Trump and George W. Bush, ABA spokesperson Matt Cimento said.
The number of Trump’s “not qualified” nominees shows that “ideology counts far more than competence” to his administration, Brian Fallon, executive director of Demand Justice, told Bloomberg Law via Twitter direct message.
Demand Justice is an advocacy organization that has focused on opposing Trump’s judicial nominees.
(Updates with Senate consideration of a new package of judges. A previous version of this story was corrected to clarify ratings given to Judges Posner and Easterbook.)
To contact the reporter on this story: Patrick L. Gregory in Washington at pgregory@bloomberglaw.com
To contact the editors responsible for this story: John Crawley at jcrawley@bloomberglaw.com; Jessie Kokrda Kamens at jkamens@bloomberglaw.com
This.
Is.
All.
Bad.
:
:
Master Biden isn’t gonna “ FREE “ you either breh
FAST FROM THE HOG AND GROW UP
SleezyBigSlim
Banned
This post is Sig worthy
T’Challa’s Heir
Superstar
These threads never disappoint. A bunch of people who don’t care about federal judgeships not bothering to wonder why those same federal judgeships are so important to the Republican Party.
No one has said liberals aren't racist.i just did
The point is that increasing subjugation under a far-right federal court is bad idea. Its literally a shot in the foot.
The federal courts have been, for the last century, the only area of relief from explicitly racist state courts.
A loss of them is a permanent class.
Conservatism is explicitly anti-Black.
No one is co-signing Joe Biden .
Master Biden isn’t gonna “ FREE “ you either breh
FAST FROM THE HOG AND GROW UP
I want Lani Guinier and Kentaji Jackson Brown on the federal courts.
I need people to the Left of RBG and Sotomayor on the Supreme Court.
I don't need more Neomi Raos and Brett Kavanaughs.
You're ignoring the premise of this thread to make some clown point.
Master Biden isn’t gonna “ FREE “ you either breh
FAST FROM THE HOG AND GROW UP
washingtonpost.com
Ben Carson’s HUD will propose new rule, further weakening enforcement of fair housing laws
Tracy Jan
6-7 minutes
The Trump administration will propose a new rule as early as Monday that would reduce the burden on local governments to meet their fair housing obligations, further scaling back civil rights enforcement.
Among the changes sought by the Department of Housing and Urban Development: redefining what it means to promote fair housing, eliminating the assessment used to address barriers to racial integration, and encouraging cities to remove regulations that stand in the way of affordable housing, according to the proposed rule obtained by The Washington Post.
Fair housing advocates say the proposal reduces the financial pressure on local governments to end residential segregation, as required by the 1968 Fair Housing Act, and is the latest erosion of Obama-era regulations designed to enforce the landmark legislation.
The 2015 regulations required communities to take meaningful action against long-standing segregation by analyzing housing patterns, concentrated poverty and disparities in access to transportation, jobs and good schools.
HUD Secretary Ben Carson has characterized those steps as “overly burdensome” and “too prescriptive,” saying that transforming segregated living patterns and poor neighborhoods into areas of opportunity is often not within a community’s control.
The proposed rules focus on increasing what the administration is calling “fair housing choice” — through greater housing supply along with safe and sanitary housing conditions that HUD says will better allow families to live where they want — rather than racially integrating communities.
“The proposed rule entirely ignores the essential racial desegregation obligations of fair housing law,” said Diane Yentel, president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition.
Thomas Silverstein, a fair housing attorney with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said “discrimination and segregation will continue unabated when HUD doesn’t provide meaningful fair housing oversight of local governments.”
HUD officials declined to comment on Friday.
The housing agency also wants to rank communities based on housing costs and fair market rents, and give top performers priority for federal housing grants.
The administration says such incentives would bolster the availability of affordable housing. But Silverstein said it would punish high-cost coastal cities with great housing needs — areas that are less supportive of Trump — and reward smaller, cheaper ones.
The proposed rules, to be published in the Federal Register ahead of a 60-day public comment period, come two years after Carson suspended the 2015 rule requiring more than 1,200 communities receiving federal housing dollars to draft plans to desegregate their communities — or risk losing billions in federal funds.
Fair housing advocates unsuccessfully sued HUD in 2018 over what they characterized as its failure to enforce fair housing laws.
Housing advocates said the proposed new rule represent a dangerous and fundamental misunderstanding of fair housing issues. The provision known as Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing was put in place five decades ago to prompt communities and public housing authorities that receive federal funds to address the harmful effects of their historical actions, said Lisa Rice, president and chief executive of the National Fair Housing Alliance.
“Those lingering effects are still with us today,” Rice said. “There is an inextricable link between race, place and opportunity. The fact is that communities of color disproportionately do not have banks, do not have grocery stores, do not have basic infrastructure or equal access to municipal services and amenities like sewer lines and paved roads.”
The proposed rule also limits enforcement by only toughening federal scrutiny of communities sued by the federal government — and not private entities including civil rights and fair housing organizations, Rice said. That means jurisdictions found liable for discrimination through private lawsuits would still be eligible to receive federal funding, she said.
“Secretary Carson is scrapping years of extensive input and intensive work that went into the fair housing rule and essentially reverting to the agency’s previous flawed and failed system,” Yentel said. “In doing so, Secretary Carson continues his pattern of attempts to weaken and disrupt the agency’s responsibility to uphold its fair housing duties.”
Carson has long criticized federal efforts to desegregate American neighborhoods as “failed socialist experiments.” When questioned about the agency’s intention regarding the fair housing provision during congressional hearings last spring, Carson testified that it “costs a lot of money and man hours to do that analysis.” He signaled that he intended to focus on building affordable housing across all communities by deregulating and easing zoning restrictions.
“Why do you have segregation in housing? Not because George Wallace is blocking the door. It’s because people can only afford to live in certain places,” Carson said at a House hearing in May.
Some libertarian economists characterized the previous rule as an “exercise in bureaucratic symbolism" and praised the Trump administration for getting rid of the “tedious reporting requirements.”
In a blog post for the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Emily Hamilton and Salim Furth wrote: “This rule cannot achieve housing affordability or accessibility nationwide, it cannot undo decades of segregationist housing policy, it cannot even guarantee that every HUD grantee is using best practices. But, inherent limitations and all, it is a positive step toward a healthy and accountable relationship between HUD and the cities and counties that receive HUD grants.”
Real N Quotes
East Is In The House OMG
literally and liberalism is sneakily anti black