Biden to nominate Brown Jackson to SCOTUS

Photo: Tom Williams/Pool/AFP
Ketani Brown Jackson

When our alleged President Joe Biden was a US senator, on two occasions he opposed and filibustered the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In a cool move by Republican Sen. Josh Hawley, he tweeted that Biden should "make amends" and nominate her for the soon to be open SCOTUS slot. See, Judge Brown is a Black woman and Biden prevented her from moving ahead in her career.

Instead of Judge Brown, our alleged president has reportedly selected a different woman of color for the position, leaving out a pool of 93 percent of the remainder of American possibilities for the sake of being openly racist while pretending to be woke, which itself is a form of racism. His nomination is reported to be Ketani Brown Jackson. She would replace Justice Stephen Breyer, who was selected to the Supreme Court in the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky et al, era.

The Compromised News Network reported the story on Friday morning, citing a reliable [LOL] source, "a source who has been notified about the decision.” The source wished to remain anonymous as he or she did not want to be associated with the network and its scandals.

“Biden has reached a decision on his first nominee to the Supreme Court, people familiar with the selection said Thursday, with his historic selection of the first Black woman to serve on the nation’s highest court set to be revealed as soon as Friday,” CNN first reported on Thursday to the seven viewers at La Guardia Airport who were not, at the time, on their phones.

Biden had allegedly interviewed three women all by himself as potential nominees to be his Supreme Court justice pick, with the White House previously indicating that he would share his decision by Monday. 

He initially made it known that he is only considering a Black woman for the highest court in the land, but did not specify whether or not she had more intersectional victimhood status. His picks were J. Michelle Childs of South Carolina and California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger in addition to Brown Jackson.

Biden reportedly based his final decision for the nomination on Brown Jackson's name because it has the word "Brown" in it.

* * *

For more hard-hitting content, subscribe to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against global warming, the heebie-jeebies and COVID-19.

* * *

This week, some Democrats have shown support of Biden allegedly picking Brown Jackson. Ben Crump, a famed race-hustling attorney involved in the George Floyd case, also wrote an op-ed calling on President Joe Biden to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court . . . or else.

A number of Brown Jackson's rulings had been overturned by higher courts, by the way.

The mumbling announcement should come on Friday after "I Love Lucy."

Tweet

GOP block Dems' election bills, setting up a 'what the Chuck' showdown over nuclear option

The not insane Senate Republicans Wednesday used the filibuster to block the insane and self-serving Democrat election legislation, denying it the 60 votes it required to advance and set up a potential "nuclear option" set up by Sen. Chuck "I Once Supported the Filibuster When We Needed It" Schumer. 

Majority Leader Schumer planned to use a party-line vote to lower the filibuster threshold for some legislation to a simple majority with the hope of some day taking complete control over the country and never giving it up.

Every Republican voted against a procedural vote on the legislation, even RINOs like Adam Kisinger and Liz Chaney, and all Democrats voted for it ending with a 49 - 51 vote after Chucky changed his vote to the Democrat side in order to preserve his right to bring the vote up in the future.

Now the Senator from New York is probably going to initiate a "nuclear option" to rid the 60-vote threshold completely, so that Democrats can ruin the country in its entirety.

"We will all confront a critical question: Shall members of this chamber do what is necessary to pass these bills?" Schumer, along with his giant nostrils, said on the Senate floor Wednesday. "It is my hope that courage awakens within the heart of our Republican colleagues before the day is out. But if the Senate cannot protect the right to vote… under the existing rules, then the Senate rules must be reformed."

Courage? The Democrats don't have the courage to follow the concept of a republican form of government and would like to rule using the tyranny of the majority.

Schumer, who had once advocated for the filibuster when it suited his purpose added: "For those who feel that the filibuster is a good thing and helps bring us together, I would ask this question: Isn't the protection of voting rights, the must fundamental wellspring of this democracy, more important?"

This has nothing to do with the protection of voting rights. Black people and other minorities are just as capable of getting a personal ID and finding a polling place as White people. The election of Barack Obama certainly proves that notion.

Sens. Joe Manchin, (D-WV), and Kyrsten Sinema, (D-AZ), oppose altering the filibuster through a party-line vote, and that somehow gave them the title of "racist" by their Democrat colleagues. See, the word "racist" now means doing anything the left doesn't like or voting the "wrong way."

Schumer, who will be doing his own "Joe Biden Skivvy Assault" if he gets a primary challenge by Rep. Alexandria Obviously-Commie, is expected to go ahead with the gambit anyway after promising this week to get all senators "on the record" on the issue.

To initiate the nuclear option, Schumer can call a "point of order." He would then ask Vice President Kamala Hahaharris, who presides over the Senate, whether the threshold to advance legislation is 60 votes or 51. Harris would then respond that the threshold is 60, and then Schumer can appeal her ruling. 

The Senate would then enter into a vote of whether to "affirm" the chair's ruling – that the Senate filibuster threshold is 60. That means most Democrats will vote "no" while and all Republicans are expected to vote "yes."

* * *

Why not subscribe to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against the tech giants.

* * *

Most likely, the chair's ruling will be affirmed and the Republicans and handful of Democrats who vote in the negative will win the vote, preserving the filibuster.

But with the way things are in the nation, you never know how this will turn out.

Tweet

GOP puts brakes on Dems' attempt to "Tilt every election . . . permanently in their favor"

In an attempted political coup by the Democrats to pass a partisan election bill laughingly called "For the People Act," Republican senators were able to shoot it down avoiding a one-party nation.

“All 50 Democrats voted for the procedural measure, but it drew no GOP support, leaving it short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster,” The Wall Street Journal reported. 

“Democratic centrists, most prominently Mr. Manchin and Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, have rejected ending the filibuster, though some have suggested ways to weaken it.” Perhaps forcing Republicans to only filibuster in Mandarin or Pig Latin.

Now that Democrats have the majority in Congress, they have sought to cast the filibuster as racist as well as all White people and people of color who did not vote for Joe Biden. The Democrats sang a different tune when they were in the minority. They would love to have the ability to push all of Biden's radical agenda to move the country to the far Left but the founding fathers saw this coming and put in the filibuster to keep the majority in check. 

The GOP wanted to conserve the filibuster--that's why they're conservatives. They know that when something had always worked in the past, you don't ditch it simply for personal gain or simple change.

Democrats had repeatedly used the filibuster to stop the advancement of legislation under former President Trump and Republicans had to hold “time-sapping roll call votes to break a filibuster and end debate on nominees a whopping 314 times” under Trump, compared to a total of 244 times under all previous presidents combined, according to Politico. Funny, but they didn't want to end the filibuster back then. 

“Republicans took issue with imposing federal standards on state elections that they said would weaken state ID requirements,” Fox News reported. “They also oppose starting a new public financing system for congressional elections and politicizing the Federal Elections Commission that enforces campaign finance laws.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said that S-1, the election bill Democrats have been pushing for months, was “Democrats’ transparently partisan plan to tilt every election in America permanently in their favor.”

“We know that it would shatter a decades-old understanding that campaign law should have a bipartisan referee, and turn the Federal Election Commission into a partisan-majority cudgel for Democrats to wield against their political opponents,” McConnell said. “We know that it would let Washington bureaucrats direct federal dollars into politicians’ campaign accounts – government money for yard signs and attack ads. We know that it would let Democrats take a red pen to election laws in each of the 50 states, neutering popular precautions like voter I.D. while legalizing shady practices like ballot harvesting across the board.”

Senate Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) falsely claimed that Republicans are trying to promote voter suppression, which is somehow disproved by the record number of Black and minority turnout in the 2020 presidential election. In fact, calling voter ID a form of voter suppression is on its face, racist, implying that Blacks and minorities are incapable of getting personal ID to vote. 

The truth is, Democrats were the party of Jim Crow, and are still the actual racists who call everything racist.

Why not consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every ad you click on, you help in the fight against ignorance and evil.

Race hustler Al Sharptongue threatens Manchin and Sinema on how they must vote

Race-baiting, White-hating, always agitating Al Sharptongue (Dickweed-MSNBC), who calls himself a reverend and civil rights leader, threatened to use the same tactics against Senators Joe Manchin(D-W.VA) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) that made him rich--he would accuse them of "supporting racism" if they voted to keep the filibuster.

If anyone is a racist in this conversation, it's Sharptongue. He is also a flaming anti-Semite and cannot hide that fact.

Sharptongue has instigated violence and riots in the past, as for example the 1991 Crown Heights riots that led to the death of a religious Jew named Yankel Rosenbaum. Then there was the Freddy's Fashion Mart violence in 1995 where people were shot and the store was set on fire and people died over Sharptongue's outrage over the Jewish storeowner who he called "a Jewish interloper."

There have been other incidents that can easily be researched, but you get the picture.

"The pressure that we are going to put on Sinema and Manchin is calling [the filibuster] racist and saying that they are, in effect, supporting racism," Sharpton told Politico. "Why would they be wedded to something that has those results? Their voters need to know that."

The filibuster is not racist; a process cannot really be racist because a process hasn't the ability to hate. And the Democrats used the filibuster recently to stop Sen. Tim Scott's (R-SC) bill that would reform the police. In fact, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) who says the filibuster is racist, just used the filibuster to stop Scott's bill from passing, thus declaring herself a racist. She also once said that the filibuster is a tool for standing up to bullies.

Fauxcahontas

Sharptongue is merely a part of a larger push from the left to eliminate the filibuster now that Democrats control both houses of Congress. By eliminating the GOP from having any political say, the left can pass Democrats' election and voting rights legislation known as S.1. This would make elections so corrupt and favoring the left, that it would keep them in power indefinitely.

Manchin said earlier in March that he would "never" stop supporting the filibuster. Sinema has said that she is not open to "changing her mind." It's unclear whether Sharptongue plans to do something to stop their votes.

Their views on the filibuster are important because the Senate is evenly split 50-50, with the deciding vote going to the laughing Vice President Harris. In most legislation, there is a 60-vote threshold to advance to President Biden’s desk.

Progressive [aka socialist] Democrats now that they are in power see the filibuster as an outdated relic that can be used by the minority Republican Party under Sen. Mitch McConnell to derail Biden’s socialist agenda and drive the country down the toilet of Lady Liberty. 

At a news conference Wednesday, Senate Republicans said they are prepared to do whatever it takes to block the voting rights bill and predicted Democrats may get rid of the filibuster to usher in the landmark changes. Under this bill, 16-year-olds get to register to vote; write-in votes are fine and ballot harvesting is kosher. 

Sen. Tom Cotton, (R-AR), agreed to stay on the Senate floor for long as it takes if Democrats implemented a new "talking filibuster" where the only way to block legislation would be to stand up and talk until the Second Coming.

"I join all my colleagues in saying there is no amount of time that I will not dedicate on the Senate floor to stopping the Democrats from passing this kind of radical legislation," Cotton said Wednesday, flanked by nearly a dozen Republicans at the Capitol.

Meanwhile, President Biden has lost another two-thousand brain cells and Al Sharptongue is still not in prison.

Please consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every ad you click on, you help in the fight against the China virus.

Tweet

To Drone or Not to Drone

When Rand Paul (R-KY) filibustered on the Senate floor, he made an excellent point about the drone controversy as to whether or not the President of the United States has the authority to kill American citizens on US soil. The Constitution demands a person be afforded due process when deemed to be an enemy of the USA, but the Obama administration was making a case for using lethal force to keep us safe.

John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) attacked Paul's message, and thus attacked Paul,  and it must have made the Democrats smile to see the GOP and all this crazy infighting. On one hand, we have Rand Paul, who has made no secret about his interest in running for president in 2016, while on the other hand, we have a faction of the GOP who doesn't believe Obama would go crazy with the power of the drone. They believe he would only use it to take out terrorists who would pose a future, if not immediate threat to the United States. 

The filibuster clearly raised Paul's perceived validity as a presidential candidate because it gave him the exposure he needs. But it may have hurt McCain, who many on the right see as a RINO (Republican In Name Only). This may have been political suicide for him.

Insofar as how Graham is viewed, that remains to be seen. Some see him as a champion of truth where Benghazi is concerned, and I don't disagree with that notion. Others see him much like McCain because he went against Paul. In Graham's case, I believe it may have been an act of courage to challenge Paul; in McCain's case, I'm less certain of anything. Personally, I have a problem of anyone going to dinner with Obama.

Tweet