TBD on Ning
Closed Sessions (Jeff Sessions The senator who's worse than Lott)
The New Republic by Sarah Wildman
Trent Lott must think he's living in a nightmare. More than one week has passed since his segregationist cheerleading at Strom Thurmond's century celebration, and the chorus of anti-Lottism has swelled ever louder. Conservatives in particular can't scream loud enough. William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, called Lott's comments "thoughtless" and told CBS's "Early Show" audience on December 12 that "Trent Lott shows such a lack of historical understanding that I think it would be appropriate for him to offer to step down." And conservative pundit Peggy Noonan told Chris Matthews this Sunday, "I am personally tired of being embarrassed by people ... who don't get what the history of race in America is, what integration has meant, what segregation was. I'm tired of being embarrassed by Republicans ... who don't get it."
It's a nice sentiment, and, if conservatives are serious about it, they might want to direct their attention one state to Lott's east, home of Alabama Republican Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III. His record on race arguably rivals that of the gentleman from Mississippi--and yet has elicited not a peep of consternation from the anti-racist right.
Sessions entered national politics in the mid-'80s not as a politician but as a judicial nominee. Recommended by a fellow Republican from Alabama, then-Senator Jeremiah Denton, Sessions was Ronald Reagan's choice for the U.S. District Court in Alabama in the early spring of 1986. Reagan had gotten cocky by then, as more than 200 of his uberconservative judicial appointees had been rolled out across the country without serious opposition (this was pre-Robert Bork). That is, until the 39-year-old Sessions came up for review.
Sessions was U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama. The year before his nomination to federal court, he had unsuccessfully prosecuted three civil rights workers--including Albert Turner, a former aide to Martin Luther King Jr.--on a tenuous case of voter fraud. The three had been working in the "Black Belt" counties of Alabama, which, after years of voting white, had begun to swing toward black candidates as voter registration drives brought in more black voters. Sessions's focus on these counties to the exclusion of others caused an uproar among civil rights leaders, especially after hours of interrogating black absentee voters produced only 14 allegedly tampered ballots out of more than 1.7 million cast in the state in the 1984 election. The activists, known as the Marion Three, were acquitted in four hours and became a cause c?l?bre. Civil rights groups charged that Sessions had been looking for voter fraud in the black community and overlooking the same violations among whites, at least partly to help reelect his friend Senator Denton.
On its own, the case might not have been enough to stain Sessions with the taint of racism, but there was more. Senate Democrats tracked down a career Justice Department employee named J. Gerald Hebert, who testified, albeit reluctantly, that in a conversation between the two men Sessions had labeled the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) "un-American" and "Communist-inspired." Hebert said Sessions had claimed these groups "forced civil rights down the throats of people." In his confirmation hearings, Sessions sealed his own fate by saying such groups could be construed as "un-American" when "they involve themselves in promoting un-American positions" in foreign policy. Hebert testified that the young lawyer tended to "pop off" on such topics regularly, noting that Sessions had called a white civil rights lawyer a "disgrace to his race" for litigating voting rights cases. Sessions acknowledged making many of the statements attributed to him but claimed that most of the time he had been joking, saying he was sometimes "loose with [his] tongue." He further admitted to calling the Voting Rights Act of 1965 a "piece of intrusive legislation," a phrase he stood behind even in his confirmation hearings.
It got worse. Another damaging witness--a black former assistant U.S. Attorney in Alabama named Thomas Figures--testified that, during a 1981 murder investigation involving the Ku Klux Klan, Sessions was heard by several colleagues commenting that he "used to think they [the Klan] were OK" until he found out some of them were "pot smokers." Sessions claimed the comment was clearly said in jest. Figures didn't see it that way. Sessions, he said, had called him "boy" and, after overhearing him chastise a secretary, warned him to "be careful what you say to white folks." Figures echoed Hebert's claims, saying he too had heard Sessions call various civil rights organizations, including the National Council of Churches and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, "un-American." Sessions denied the accusations but again admitted to frequently joking in an off-color sort of way. In his defense, he said he was not a racist, pointing out that his children went to integrated schools and that he had shared a hotel room with a black attorney several times.
During his nomination hearings, Sessions was opposed by the NAACP, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, People for the American Way, and other civil rights groups. Senator Denton clung peevishly to his favored nominee until the bitter end, calling Sessions a "victim of a political conspiracy." The Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee finally voted ten to eight against sending Sessions to the Senate floor. The decisive vote was cast by the other senator from Alabama, Democrat Howell Heflin, a former Alabama Supreme Court justice, who said, "[M]y duty to the justice system is greater than any duty to any one individual."
None of this history stopped Sessions's political ascension. He was elected attorney general in 1994. Once in office, he was linked with a second instance of investigating absentee ballots and fraud that directly impacted the black community. He was also accused of not investigating the church burnings that swept the state of Alabama the year he became attorney general. But those issues barely made a dent in his 1996 Senate campaign, when Heflin retired and Sessions ran for his seat and won.
Since his election as a senator, Sessions has not done much to make amends for his past racial insensitivity. His voting record in the Senate has earned him consistent "F"s from the NAACP. He supported an ultimately unsuccessful effort to end affirmative action programs in the federal government (a measure so extreme that many conservatives were against it), he opposed hate-crimes laws, and he opposed a motion to investigate the disproportionate number of minorities in juvenile detention centers. Says Hillary Shelton, director of the NAACP's Washington bureau, "[Sessions's] voting record is disturbing. ... He has consistently opposed the bread-and-butter civil rights agenda." But it has been on judicial nominees that Sessions has really made a name for himself. When Sessions grabbed Heflin's Senate seat in 1996, he also nabbed a spot on the Judiciary Committee. Serving on the committee alongside some of the senators who had dismissed him 16 years earlier, Sessions has become a cheerleader for the Bush administration's judicial picks, defending such dubious nominees as Charles Pickering, who in 1959 wrote a paper defending Mississippi's anti-miscegenation law, and Judge Dennis Shedd, who dismissed nearly every fair-employment civil rights case brought before him as a federal district court judge. Sessions called Pickering "a leader for racial harmony" and a "courageous," "quality individual" who was being used as a "political pawn." Regarding Shedd, he pooh-poohed the criticism, announcing that the judge "should have been commended for the rulings he has made," not chastised.
And yet, despite his record as U.S. Attorney, attorney general of Alabama, and senator, Sessions has never received criticism from conservatives or from the leadership of the Republican Party. President Bush even campaigned for him in the last election. It's true, of course, that Sessions isn't in a leadership position, like Lott. But, if conservatives are serious about ending the perception that the GOP tolerates racism, they should look into his record as well. After all, if Noonan and friends are really "tired of being embarrassed" by this kind of racial insensitivity, they can't just start yelling once the news hits the stands.
Sessions questions Sotomayor bias, defends white males
By Arturo Mora, Kansas City Star Midwest Voices columnist 2009
Republican Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions never said the words “white male” during his intense questioning of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor today. But it’s easy enough to read into his line of questioning that Sessions was playing to the conservative base of his party, and in particular to the stereotypical white male angry and obsessed about “reverse discrimination.”
Together with the flap over racial comments on the Facebook site of the new Young Republicans’ chairperson, Audra Shay, a picture begins to emerge of a party reaching for yesterday’s divisive politics. They seem tone-deaf not only to the mood of a more tolerant America, but also to the political realities of our new demographics.
It’s as if they have written off the Latino and African-American (and perhaps female) vote, retreating to a shrinking bastion that might continue to win them the Southeast and not much else.
Sessions’ questions could not have had any other goal than to play to that base, unless he thought Sotomayor was going to suddenly fall apart and yell out, “I am a racist Latina, I am a racist Latina, I’m so sorry.” That was obviously not going to happen, so why the continued pressing of the same point?
Here’s a synopsis of some of the back-and-forth on the issue, from the transcripts:
SESSIONS: You've said, I think six different times, quote, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion." So that's a matter that I think we'll talk about as we go forward…So first, I'd like to know, do you think there's any circumstance in which a judge should allow their prejudices to impact their decision-making?
SOTOMAYOR: Never their prejudices. I was talking about the very important goal of the justice system is to ensure that the personal biases and prejudices of a judge do not influence the outcome of a case.
Unsatisfied, Sessions asks again about the inconsistency between those statements and her more recent statements trumpeting judicial impartiality. Then, a third time:
SESSIONS: …let me just follow up that you say in your statement that you want to do what you can to increase the faith and the impartiality of our system, but isn't it true this statement suggests that you accept that there may be sympathies, prejudices and opinions that legitimately can influence a judge's decision? And how can that further faith in the impartiality of the system?
SOTOMAYOR: I think the system is strengthened when judges don't assume they're impartial, but when judges test themselves to identify when their emotions are driving a result, or their experience are driving a result and the law is not.
He presses a fourth time: I just am very concerned that what you're saying today is quite inconsistent with your statement that you willingly accept that your sympathies, opinions and prejudices may influence your decision-making.
By this time, it’s obvious, bewilderingly, that he’s either trying to get her to admit prejudice (does he really think she’s that stupid?), or just putting himself and his party out there as the protector against prejudice. This is not a bad thing on the face of it, except that it slips into the stereotype of a powerful white male decrying the “prejudice” of minorities.
SESSIONS: Aren't you saying there that you expect your background and -- and heritage to influence your decision-making?.
This of course will set off alarm bells across the minority political community, as the code word “heritage” gets thrown on. The implication that will stick with minorities, right or wrong, is that he’s saying “people of heritage” (pssst, Latinos) let that background influence everything they decide.
SESSIONS: …I think it's consistent in the comments I've quoted to you and your previous statements that you do believe that your backgrounds will accept -- affect the result in cases, and that's troubling me. So that is not impartiality.
SOTOMAYOR: I do not permit my sympathies, personal views, or prejudices to influence the outcome of my cases.
SESSIONS: …but you've repeatedly made this statement: Quote, I "accept the proposition" -- I "accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench, and that my experiences affect the facts I choose to see as a judge."
SOTOMAYOR: It's not a question of choosing to see some facts or another, Senator. I didn't intend to suggest that. And in the wider context, what I believe I was -- the point I was making was that our life experiences do permit us to see some facts and understand them more easily than others.
After an eight pressing of the same point, Sotomayor attempts to explain away the “wise Latina” comment: ….(It) was bad, because it left an impression that I believed that life experiences commanded a result in a case, but that's clearly not what I do as a judge. It's clearly not what I intended in the context of my broader speech, which was attempting to inspire young Hispanic, Latino students and lawyers to believe that their life experiences added value to the process.
After a ninth fruitless attempt to get Sotomayor to fess up, Sessions moves on to more red meat, her decision in the Ricci case (involving a test for New Haven, Connecticut firefighters). He seems to want to make the point again that Latinos must be prejudiced in decisions involving white males. Besides ignoring the fact that this case also involved one Latino firefighter, it brushes’ aside Sotomayor’s solid record of impartiality in discrimination cases.
Paraphrasing a Supreme Court decision, Sessions again brings up the specter of reverse discrimination and affirmative action: When one race is favored over another, you must have a really good reason for it, or it's not acceptable
Sotomayor’s reply is that the Ricci case was more about judicial precedent than discrimination issue.
SESSIONS: But do you think that Frank Ricci and the other firefighters whose claims you dismissed felt that their arguments and concerns were appropriately understood and acknowledged by such a short opinion from the court?
SOTOMAYOR: We were very sympathetic and expressed your sympathy to the firefighters who challenged the city's decision, Mr. Ricci and the others. We stood the efforts that they had made in taking the test. We said as much.
The political blowback among Latinos has already begun, with Lillian Rodriguez- Lopez, president of the Hispanic Federation, “baffled” as to why Sessions found it necessary to point out the shared heritage of Sotomayor and another appeals court judge.
Sessions, in one fell swoop, has managed to not only make this about his own out-of-touch views on race, but is dragging his party into that losing battle.
Trent Lott must think he's living in a nightmare. More than one week has passed since his segregationist cheerleading at Strom Thurmond's century celebration, and the chorus of anti-Lottism has swelled ever louder. Conservatives in particular can't scream loud enough. William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, called Lott's comments "thoughtless" and told CBS's "Early Show" audience on December 12 that "Trent Lott shows such a lack of historical understanding that I think it would be appropriate for him to offer to step down." And conservative pundit Peggy Noonan told Chris Matthews this Sunday, "I am personally tired of being embarrassed by people ... who don't get what the history of race in America is, what integration has meant, what segregation was. I'm tired of being embarrassed by Republicans ... who don't get it."
It's a nice sentiment, and, if conservatives are serious about it, they might want to direct their attention one state to Lott's east, home of Alabama Republican Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III. His record on race arguably rivals that of the gentleman from Mississippi--and yet has elicited not a peep of consternation from the anti-racist right.
Sessions entered national politics in the mid-'80s not as a politician but as a judicial nominee. Recommended by a fellow Republican from Alabama, then-Senator Jeremiah Denton, Sessions was Ronald Reagan's choice for the U.S. District Court in Alabama in the early spring of 1986. Reagan had gotten cocky by then, as more than 200 of his uberconservative judicial appointees had been rolled out across the country without serious opposition (this was pre-Robert Bork). That is, until the 39-year-old Sessions came up for review.
Sessions was U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama. The year before his nomination to federal court, he had unsuccessfully prosecuted three civil rights workers--including Albert Turner, a former aide to Martin Luther King Jr.--on a tenuous case of voter fraud. The three had been working in the "Black Belt" counties of Alabama, which, after years of voting white, had begun to swing toward black candidates as voter registration drives brought in more black voters. Sessions's focus on these counties to the exclusion of others caused an uproar among civil rights leaders, especially after hours of interrogating black absentee voters produced only 14 allegedly tampered ballots out of more than 1.7 million cast in the state in the 1984 election. The activists, known as the Marion Three, were acquitted in four hours and became a cause c?l?bre. Civil rights groups charged that Sessions had been looking for voter fraud in the black community and overlooking the same violations among whites, at least partly to help reelect his friend Senator Denton.
On its own, the case might not have been enough to stain Sessions with the taint of racism, but there was more. Senate Democrats tracked down a career Justice Department employee named J. Gerald Hebert, who testified, albeit reluctantly, that in a conversation between the two men Sessions had labeled the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) "un-American" and "Communist-inspired." Hebert said Sessions had claimed these groups "forced civil rights down the throats of people." In his confirmation hearings, Sessions sealed his own fate by saying such groups could be construed as "un-American" when "they involve themselves in promoting un-American positions" in foreign policy. Hebert testified that the young lawyer tended to "pop off" on such topics regularly, noting that Sessions had called a white civil rights lawyer a "disgrace to his race" for litigating voting rights cases. Sessions acknowledged making many of the statements attributed to him but claimed that most of the time he had been joking, saying he was sometimes "loose with [his] tongue." He further admitted to calling the Voting Rights Act of 1965 a "piece of intrusive legislation," a phrase he stood behind even in his confirmation hearings.
It got worse. Another damaging witness--a black former assistant U.S. Attorney in Alabama named Thomas Figures--testified that, during a 1981 murder investigation involving the Ku Klux Klan, Sessions was heard by several colleagues commenting that he "used to think they [the Klan] were OK" until he found out some of them were "pot smokers." Sessions claimed the comment was clearly said in jest. Figures didn't see it that way. Sessions, he said, had called him "boy" and, after overhearing him chastise a secretary, warned him to "be careful what you say to white folks." Figures echoed Hebert's claims, saying he too had heard Sessions call various civil rights organizations, including the National Council of Churches and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, "un-American." Sessions denied the accusations but again admitted to frequently joking in an off-color sort of way. In his defense, he said he was not a racist, pointing out that his children went to integrated schools and that he had shared a hotel room with a black attorney several times.
During his nomination hearings, Sessions was opposed by the NAACP, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, People for the American Way, and other civil rights groups. Senator Denton clung peevishly to his favored nominee until the bitter end, calling Sessions a "victim of a political conspiracy." The Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee finally voted ten to eight against sending Sessions to the Senate floor. The decisive vote was cast by the other senator from Alabama, Democrat Howell Heflin, a former Alabama Supreme Court justice, who said, "[M]y duty to the justice system is greater than any duty to any one individual."
None of this history stopped Sessions's political ascension. He was elected attorney general in 1994. Once in office, he was linked with a second instance of investigating absentee ballots and fraud that directly impacted the black community. He was also accused of not investigating the church burnings that swept the state of Alabama the year he became attorney general. But those issues barely made a dent in his 1996 Senate campaign, when Heflin retired and Sessions ran for his seat and won.
Since his election as a senator, Sessions has not done much to make amends for his past racial insensitivity. His voting record in the Senate has earned him consistent "F"s from the NAACP. He supported an ultimately unsuccessful effort to end affirmative action programs in the federal government (a measure so extreme that many conservatives were against it), he opposed hate-crimes laws, and he opposed a motion to investigate the disproportionate number of minorities in juvenile detention centers. Says Hillary Shelton, director of the NAACP's Washington bureau, "[Sessions's] voting record is disturbing. ... He has consistently opposed the bread-and-butter civil rights agenda." But it has been on judicial nominees that Sessions has really made a name for himself. When Sessions grabbed Heflin's Senate seat in 1996, he also nabbed a spot on the Judiciary Committee. Serving on the committee alongside some of the senators who had dismissed him 16 years earlier, Sessions has become a cheerleader for the Bush administration's judicial picks, defending such dubious nominees as Charles Pickering, who in 1959 wrote a paper defending Mississippi's anti-miscegenation law, and Judge Dennis Shedd, who dismissed nearly every fair-employment civil rights case brought before him as a federal district court judge. Sessions called Pickering "a leader for racial harmony" and a "courageous," "quality individual" who was being used as a "political pawn." Regarding Shedd, he pooh-poohed the criticism, announcing that the judge "should have been commended for the rulings he has made," not chastised.
And yet, despite his record as U.S. Attorney, attorney general of Alabama, and senator, Sessions has never received criticism from conservatives or from the leadership of the Republican Party. President Bush even campaigned for him in the last election. It's true, of course, that Sessions isn't in a leadership position, like Lott. But, if conservatives are serious about ending the perception that the GOP tolerates racism, they should look into his record as well. After all, if Noonan and friends are really "tired of being embarrassed" by this kind of racial insensitivity, they can't just start yelling once the news hits the stands.
Sessions questions Sotomayor bias, defends white males
By Arturo Mora, Kansas City Star Midwest Voices columnist 2009
Republican Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions never said the words “white male” during his intense questioning of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor today. But it’s easy enough to read into his line of questioning that Sessions was playing to the conservative base of his party, and in particular to the stereotypical white male angry and obsessed about “reverse discrimination.”
Together with the flap over racial comments on the Facebook site of the new Young Republicans’ chairperson, Audra Shay, a picture begins to emerge of a party reaching for yesterday’s divisive politics. They seem tone-deaf not only to the mood of a more tolerant America, but also to the political realities of our new demographics.
It’s as if they have written off the Latino and African-American (and perhaps female) vote, retreating to a shrinking bastion that might continue to win them the Southeast and not much else.
Sessions’ questions could not have had any other goal than to play to that base, unless he thought Sotomayor was going to suddenly fall apart and yell out, “I am a racist Latina, I am a racist Latina, I’m so sorry.” That was obviously not going to happen, so why the continued pressing of the same point?
Here’s a synopsis of some of the back-and-forth on the issue, from the transcripts:
SESSIONS: You've said, I think six different times, quote, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion." So that's a matter that I think we'll talk about as we go forward…So first, I'd like to know, do you think there's any circumstance in which a judge should allow their prejudices to impact their decision-making?
SOTOMAYOR: Never their prejudices. I was talking about the very important goal of the justice system is to ensure that the personal biases and prejudices of a judge do not influence the outcome of a case.
Unsatisfied, Sessions asks again about the inconsistency between those statements and her more recent statements trumpeting judicial impartiality. Then, a third time:
SESSIONS: …let me just follow up that you say in your statement that you want to do what you can to increase the faith and the impartiality of our system, but isn't it true this statement suggests that you accept that there may be sympathies, prejudices and opinions that legitimately can influence a judge's decision? And how can that further faith in the impartiality of the system?
SOTOMAYOR: I think the system is strengthened when judges don't assume they're impartial, but when judges test themselves to identify when their emotions are driving a result, or their experience are driving a result and the law is not.
He presses a fourth time: I just am very concerned that what you're saying today is quite inconsistent with your statement that you willingly accept that your sympathies, opinions and prejudices may influence your decision-making.
By this time, it’s obvious, bewilderingly, that he’s either trying to get her to admit prejudice (does he really think she’s that stupid?), or just putting himself and his party out there as the protector against prejudice. This is not a bad thing on the face of it, except that it slips into the stereotype of a powerful white male decrying the “prejudice” of minorities.
SESSIONS: Aren't you saying there that you expect your background and -- and heritage to influence your decision-making?.
This of course will set off alarm bells across the minority political community, as the code word “heritage” gets thrown on. The implication that will stick with minorities, right or wrong, is that he’s saying “people of heritage” (pssst, Latinos) let that background influence everything they decide.
SESSIONS: …I think it's consistent in the comments I've quoted to you and your previous statements that you do believe that your backgrounds will accept -- affect the result in cases, and that's troubling me. So that is not impartiality.
SOTOMAYOR: I do not permit my sympathies, personal views, or prejudices to influence the outcome of my cases.
SESSIONS: …but you've repeatedly made this statement: Quote, I "accept the proposition" -- I "accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench, and that my experiences affect the facts I choose to see as a judge."
SOTOMAYOR: It's not a question of choosing to see some facts or another, Senator. I didn't intend to suggest that. And in the wider context, what I believe I was -- the point I was making was that our life experiences do permit us to see some facts and understand them more easily than others.
After an eight pressing of the same point, Sotomayor attempts to explain away the “wise Latina” comment: ….(It) was bad, because it left an impression that I believed that life experiences commanded a result in a case, but that's clearly not what I do as a judge. It's clearly not what I intended in the context of my broader speech, which was attempting to inspire young Hispanic, Latino students and lawyers to believe that their life experiences added value to the process.
After a ninth fruitless attempt to get Sotomayor to fess up, Sessions moves on to more red meat, her decision in the Ricci case (involving a test for New Haven, Connecticut firefighters). He seems to want to make the point again that Latinos must be prejudiced in decisions involving white males. Besides ignoring the fact that this case also involved one Latino firefighter, it brushes’ aside Sotomayor’s solid record of impartiality in discrimination cases.
Paraphrasing a Supreme Court decision, Sessions again brings up the specter of reverse discrimination and affirmative action: When one race is favored over another, you must have a really good reason for it, or it's not acceptable
Sotomayor’s reply is that the Ricci case was more about judicial precedent than discrimination issue.
SESSIONS: But do you think that Frank Ricci and the other firefighters whose claims you dismissed felt that their arguments and concerns were appropriately understood and acknowledged by such a short opinion from the court?
SOTOMAYOR: We were very sympathetic and expressed your sympathy to the firefighters who challenged the city's decision, Mr. Ricci and the others. We stood the efforts that they had made in taking the test. We said as much.
The political blowback among Latinos has already begun, with Lillian Rodriguez- Lopez, president of the Hispanic Federation, “baffled” as to why Sessions found it necessary to point out the shared heritage of Sotomayor and another appeals court judge.
Sessions, in one fell swoop, has managed to not only make this about his own out-of-touch views on race, but is dragging his party into that losing battle.
Tags: Jeff Sessions, Judge Sonya Sotomayor, racist
Views: 7
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Just-a-Writer on
-
I caught bits of the Sessions/Sotomayor exchange on the news. I thought he was being an idiot then, and that was before I knew his sick and twisted history.
-
-
Permalink Reply by brujo on
-
Point of fact, the Black Belt is called the Black Belt because of the color of the soil. My Daddy grew up there, and one of my favorite family stories is about him driving my mother to Alabama to meet his family, and her being shocked by the road signs that identified the area as the Black Belt when she realized the only people she'd seen were Black.
Yankees. Sheesh. -
-
Permalink Reply by Dexter South on
-
Thats funny, most of the soil in Alabama is red...
-
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Mentzer on
-
We're allowed to say what we want now. DICKHEAD is cool. :)
-
-
-
No, it's listed twice because I featured it.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Daniel Blattenbauer on
-
Sessions has just revealed his racist views again which prevented him from being on the Supreme Court himself. He provides a good example of what the GOP stands for in many ways. Unfortunately there are too many people in the population who still have the same views.
Good to see your name here Jacquin. -
-
Permalink Reply by Madhatterat60 on
-
I watched Sessions during the hearings and kept screaming "SHUT UP! People will wonder how an idiot got lose in the Senate Chambers!" Every time you thought the moron had finally reached bottom, someone handed him a shovel and he kept digging.
-
-
-
Last night Bill Maher said, "Not all republicans are racist. But, if you're a racist politician then your probably a republican".
-
-
-
Yeah, that was a riot. Did you catch the piece called the NAAWP (National Association for the Advancement of White People) a few weeks ago?
-
-
Permalink Reply by Nebs Jima on
-
The only reasons, I believe, Sen Lott, Trent was denounced and called for to be step down is not because they disagree with his remarks about that hypocrates from S. Carolina, but it was because he wasn't taking order from K. Rove. Many conservative leaders made worse remarks than Lott, but each time the same old conservatives run in to defense of these big mouth bigots. In the case of Sessions, he can say or do anything, you won't see any conservatives denouncing or say anything negative about him, because he has been a foot soldier of Bush and Regan. Remember Regan launches his presidential bid not far from where, black civil right worker and the 2 white kids from NY who came to register and encourage blacks to vote were murdered by the mobs of klans who wore white sheets over their heads back in the 60s. Now that kind of practice is left for poor whites. Now the modern klans are wearing sutes, their methods are sharpened and sofesticated.
-
© 2024 Created by Aggie.
Powered by
