For certain segments of the population, such as inner city kids in parts of Chicago, this might be true. But I know what you are going to state next. "Obama is responsible for that!" But let's make one thing clear, if you actually watch the speech or read the transcript, especially the part surrounding the quote you mentioned, you can obviously see that his reference to kids having access to guns was to show how dangerous the job of law enforcement officers are. That was the message he as conveying and honestly it was an easy message to grasp if you actually read the entire transcript or watched the entire speech.
Conservatives don't do context, it is all about the statement they can pull out of context to sound bad in a 15 second or less sound bite.
Trump....The gift that keeps on giving: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/07/13/trump-african-americans/87027114/
1) Inherited millions 2) Was "loaned" a million dollars to start up a business 3) Has utilized the courts successfully to sue people who "aren't fair" to him 4) Has profited off of bankruptcy proceedings for decades 5) Has used foreign labor to make profit 6) Has dated models and super models because of his wealth alone 7) Has gotten away with being a jerk and a smart ass intentionally without repercussion 8) Has had a prime-time tv show on one of the big 4 networks 9) Parties and dances with political leaders and business leaders 10) Owns an exclusive golf resort 11) Jet-setts around the world for golf outings and expensive getaways 12) Ran for president and won his primary despite displaying no actual knowledge of issues Yep, sounds like he can relate to the black experience alright.
Well...she should have kept her mouth shut regarding any candidate. Assume something happens like in Bush/Gore and the Supreme Court has to get involved. Trump may be able to present an argument against perceived bias on the part of Ginsburg.
Agreed with this. I'm surprised that a sitting Supreme Court Justice would essentially offer an anti-endorsement of a candidate.
Sandra Day O'Conner didn't... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/11/in-bashing-donald-trump-some-say-ruth-bader-ginsburg-just-crossed-a-very-important-line/ btw, she didn't recuse herself... but perhaps wished she had (for other reasons) http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/justice-oconnor-regrets http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/04/29/sandra-day-oconnor-doubts-wisdom-of-bush-v-gore
Truly an amazing statement, but a true one. It's really hard to find someone with less integrity than a Clinton, but the Republicans managed to do so.
Why not, opinions are sort her bailiwick. The Supreme Court is the last bastion of integrity, I'm sure she is embarrassed to have such a trivial poser this close to such an exalted office. I know I am.
I suspect that approximately 8 of the justices on the supreme court think Trump is a buffoon unfit to be president. It's just that 7 of them haven't said it in public.
It wasn't a problem for Scalia. He was Cheney's hunting buddy and never recused himself over anything.
Cheney v. United States District Court, 542 U.S. 367 (2004), was a 2004 United States Supreme Court case between Vice President Dick Cheney and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.[1] The case came as an appeal after the lower District Court for the District of Columbia ordered Cheney to disclose some of his records that would show how his National Energy Policy Development Group developed its recommendations. Cheney appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, but the Appeals Court rejected the appeal. In a 7–2 decision, the Court sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.[2][3] The case received press attention when Antonin Scalia refused to recuse himself from the case, despite having hunted ducks with Cheney and others while the case was pending in the lower courts. Scalia filed a lengthy statement explaining why he was not recusing himself. In the end, Scalia supported Cheney.[2][6][7]
