Congress Read the letter Coretta Scott King wrote opposing Sessions’s 1986 federal nomination By Wesley Lowery January 10 at 6:00 PM https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/10/read-the-letter-coretta-scott-king-wrote-opposing-sessionss-1986-federal-nomination/?utm_term=.cbfb0d7ac980 Thirty years later, Sessions, now a senator, is again undergoing confirmation hearings as President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for attorney general, and he is facing fierce opposition from civil rights groups. In the letter, King writes that Sessions’s ascension to the federal bench “simply cannot be allowed to happen," arguing that as a U.S. attorney, the Alabama lawmaker pursued “politically-motivated voting fraud prosecutions" and that he “lacks the temperament, fairness and judgment to be a federal judge." She said Sessions’s conduct in prosecuting civil rights leaders in a voting-fraud case “raises serious questions about his commitment to the protection of the voting rights of all American citizens." “The irony of Mr. Sessions’ nomination is that, if confirmed, he will be given a life tenure for doing with a federal prosecution what the local sheriffs accomplished twenty years ago with clubs and cattle prods," she wrote, later adding, “I believe his confirmation would have a devastating effect on not only the judicial system in Alabama, but also on the progress we have made toward fulfilling my husband’s dream."Coretta Scott King's 1986 statement and testimony on Jeff Sessions's U.S. District Court nomination in Alabama https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259988-Scott-King-1986-Letter-and-Testimony-Signed.html#document/p7
She’s absolutely right. Thanks for sending.
She's absolutely right. Thanks for sending.Except that in the mind of these rabid right wingers she's absolutely wrong. When she says "he work to remove voting rights" you and I say that's a bad thing. Sessions and the 49% of americans who voted for Trump say "yay, remove those rights". That's the problem when the Cons literally live in an alternate world of meaning.
She's absolutely right.Except that in the mind of these rabid right wingers she's absolutely wrong. When she says "he work to remove voting rights" you and I say that's a bad thing. Sessions and the 49% of Americans who voted for Trump say "yay, remove those rights". That's the problem when the Cons literally live in an alternate world of meaning. Looking at things develop I fear it's a coin toss if the Democrats ever win a majority again. Between gerrymandering which will go into high gear, The new Supreme Court that the Democrats gifted them, The profound apathy and disconnect among the public. For all the rabble rousing the left wing media is Doing and talking about, seems like it's still a pathetic minority who are trying to take some action. Then the way the press corp folded during Trump's press conference. Terrifyingly depressing. We have given our government to people who absolutely despise it and would like to destroy it. Where are the Democrats . . . Pretending it's just another transition. :ahhh: :down: Have you seen this?
A message to my doomed colleagues in the American media Alexey KovalevFollow Жаль только жить в ту пору прекраную Congratulations, US media! You’ve just covered your first press conference of an authoritarian leader with a massive ego and a deep disdain for your trade and everything you hold dear. We in Russia have been doing it for 12 years now — with a short hiatus when our leader wasn’t technically our leader — so quite a few things during Donald Trump’s press conference rang my bells. Not just mine, in fact — read this excellent round-up in The Moscow Times]. I’m talking about Putin here, but see if you can apply any of the below to your own leader. Welcome to the era of bullshit. Facts don’t matter. You can’t hurt this man with facts or reason. He’ll always outmaneuver you. He’ll always wriggle out of whatever carefully crafted verbal trap you lay for him. Whatever he says, you won’t be able to challenge him. He always comes with a bag of meaningless factoids (Putin likes to drown questions he doesn’t like in dull, unverifiable stats, figures and percentages), platitudes, false moral equivalences and straight, undiluted bullshit. He knows it’s a one-way communication, not an interview. You can’t follow up on your questions or challenge him. So he can throw whatever he wants at you in response, and you’ll just have to swallow it. Some journalists will try to preempt this by asking two questions at once, against the protests of their colleagues also vying for attention, but that also won’t work: he’ll answer the one he thinks is easier, and ignore the other. Others will use this opportunity to go on a long, rambling statement vaguely disguised as a question, but that’s also bad tactics. Non-questions invite non-answers. He’ll mock you for your nervous stuttering and if you’re raising a serious issue, respond with a vague, non-committal statement (“Mr President, what about these horrible human rights abuses in our country?" “Thank you, Miss. This is indeed a very serious issue. Everybody must respect the law. And by the way, don’t human rights abuses happen in other countries as well? Next question please"). But your colleagues are there to help you, right? After all, you’re all in this together? Wrong. Don’t expect any camaraderie ... ... If your question is stonewalled/mocked down/ignored, don’t expect a rival publication to pick up the banner and follow up on your behalf. It’s in this man’s best interests to pit you against each other, fighting over artificial scarcities like room space, mic time or, of course, his attention. ...