Senate Democrats Unanimously Vote Against Gay Man of Color

Post Reply New Topic

Senate confirms openly gay Trump nominee to 9th Circuit

The Senate confirmed President Trump’s ninth judicial nominee to the liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday, elevating Patrick Bumatay, an openly gay Filipino man, to the federal bench over objections from his liberal home-state senators.

Mr. Bumatay, who has worked as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of California, cleared the Senate by a 53-40 party-line vote.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... confirmed/

Most intelligent people accept , and believe , that judicial decisions shouldn't be based on what party a law maker belongs to .

Soo... They voted against him based on his politics and past actions, not based on the colour of his skin or sexual orientation.
The implication in the topic is that democrats should be for this guy, based on ethnicity and sexual orientation, no?

Isn't that good, then, that they voted against him despite his identity, and because of his politics?

However, had the Democrats made this nomination and Republicans voted against them for the same stated reason (his politics and past actions, not based on the colour of his skin or sexual orientation), all we'd be likely to hear would be claims of "Racism", "Sexism", etc...

On a side note, it's interesting that the "Racist", "Sexist" party should be nominating a person who embodies those traits that the party is supposedly against.

It's almost as though if it weren't for double standards, some people would have no standards at all...

This is a very good point. It shouldn't be overlooked because it's true and it's also true that many people today are perfectly fine with double standards if it aligns with their ideology.

You are assuming that the right wing would not vote against someone based on their race, sex and orientation, which they most certainly do. Only stopping from doing so when they have awful enough beliefs and could use them as a token against calling out their bigoted beliefs, the term being "useful idiots", who can be used as a smokescreen against greater trends.

Sure, there can be some people who are bad faith actors who might overuse the bigot card in calling out sexism, racism and homophobia where it might not have been a deciding factor, or maybe even chose to hold a particular card without being able to offer much, but it is miniscule compared to dirty tricks. Such as that they would say no to someone who was so bad that they voted against them despite being a Filipino gay man.