Author Topic: Kennedy Replacement DDF Shortlist (Read 59188 times)

skyguy918 · « **Reply #180 on:** July 10, 2018, 04:53:41 PM »

Quote from: aygart on July 10, 2018, 03:57:41 PM

This is something which should be asked over and over again to every liberal on TV opposing this nomination. Merrick Garland does not count as an answer.

Why? They have no obligation to support a specific nomination.

Yammer · « **Reply #181 on:** July 10, 2018, 05:09:20 PM »

Quote from: skyguy918 on July 10, 2018, 04:53:41 PM

Why? They have no obligation to support a specific nomination.

Correct.

But if every candidate that a Republican would nominate is the worst think that can happen in our society, then your just the boy that cried wolf. You don't have to vote in favor (which has always been the case until Obama or Bush (dont remember) for anyone, but can agree that they just have different opinions then you.

The way it looks now the next D will abolish ICE, Ban Plastic. Period, ban arrests on any minority, and healthcare for all

And I didn't even start with the Rs..

skyguy918 · « **Reply #182 on:** July 10, 2018, 05:23:24 PM »

Quote from: Yammer on July 10, 2018, 05:09:20 PM

Correct.

But if every candidate that a Republican would nominate is the worst think that can happen in our society, then your just the boy that cried wolf. You don't have to vote in favor (which has always been the case until Obama or Bush (dont remember) for anyone, but can agree that they just have different opinions then you.

The way it looks now the next D will abolish ICE, Ban Plastic. Period, ban arrests on any minority, and healthcare for all

And I didn't even start with the Rs..

I'm speaking specifically to aygart's assertion that they have to suggest an alternative if they want to oppose. That's simply not true. Not from a legal perspective and not from a logical perspective.

aygart · « **Reply #183 on:** July 10, 2018, 06:43:55 PM »

Quote from: skyguy918 on July 10, 2018, 04:53:41 PM

Why? They have no obligation to support a specific nomination.

It is a talking point just like theirs

aygart · « **Reply #184 on:** July 10, 2018, 06:44:52 PM »

Quote from: skyguy918 on July 10, 2018, 05:23:24 PM

I'm speaking specifically to aygart's assertion that they have to suggest an alternative if they want to oppose. That's simply not true. Not from a legal perspective and not from a logical perspective.

Have to?

skyguy918 · « **Reply #185 on:** July 10, 2018, 07:48:22 PM »

Quote from: aygart on July 10, 2018, 06:43:55 PM

It is a talking point just like theirs

Quote from: aygart on July 10, 2018, 06:44:52 PM

Have to?

Okay, as usual you're making it harder to understand your point instead of easier. Let's give it a try anyway. So you're saying that you agree that it's logically relevant whether the D's can name a judge both they and Trump could support, but that interviewers should press them on that point anyway for some reason?

aygart · « **Reply #186 on:** July 10, 2018, 08:16:57 PM »

Quote from: skyguy918 on July 10, 2018, 07:48:22 PM

Okay, as usual you're making it harder to understand your point instead of easier. Let's give it a try anyway. So you're saying that you agree that it's logically relevant whether the D's can name a judge both they and Trump could support, but that interviewers should press them on that point anyway for some reason?

It is a rhetorical method of showcasing their extremity. I am sure that the liberal interviewers will not do it. I was more referring to conservative interviewers or conservative commentators who are co guests.

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #187 on:** July 10, 2018, 08:21:42 PM »

Would it be fair to say the liberal leaning justices reflect more the thinking on the country?

shapsam · « **Reply #188 on:** July 10, 2018, 08:23:46 PM »

Quote from: ChaimMoskowitz on July 10, 2018, 08:21:42 PM

Would it be fair to say the liberal leaning justices reflect more the thinking on the country?

No, they reflect the thinking of liberals.

whYME · « **Reply #189 on:** July 10, 2018, 08:28:22 PM »

Quote from: aygart on July 10, 2018, 03:57:41 PM

Merrick Garland does not count as an answer.

Even if did count, (and I don't think it counts as realistic) they'd need to provide a second pick.

Quote from: skyguy918 on July 10, 2018, 05:23:24 PM

I'm speaking specifically to aygart's assertion that they have to suggest an alternative if they want to oppose. That's simply not true. Not from a legal perspective and not from a logical perspective.

Did you read the article he was quoting?

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #190 on:** July 10, 2018, 08:28:44 PM »

Quote from: shapsam on July 10, 2018, 08:23:46 PM

No, they reflect the thinking of liberals.

But isn't most of the country liberal?

shapsam · « **Reply #191 on:** July 10, 2018, 08:31:19 PM »

Quote from: ChaimMoskowitz on July 10, 2018, 08:28:44 PM

But isn't most of the country liberal?

"Elections have consequences"

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #192 on:** July 10, 2018, 08:33:32 PM »

Quote from: shapsam on July 10, 2018, 08:31:19 PM

"Elections have consequences"

It was a simple question. Why are some of you so afraid to answer a simple question?
I am not talking about elections or SCOTUS picks.

whYME · « **Reply #193 on:** July 10, 2018, 08:35:39 PM »

Quote from: ChaimMoskowitz on July 10, 2018, 08:28:44 PM

But isn't most of the country liberal?

Define liberal.

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #194 on:** July 10, 2018, 08:37:45 PM »

Quote from: whYME on July 10, 2018, 08:35:39 PM

Define liberal.

...a person of liberal views.

A political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality.

skyguy918 · « **Reply #195 on:** July 10, 2018, 08:40:42 PM »

Quote from: aygart on July 10, 2018, 08:16:57 PM

It is a rhetorical method of showcasing their extremity. I am sure that the liberal interviewers will not do it. I was more referring to conservative interviewers or conservative commentators who are co guests.

Why is it an extreme position? Is it any less extreme than the R's being unable to do the same (name judges that everyone will support)?

Quote from: whYME on July 10, 2018, 08:28:22 PM

Did you read the article he was quoting?

I certainly did - before it was posted here in fact. Care to explain why you ask?

skyguy918 · « **Reply #196 on:** July 10, 2018, 08:48:51 PM »

https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1016491367168724992

aygart · « **Reply #197 on:** July 10, 2018, 08:50:39 PM »

Quote from: skyguy918 on July 10, 2018, 08:40:42 PM

Is it any less extreme than the R's being unable to do the same (name judges that everyone will support)?

Fact Check-False

5 Rs voted for Kagan and 9 for Sotomayor.

skyguy918 · « **Reply #198 on:** July 10, 2018, 08:54:28 PM »

Quote from: aygart on July 10, 2018, 08:50:39 PM

Fact Check-False

5 Rs voted for Kagan and 9 for Sotomayor.

What does that have to do with the current nomination?

aygart · « **Reply #199 on:** July 10, 2018, 08:57:39 PM »

Quote from: skyguy918 on July 10, 2018, 08:54:28 PM

What does that have to do with the current nomination?

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say, but you sound very disingenuous.

The Ds cannot give any support to anyone at all nominated by Trump. Whomever it would have been the nominee would be "about to destroy democracy" as evidence by all of their prewritten statements before they even knew who the nominee was. This contrast with Rs of whom some voted for an Obama nominee.