Kennedy Replacement DDF Shortlist

[ExGingi]

...a person of liberal views.
A political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality.

If that's the definition, then most D's aren't liberal.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

If that's the definition, then most D's aren't liberal.

I didn't ask about D's or R's but see why you and others always just want to deflect.

[aygart]

If that's the definition, then most D's aren't liberal.

And most liberals voted for Trump! Liberals like both of his nominees.

[skyguy918]

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.

I sound disingenuous? You're imposing a ridiculous standard - that D's can't credibly oppose a nomination without suggesting an alternative. More specifically an alternative that Trump would nominate. That's disingenuous. The fact that a small number of R's voted for the 2 Obama justices is irrelevant (not to mention what you're implicitly saying about the rest of the R's, who didn't vote for them). Far more relevant I would think would be the nomination you're conveniently skipping over - Garland. Did the R's name 2 judges they would vote for that Obama might reasonably nominate back then?

[aygart]

I sound disingenuous? You're imposing a ridiculous standard - that D's can't credibly oppose a nomination without suggesting an alternative. More specifically an alternative that Trump would nominate. That's disingenuous. The fact that a small number of R's voted for the 2 Obama justices is irrelevant (not to mention what you're implicitly saying about the rest of the R's, who didn't vote for them). Far more relevant I would think would be the nomination you're conveniently skipping over - Garland. Did the R's name 2 judges they would vote for that Obama might reasonably nominate back then?

You are putting words in my mouth as I clearly reiterated a few times already that it is nothing more than to score rhetorical points. I am not sure where you are getting the idea that they can't credibly oppose blah blah. It is nothing more than political posturing on both sides. When you put words in my mouth that I very specifically said are incorrect then yes you are being disingenuous.

Regarding Garland they were very clear that they would not conduct bearings no matter who it was well before Garland was nominated. I am not sure what you want from that. They are not saying that Garland would end the world like the dems are saying now. Was their reasoning insincere? Of course. I quoted the Barone rule about it numerous times right here on DDF.

[skyguy918]

You are putting words in my mouth as I clearly reiterated a few times already that it is nothing more than to score rhetorical points. I am not sure where you are getting the idea that they can't credibly oppose blah blah. It is nothing more than political posturing on both sides. When you put words in my mouth that I very specifically said are incorrect then yes you are being disingenuous.

Regarding Garland they were very clear that they would not conduct bearings no matter who it was well before Garland was nominated. I am not sure what you want from that. They are not saying that Garland would end the world like the dems are saying now. Was their reasoning insincere? Of course. I quoted the Barone rule about it numerous times right here on DDF.

Bottom line, as best as I can tell, you suggested that (conservative) interviewers should press D senators who say they're not gonna vote for Kavanaugh to name alternatives that Trump would ever nominate. Rhetorical or not, it seems clear from your comments that you believe this is a good point, one that somehow highlights a crack in the D's position on the matter. Before I go any further, is that a fair summary of your position?

[aygart]

Bottom line, as best as I can tell, you suggested that (conservative) interviewers should press D senators who say they're not gonna vote for Kavanaugh to name alternatives that Trump would ever nominate. Rhetorical or not, it seems clear from your comments that you believe this is a good point, one that somehow highlights a crack in the D's position on the matter. Before I go any further, is that a fair summary of your position?

No. I think it is a point which will score them pointed with the electorate whether good or bad. It highlights something they would rather the public not see irrelevant off whether it is right or wrong.

[aygart]

Open Letter from Yale Law Students, Alumni, and Educators Regarding Brett Kavanaugh
Now is the time for moral courage — which for Yale Law School comes at so little cost. Perhaps you, as an institution and as individuals, will benefit less from Judge Kavanaugh’s ascendent power if you withhold your support. Perhaps Judge Kavanaugh will be less likely to hire your favorite students. But people will die if he is confirmed. We hope you agree your sacrifice would be worth it.

[aygart]

https://twitter.com/sallykohn/status/710226320655908864

[ExGingi]

Open Letter from Yale Law Students, Alumni, and Educators Regarding Brett Kavanaugh
Now is the time for moral courage — which for Yale Law School comes at so little cost. Perhaps you, as an institution and as individuals, will benefit less from Judge Kavanaugh’s ascendent power if you withhold your support. Perhaps Judge Kavanaugh will be less likely to hire your favorite students. But people will die if he is confirmed. We hope you agree your sacrifice would be worth it.

Even when dizzy from all the codes, fonts and sizes, I can confirm that until we reach the גאולה האמיתית והשלימה, people will indeed die if judge Kavanaugh is confirmed (and same is true even if he isn't confirmed).

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Even when dizzy from all the codes, fonts and sizes, I can confirm that until we reach the גאולה האמיתית והשלימה, people will indeed die if judge Kavanaugh is confirmed (and same is true even if he isn't confirmed).

Have no idea what that means but I am sure I disagree.

[aygart]

Have no idea what that means but I am sure I disagree.

He is saying that even if he is confirmed it will still take time for a conservative court to get us to immortality.

[ExGingi]

Have no idea what that means but I am sure I disagree.

You disagree that people will die regardless of whether Kavanaugh is confirmed or not???

[ChaimMoskowitz]

He is saying that even if he is confirmed it will still take time for a conservative court to get us to immortality.

WOW I was right.

[aygart]

WOW I was right.

You think it will be instantaneous?

[ExGingi]

WOW I was right.

Only that aygart was using inference and extrapolation (in a witty way well suited for the intended audience).

[shapsam]

https://twitter.com/SenatorReid/status/403615847190921216

[ExGingi]

You think it will be instantaneous?

I need @yesitsme (or whoever it is) to teach me how to give multiple likes to a post (is it something along the lines of 2bm/3bm/etc?)

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Only that aygart was using inference and extrapolation (in a witty way well suited for the intended audience).

You expected something different?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

You think it will be instantaneous?

Going to pass on this one.