Author Topic: Kennedy Replacement DDF Shortlist (Read 58854 times)

whYME · « **Reply #340 on:** July 15, 2020, 01:53:10 PM »

Quote from: CountValentine on July 15, 2020, 01:16:04 PM

I am going to take a wild guess and will say no one got that from your post.

I did.

ExGingi · « **Reply #341 on:** July 15, 2020, 01:59:46 PM »

Quote from: whYME on July 15, 2020, 01:53:10 PM

I did.

Great minds think alike.

zh cohen · « **Reply #342 on:** July 15, 2020, 02:42:39 PM »

Quote from: whYME on July 15, 2020, 01:53:10 PM

I did.

As did I.

Quote from: ExGingi on July 15, 2020, 01:59:46 PM

Great minds think alike.

Either that or "Fools never differ"

ExGingi · « **Reply #343 on:** July 15, 2020, 04:13:00 PM »

Quote from: zh cohen on July 15, 2020, 02:42:39 PM

As did I.

Either that or "Fools never differ"

You can say whatever you want about me or yourself, but @whYME is no fool! Maybe it's has something to do with eating Kasha of Tomchei Temimim.

CountValentine · « **Reply #344 on:** July 15, 2020, 04:44:33 PM »

Our prayers were answered!!!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-supreme-court-justice-ginsburg-discharged-from-hospital/ar-BB16Mpek?li=BBnb7Kz

zh cohen · « **Reply #345 on:** July 15, 2020, 04:52:28 PM »

Quote from: ExGingi on July 15, 2020, 04:13:00 PM

Maybe it's has something to do with eating Kasha of Tomchei Temimim.

I actually ate from the kasha in the only Tomchei Temimim founded under the Nesius of the Rebbe

justaregularguy · « **Reply #346 on:** July 15, 2020, 05:08:20 PM »

Quote from: CountValentine on July 15, 2020, 04:44:33 PM

President Trumps prayers were answered!!!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-supreme-court-justice-ginsburg-discharged-from-hospital/ar-BB16Mpek?li=BBnb7Kz

FTFY

https://apnews.com/817d3a81c6aa0f818df2c3b59bf68c36

"Speaking at a news conference in the Rose Garden on Tuesday evening, President Donald Trump was asked about Ginsburg. He said he hadn’t heard she had been hospitalized. “I wish her the best. I hope she’s better,” he said."

CountValentine · « **Reply #347 on:** July 15, 2020, 05:12:20 PM »

Quote from: justaregularguy on July 15, 2020, 05:08:20 PM

FTFY

Who does that scumbag pray to, the almighty $?

justaregularguy · « **Reply #348 on:** July 15, 2020, 05:15:02 PM »

Quote from: CountValentine on July 15, 2020, 05:12:20 PM

Who does that scumbag pray to, the almighty $?

thats not a nice thing to say about someone

CountValentine · « **Reply #349 on:** July 15, 2020, 05:29:23 PM »

Quote from: justaregularguy on July 15, 2020, 05:15:02 PM

thats not a nice thing to say about someone

It was a question and I agree it was not nice to ask.

shaulyaakov · « **Reply #350 on:** July 15, 2020, 05:40:18 PM »

Quote from: Dan on July 15, 2020, 12:51:56 PM

Except the Rs had the senate 4 years ago. So the only precedent set is that you need to wait for the election if you don't control the Senate.

That wasn't at all introduced as a rationale at the time. Saying that the precedent McConnell set of not confirming a SCOTUS nominee so close to an election isn't applicable if the same party controls the Senate is completely revisionist.

YitzyS · « **Reply #351 on:** July 15, 2020, 05:40:41 PM »

Quote from: yos9694 on July 15, 2020, 12:39:14 PM

And even if there were a nomination to be made right now, there's a very clear precedent from 4 years ago to wait until after the election. Would be wildly unjust to only apply that standard to Obama.

This is a gross error, but I'm sure you would hear this over and over on MSM if the situation arose.

Trump nominating someone now is NOT the same thing as four years ago. Right now, Trump may still win the election, and is therefore NOT a lame duck president. If he LOSES the election, and THEN nominates someone, THAT would be comparable to what happened four years ago.

Right now Trump is not for sure in his last year of presidency. Thus, he has every right to nominate someone should the need arise.

YitzyS · « **Reply #352 on:** July 15, 2020, 05:42:25 PM »

Quote from: YitzyS on July 15, 2020, 05:40:41 PM

This is a gross error, but I'm sure you would hear this over and over on MSM if the situation arose.

Trump nominating someone now is NOT the same thing as four years ago. Right now, Trump may still win the election, and is therefore NOT a lame duck president. If he LOSES the election, and THEN nominates someone, THAT would be comparable to what happened four years ago.

Right now Trump is not for sure in his last year of presidency. Thus, he has every right to nominate someone should the need arise.

See attached picture.

yos9694 · « **Reply #353 on:** July 15, 2020, 05:45:06 PM »

Quote from: YitzyS on July 15, 2020, 05:40:41 PM

This is a gross error, but I'm sure you would hear this over and over on MSM if the situation arose.

Trump nominating someone now is NOT the same thing as four years ago. Right now, Trump may still win the election, and is therefore NOT a lame duck president. If he LOSES the election, and THEN nominates someone, THAT would be comparable to what happened four years ago.

Right now Trump is not for sure in his last year of presidency. Thus, he has every right to nominate someone should the need arise.

This is where being technically correct doesn't make you right. Your defense involves nuances but the average person will see the connection more easily than the differences, which makes all the difference. It's not going to take a media spin job to convince people.

Also since you're bringing up nuances, the situation with Obama was before he became a lame duck.

zh cohen · « **Reply #354 on:** July 15, 2020, 05:45:54 PM »

Quote from: shaulyaakov on July 15, 2020, 05:40:18 PM

That wasn't at all introduced as a rationale at the time. Saying that the precedent McConnell set of not confirming a SCOTUS nominee so close to an election isn't applicable if the same party controls the Senate is completely revisionist.

McConnell explicitly made the distinction at the time. You may not agree with him, but by claiming it didn't happen you are the revisionist.

CountValentine · « **Reply #355 on:** July 15, 2020, 05:46:59 PM »

Quote from: YitzyS on July 15, 2020, 05:40:41 PM

This is a gross error, but I'm sure you would hear this over and over on MSM if the situation arose.

Trump nominating someone now is NOT the same thing as four years ago. Right now, Trump may still win the election, and is therefore NOT a lame duck president. If he LOSES the election, and THEN nominates someone, THAT would be comparable to what happened four years ago.

Right now Trump is not for sure in his last year of presidency. Thus, he has every right to nominate someone should the need arise.

How can you compare someone who losses with someone who didn't? By the fact he lost tells you the voters don't want him making these decisions.

YitzyS · « **Reply #356 on:** July 15, 2020, 05:47:08 PM »

Quote from: yos9694 on July 15, 2020, 05:45:06 PM

This is where being technically correct doesn't make you right. Your defense involves nuances but the average person will see the connection more easily than the differences, which makes all the difference. It's not going to take a media spin job to convince people.

That is so dramatically wrong! Why won't Senate confirm the nominee of a lame duck president? Because he is no longer relevant. He's just setting policy for his successor. But when someone still have a 50/50 chance of remaining in office, why in the world shouldn't they be able to nominate someone??

mercaz1 · « **Reply #357 on:** July 15, 2020, 05:47:43 PM »

successor not predecessor

CountValentine · « **Reply #358 on:** July 15, 2020, 05:47:56 PM »

Quote from: zh cohen on July 15, 2020, 05:45:54 PM

McConnell explicitly made the distinction at the time. You may not agree with him, but by claiming it didn't happen you are the revisionist.

Link?

YitzyS · « **Reply #359 on:** July 15, 2020, 05:48:51 PM »

Quote from: CountValentine on July 15, 2020, 05:46:59 PM

How can you compare someone who losses with someone who didn't? By the fact he lost tells you the voters don't want him making these decisions.

Right! After he loses, he shouldn't be making those decisions. But until then, he is fully allowed to.

Otherwise, maybe we shouldn't let a president make decisions in his 3rd year also? Maybe also in his 2nd year?