Skip to main content

View Diary: Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 'Today, my ACLU connection would probably disqualify me' for Supreme Court (66 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  Just like... (5+ / 0-)

      You can't hold hostage the good faith of the U.S. to honor it's debt? Nothing, nothing is taboo for today's Republicans.

    •  Whaaaaaaa???? (0+ / 0-)

      Not only is this completely irrelevant to the point the other commenter is making, it's completely untrue.  There have been numerous occasions where a Supreme Court seat has been left vacant due to death or resignation.  After the resignation of Fortas, his seat was vacant for nearly an entire year.

      •  Actually, over a year. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        But those were nominees who got floor votes and were rejected.  They can't deny an upperdown on the nominee.

        •  Yes they can, and even if they can't, so what. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Is this some sort of a reference to the Gang of 8 plus a Lieberman?  What on earth makes you think they can't deny an up or down vote on a nominee?  

          Seriously, what about this group of 40+, Mitch McConnell lead, 'need 60 votes in the Senate' Republicans makes you think they can't deny an up or down vote from now until a Republican is in the White House?

          But even if this is correct, it still doesn't mean that "you" (whoever "you" is supposed to be) can't can't leave a Supreme Court seat vacant.  Both the Senate and the President can, and has, left a Supreme Court seat vacant.

          You're shifting the argument.  First it's 'they wouldn't deny an old nominee' then it's ''you' can't leave a seat vacant' and now it's 'they can't deny an up or down vote.'  

          Well that's been debunked now also, so where is the argument shifting next?

          •  It's what I didn't say (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Obama won't nominate anyone to whom they'd deny an upperdown.

            •  You're shifting your argument into... (0+ / 0-)

              a nice little circle.

              In that case, Ginsburg is right, because Obama wouldn't nominate her.  She wouldn't get an up or down, regardless of her age, silly as that argument was in the first place.

              Your tendency to present these 'hide-the-ball' arguments in discussions of the judicial branch and DOJ is disturbing.  If your point was 'what you didn't say,' don't you owe some explanation of the ulterior motive you had in not saying so in the first place?  Or are you simply talking out your ass and refuse to concede a point?

              •  But at the same time ... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                ... had Obama nominated a 60-year-old woman who had already served on the appellate courts for 13 years and prior to that spent time with the ACLU, I do think she would have been confirmed -- because the alternative of a 50-year-old nominee would have been worse for the GOP.

                •  As you add another shell (0+ / 0-)

                  to your game of 'hide the ball.'  

                  Drifting, shifting, diverting, splitting hairs, collateral arguments.  All signs of someone who knows he's wrong, or hiding an ulterior motive.  Which is it Adam?

                  Next time the choice of SC nominee comes down to such an either or choice like you present, let me know, and I will donate $10 to the candidate of your choice.  If there are more possibilities, you donate $10 to a candidate of my choice.  How's that?

                  In case you didn't notice, a '50 year old alternative' was confirmed in 2010, and Lugar, Gregg, Graham, and the Maine twins wouldn't get the job done today.  She was a Larry Summers/Goldman Sachs/Chicago School approved nominee...and you think a 13 year ACLU lawyer would get an up or down simply because she's 60?  You're absurd Adam, or completely full of shit, Adam.

                  Now proceed to reply with another completely irrelevant, easily refuted disingenuous non-point.  I'll read it, shake my head, sigh, and mourn for this community that trusts you on these issues but fails to recognize your deceit.

                  •  Kagan was a blank slate (0+ / 0-)

                    And there was nothing to attack her on.  I don't know where you get the Summers/GS thing from.

                    •  As predicted. (0+ / 0-)

                      But I'll play.  So what if Kagan was a blank slate?  What does that have to do with anything?  You said the GOP would be scared of a 50 year old.  What a shock, Adam, you shifted the argument yet again.  Care to come up with your caveats before I point out your bullshit for once?  Just once?

                      Amazing how you know off the top of your head that Fortas's seat remained vacant for more than a year (by a couple of weeks), but you don't know that Larry Summers hand picked Kagan to be Dean of Harvard Law, or her connection to Goldman Sachs.  

                      Now, to preempt your obvious retort that she didn't have any decision making power at Goldman Sachs, it doesn't change the fact that you don't get appointed Dean of Harvard Law or to a Goldman Sachs advisory position if you don't agree with the world view of Larry Summers or Goldman Sachs.

                      Goldman Sachs doesn't pay you $10K per year for one meeting to think freely about global markets.  It pays you $10K per year for one meeting so you'll use your power and influence in ways that benefit Goldman Sachs.

    •  Untrue (0+ / 0-)

      There are 19th century precedents for Supreme Court nominees not being confirmed, so the next President could fill a vacancy. It is not impossible for the Supreme Court to functiion with one or two vacancies for an extended period.

      There is no man alive who is sufficiently good to rule the life of the man next door to him. Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris, M.P.

      by Gary J on Wed Aug 31, 2011 at 04:12:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site