Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site