Skip to main content

View Diary: With Reid saying he's a no vote, Michael Boggs's federal court nomination appears to be in trouble (253 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No, I successfully made a point about... (0+ / 0-)

    a Democratic president nominating a lower court judge, a Democratic Senate confirming him/her then successfully defeating that same judge's nomination for the SCOTUS... I (successfully) asked you for an example of same...

    You unsuccessfully (albeit hilariously) offered up Robert Bork as an example... who was nominated (twice) by Ronald Reagan... a former Democrat but a Republican nonetheless... you were so close!

    Here ya go...

     photo TVA_Douglas_Dam_jack_hammer_zps38027542.gif

    Baby, where I come from...

    by ThatSinger on Wed May 14, 2014 at 08:05:04 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Nope, go back and read what you wrote. (0+ / 0-)

      You are moving your goal posts to add more and more criteria to what was once merely "similar." You didn't ask about who nominated, merely a "similar" situation.

      You wouldn't need to go back and change your criteria if you had been successful.

      Since the alleged threat is that Democrats wouldn't dare flip-flop and oppose someone they had previously supported, Robert Bork works just fine.

      Perhaps some supposedly-cute pictures and over-the-top self-congratulations can will be enough to make you think this hasn't been a disastrous exchange for you, but to the rest of us, it just makes you look like you're trying too hard.

      (BTW, do you EVER leave your computer? Do you have any sort of social or family life at all?)

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Wed May 14, 2014 at 08:10:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Here, let me help you: (0+ / 0-)
      When you get a minute, would mind listing the nominations Democrats have successfully opposed under similar circumstances in... oh, say the last 50 years?
      If you want to keep narrowing "similar circumstances" down until you get the result you want, have at it.

      But unless you can come up with some reason to consider the question of who nominated the judge, as opposed to how the Senate treated him before, to be the relevant question, you're just playing the "You can't make me admit it on the internet" game.

      And, not being someone who spends his life on comment threads, I don't find that game a whole lot of fun.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Wed May 14, 2014 at 08:18:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Right… "Similar circumstances"... (0+ / 0-)

        Where a Democratic president nominated a Supreme Court justice, confirmed by a Democratic Senate and then nominated to the Supreme Court… Sorry, I just presumed that we didn't think a Democratic president would be the one doing the nominating for the Supreme Court for this particular individual… Given your "this is just a political ploy" scenario… That's why I said what if a GOP president nominated him… You're not very good at this are you?

        Either way, Bork was laughably inaccurate… Nominated to the lower court by a Republican, nominated to the Supreme Court by a Republican… Other than that bull's-eye!

        Goalpost is exactly where it was… You just unfortunately shanked it...

        Baby, where I come from...

        by ThatSinger on Wed May 14, 2014 at 08:26:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  First sentence should read "nominated a (0+ / 0-)

          Lower court justice"…

          Baby, where I come from...

          by ThatSinger on Wed May 14, 2014 at 08:28:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You can't even keep your own argument straight. (0+ / 0-)

          You were trying to argue that, if a future Republican President nominated this judge for SCOTUS, the Democrats wouldn't be able to oppose him.

          And now you're arguing that Robert Bork doesn't count as an example because he was nominated to the SCOTUS by a Republican.

          Oopsie.

          Art is the handmaid of human good.

          by joe from Lowell on Wed May 14, 2014 at 08:31:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Right... on what grounds would they oppose him? (0+ / 0-)

            After nominating and confirming him...

            "Too extreme"? Why then did they nominate and confirm him for a lifetime appointment?

            "Out of the mainstream"? Why then did they nominate and confirm him for a lifetime appointment?

            "Unqualified"? Why then did they nominate and confirm him for a lifetime appointment?

            You seem really confident that a viable opposition could be mounted to oppose his elevation to the higher court... you also seem woefully inept at explaining how... "they'd just do it" is not a viable explanation...

            Keep flailing... you're quite entertaining in a "watching Gallagher smash food items" kinda way...

            Baby, where I come from...

            by ThatSinger on Wed May 14, 2014 at 09:20:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Robert Bork DOESN'T qualify as an example... (0+ / 0-)

              He was nominated to the Appeals Court by a REPUBLICAN President (Reagan) and confirmed by a REPUBLICAN Senate... the REPUBLICANS controlled the Senate in 1982, the year Bork was nominated and confirmed to the DC Appeals Court...

              He was nominated to the SCOTUS by a REPUBLICAN President (Reagan) and his confirmation was denied by a DEMOCRATIC Senate in 1987...

              Other than that, he's an exact fit for my criteria... lol...

              I'm guessing you're ignorant to the fact that the GOP controlled the Senate when he was nominated... well, I'm guessing that you're ignorant to a lot, but this one is verifiable...

              At least now I can see why you parried to Abe Fortas...

              Thanks for the entertainment...

              Baby, where I come from...

              by ThatSinger on Wed May 14, 2014 at 09:30:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The ONLY way Bork would have qualified (0+ / 0-)

                would be if say, Jimmy Carter had nominated him to the Appeals Court and a DEMOCRATIC senate had confirmed him and THEN Reagan had nominated him for the SCOTUS and a DEMOCRATIC congress had tried to oppose him... we all (well most of us) know that's not at all what happened...

                You're not even close on this one... I suspect you realized that after you posted that mouth fart... hence "Abe Fortas"...

                Baby, where I come from...

                by ThatSinger on Wed May 14, 2014 at 09:33:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  I've already answer this: anything they want. (0+ / 0-)

              Any line they care to come up with.

              Oh, and this is exactly why the Abe Fortas example is so useful.

              Blah blah blah, flailing. Nice projection, Captain Desperate.

              Art is the handmaid of human good.

              by joe from Lowell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 09:51:00 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  "Any line they care to come up with"? (0+ / 0-)

                TRANSLATION: "I have no fucking idea...

                Thanks for admitting as such... because if you had any fucking idea, you'd have responded with it... seriously? You're not even going to attempt one possible strategy for opposing the nomination after confirming him? "They'll come up with something" is really your answer? HAHA!

                I mean, "Pete Rose isn't in the Hall of Fame" is about as relevant to the topic as "Abe Fortas wasn't elevated to Chief Justice AFTER being confirmed to the SCOTUS" in a thread about preventing lower court justices from being confirmed to the SCOTUS...

                You didn't think this out very well, did you?

                Baby, where I come from...

                by ThatSinger on Thu May 15, 2014 at 05:15:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Want yet another example the refutes you? (0+ / 0-)

          In addition to Robert Bork, whom the Democrats had no problem rejecting when a Republican President nominated him, despite the fact the Democrats had previously confirmed him...

          We have Abe Fortas, whom the Democrats rejected for elevation to Chief Justice, after they had previously confirmed him as an Associate Justice.

          So, what do we have here? Previous Democratic nomination? No problem, rejected. Previous Democratic confirmation? No problem, rejected. New Republican nomination after previous Democratic confirmation? No problem, rejected!

          Pal, I'm good enough at this to run circles around you, go to bed, come back, and do it again.

          Art is the handmaid of human good.

          by joe from Lowell on Wed May 14, 2014 at 08:36:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Abe Fortas? Really? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            i saw an old tree today

            I'm sorry, where did I write "confirmed as Associate Justice, rejected for elevation to Chief Justice?" Riddle me this, joe... he was still on the Court for life, right?

            Talk about moving the goalposts...

            You actually suck at this... you know how I know? Rule #1 in arguing on the internet... pal...

            1. Declaration of "victory" is a sure sign of defeat....

            Sleep tight...

            Baby, where I come from...

            by ThatSinger on Wed May 14, 2014 at 09:15:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're looking more and more desperate. (0+ / 0-)

              You've ceased to try to argue any point about the behavior of the Senate Democrats in rejecting nominees, and are just trying and failing to not technically be wrong on the internet.

              1. Declaration of "victory" is a sure sign of defeat....
              Wow. You don't even have enough self-awareness to avoid typing this after this little exchange?

              What a sorry little thing you are.

              Art is the handmaid of human good.

              by joe from Lowell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 09:49:32 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Speaking of "lack of self-awareness"... (0+ / 0-)
                not being someone who spends his life on comment threads,
                Rather funny coming from "someone" with more than twice as many comments as someone who's been here 3 years longer than he has...

                You see the contradiction here?

                Baby, where I come from...

                by ThatSinger on Thu May 15, 2014 at 05:09:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (120)
  • Community (58)
  • 2016 (45)
  • Elections (37)
  • Environment (35)
  • Media (33)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (33)
  • Republicans (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Iraq (27)
  • Barack Obama (27)
  • Law (27)
  • Civil Rights (25)
  • Jeb Bush (24)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Culture (22)
  • Economy (19)
  • Labor (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (18)
  • Senate (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site