I didn't say Republicans thought he was a moderate liberal at the time...I'm saying that's what he turned out to be.
And, oh my, such the hard on! Time to take a cold shower my friend...it should help with your butthurt as well.
I didn't say Republicans thought he was a moderate liberal at the time...I'm saying that's what he turned out to be.Yeah that's total bullshit. Kennedy was nominated because he was considered to be conservative. He was LESS conservative than Bork, but a moderate liberal? Total lie.
Wouldn't it be amazing if Obama nominated a reasonable and qualified person just to show up the Republicans and then they confirmed him or her in a reasonable amount of time just to show up Obama? The entire nation would grind to a halt as we all stopped and stared.
Well . . . It WAS a hunting trip. And we don't know Dick Cheney wasn't there . . .
But you're missing the bigger picture. When Democrats do something it's only because they are super ethical super heroes making the hard decisions to save the world, whereas when Republicans do the exact same thing it's because they are evil old white men who want to murder babies and puppies. (Unless they are black Republicans - then they need to get back on the plantation and do as their Democrat Party betters tell them to do. How dare they have their own ideas as though they are real people!)
I didn't say Republicans thought he was a moderate liberal at the time...I'm saying that's what he turned out to be.
And, oh my, such the hard on! Time to take a cold shower my friend...it should help with your butthurt as well.
Which one of Obamas past nominees haven't been qualified and unreasonable?
Off the subject but I finally heard Cruz speak for the first time this weekend - and it was in Spanish!Someone was listening to ted cruz this morning.
Kagan was unqualified. She had never been a judge at all, which in my mind makes her completely unqualified as there is absolutely no way to know if she would rule according to the law, or according to what she feels the law should be. Sotomayor was at least arguably unreasonable, having asserted many times that a Latina would make better decisions than a white person. I'd argue that makes her unqualified as well - racism is not really a quality we should be appointing for life in positions of ultimate power. Judicially however she was qualified.Which one of Obamas past nominees haven't been qualified and unreasonable?
The difference between reagans nomination and this time is that the dems during reagans time were willing to actually vet reagans nomination, not only that but when Reagan finally offered up someone reasonable, the dems gave him unanimous approval.
But yeah, dems are the same. /s
Not in D.C.Qualified and unreasonable? Most would reckon someone unreasonable to be unqualified.
Why do you even bother? ivwshane's a pathetic hack and has proven himself to be completely incapable of reasonably intelligent and objective discussion. I'll give you an 'A' for effort though.Kagan was unqualified. She had never been a judge at all, which in my mind makes her completely unqualified as there is absolutely no way to know if she would rule according to the law, or according to what she feels the law should be. Sotomayor was at least arguably unreasonable, having asserted many times that a Latina would make better decisions than a white person. I'd argue that makes her unqualified as well - racism is not really a quality we should be appointing for life in positions of ultimate power. Judicially however she was qualified.
Off the subject but I finally heard Cruz speak for the first time this weekend - and it was in Spanish!
Kagan was unqualified. She had never been a judge at all, which in my mind makes her completely unqualified as there is absolutely no way to know if she would rule according to the law, or according to what she feels the law should be. Sotomayor was at least arguably unreasonable, having asserted many times that a Latina would make better decisions than a white person. I'd argue that makes her unqualified as well - racism is not really a quality we should be appointing for life in positions of ultimate power. Judicially however she was qualified.
Context.A latina probably would make better decisions then a white person. But do you have the context for when she said that?
Off the subject but I finally heard Cruz speak for the first time this weekend - and it was in Spanish!
Kagan was unqualified. She had never been a judge at all, which in my mind makes her completely unqualified as there is absolutely no way to know if she would rule according to the law, or according to what she feels the law should be. Sotomayor was at least arguably unreasonable, having asserted many times that a Latina would make better decisions than a white person. I'd argue that makes her unqualified as well - racism is not really a quality we should be appointing for life in positions of ultimate power. Judicially however she was qualified.
Lots of SC justices were never judges before being appointed.Kagan was unqualified. She had never been a judge at all, which in my mind makes her completely unqualified as there is absolutely no way to know if she would rule according to the law, or according to what she feels the law should be.
He asked for the context of her statement and I gave it to him. I'm making no judgement here.So what? Are you saying she's wrong, that gender & ethnicity don't shape our life experiences?
Lots of SC justices were never judges before being appointed.
http://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html
You know that inconvenient facts have no influence on the formulation of right wing opinion, right?
Much better source. I'm glad to see that it acknowledges that liberals were concerned by her comments as well.ok thats still not context:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,”
thats what she said but it still doesnt have context. Was she referring to making judgements that impact a latina's life?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/14/gomez.supreme.court/index.html?iref=24hours
there read that. Or not. I dont care.
Qualified and unreasonable? Most would reckon someone unreasonable to be unqualified.
He's still conservative because he votes conservative "nearly half the time"? M'kay . . .
So I suppose an example of a moderate would be Darth Bader Ginsberg?
Why do you even bother? ivwshane's a pathetic hack and has proven himself to be completely incapable of reasonably intelligent and objective discussion. I'll give you an 'A' for effort though.
It was definitely a concession....and it's dishonest to frame it otherwise. He gave them what he thought was a much less extreme and much more moderate conservative...but it turned out that Kennedy was a lot more liberal than hoped for. Ooops.THe point is that he was accepted as toeing-the-line conservative when appointed. Reagan never "conceded" to liberals specifically with his nomination--he was a conservative.
You should always be skeptical of the side that claims 100% monopoly on facts.
Skeptical is good. Cynical is not.
Watch which one you see more often...
You know that inconvenient facts have no influence on the formulation of right wing opinion, right?