Originally posted by @mott-the-hoople as in all previous cases, the outgoing pres does not appoint a scotus member when close to the end of their term. previous precedent dictates that.
Nonetheless, this discussion's point is made, even though McConnell was within precedent's "dictates".
Originally posted by @mott-the-hoople it is telling that you cant answer my question.
Not telling at all. They are the "significant federal crimes" that are mentioned. I need not go through the court transcripts for you, to make my point. You tend to shift the focus of the discussion when your point goes aground. I am on to you, Mott.
Originally posted by @mott-the-hoople as in all previous cases, the outgoing pres does not appoint a scotus member when close to the end of their term. previous precedent dictates that.
The only thing more infuriating than this argument is the arrogant smugness with which Republican politicians go on television and defend it.
Would you please define "close to the end"? Ideally, could you please pick a number n days from the end of a presidential term which qualifies as "close to the end," and then please make a reasoned argument as to why n+1 days from the end of a presidential term does not qualify as "close to the end"? And then please make a reasoned argument as to why your proposed number n is different from n=0 days, as laid out by the Constitution?
Originally posted by @whodey I guess this comes to closest, but there was never a vote.
I reckon that is why Wiki did not list it.
Technicality.
Garland was defeated as much as Robert Ginsburg and Harriet Miers were.
I don't think it's fair to torpedo this nomination based on an allegation with no supporting evidence, but frankly, after Garland, it would serve the GOP right if it happened.
Originally posted by @js357 Not telling at all. They are the "significant federal crimes" that are mentioned. I need not go through the court transcripts for you, to make my point. You tend to shift the focus of the discussion when your point goes aground. I am on to you, Mott.
Its simple...what are the crimes you accuse Trump of? You cant name them because there isn't any...Just give me one crime and I wont call you a liar...until then...its on you.
Garland was defeated as much as Robert Ginsburg and Harriet Miers were.
I don't think it's fair to torpedo this nomination based on an allegation with no supporting evidence, but frankly, after Garland, it would serve the GOP right if it happened.
Originally posted by @mott-the-hoople Its simple...what are the crimes you accuse Trump of? You cant name them because there isn't any...Just give me one crime and I wont call you a liar...until then...its on you.
Originally posted by @mott-the-hoople Its simple...what are the crimes you accuse Trump of? You cant name them because there isn't any...Just give me one crime and I wont call you a liar...until then...its on you.
Conspiracy to commit a campaign finance violation with Michael Cohen.
Originally posted by @mott-the-hoople as in all previous cases, the outgoing pres does not appoint a scotus member when close to the end of their term. previous precedent dictates that.
An outright falsehood:
14 presidents have appointed 21 justices during presidential election years. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/02/29/one-third-of-all-u-s-presidents-appointed-a-supreme-court-justice-in-an-election-year/?utm_term=.059ea4cc2fac
Originally posted by @mott-the-hoople as in all previous cases, the outgoing pres does not appoint a scotus member when close to the end of their term. previous precedent dictates that.
Apparently, qualified history teachers are hard to find in Alabama.
Originally posted by @mott-the-hoople Its simple...what are the crimes you accuse Trump of? You cant name them because there isn't any...Just give me one crime and I wont call you a liar...until then...its on you.
I'm not your research assistant. The article I cited is what it is. Read it and the court record. If you don't want to, don't. Just dismiss it out of hand.
Originally posted by @zahlanzi who was the last president under investigation for several crimes who nominated a judge that said the president shouldn't be investigated for crimes and was accused of sexual assault?
Bill Clinton for 2 out of 3. Kavanaugh was investigating Bill Clinton at the time for Vince Foster's death. What do you suppose inspired Kavanaugh to evolve an opinion that president's should not be investigated since he was doing it himself?
21 Sep '18 22:01
Who was the last democrat nominee to be rejected?
Back to Top