(02-17-2016 11:31 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 11:24 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 11:20 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 09:32 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

You've used some dubious sources in the past, but this one takes the freaking cake!

Is any of that false?

Probably, but how would we know? It sources nothing, it names no names, it's purposely vague. And the CC has a horrible track record of accuracy. I've debunked numerous memes from them in the past.

But for starters, "Liberals" aren't trying to "guilt" anyone. They're just asking for the constitutionally required process to be carried out.

1. Schumer in 2007: Don't confirm any Bush Supreme Court nominee

Quote:Sen. Chuck Schumer said in July 2007 that no George W. Bush nominee to the Supreme Court should be approved, except in extraordinary circumstances, 19 months before a new president was set to be inaugurated.

"We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances," Schumer, a New York Democrat, said in prepared remarks to the American Constitution Society, a liberal legal organization.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schume...le/2583283

2. Flashback: Obama Tried to Filibuster Bush’s Supreme Court Pick

Quote:In a 2006 appearance on ABC's This Week, then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) criticized Democrats for being unable to effectively articulate the case against then-Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. Obama then expressed support for then-Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) efforts to filibuster Alito.

"I will be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values," Obama said. "When you look at his decisions--in particular, during times of war--we need a court that is independent and is going to provide some check on the executive branch."

http://www.dailywire.com/news/3387/flash...on-bandler

Yep, he is probably wrong...

but hey... liberals arent trying to guilt republicans...

Hillary Clinton Posts Epic Twitter Rant About SCOTUS Nomination Battle

Quote:Hillary Clinton has taken Republicans to task in an epic Twitter rant about the looming battle to name a new Supreme Court justice.

The Democratic presidential contender said Senate Republicans' pledges to block any nomination by President Barack Obama marked a "new low" in partisan politics.

"Refusing to do your job isn't righteous," Clinton wrote. "It's disgraceful."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-ele...le-n519236

Maybe He will appoint Hillary........She knows a thing or Two above, err About the Law !

(02-17-2016 09:36 AM)Greenroom Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 09:07 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 08:51 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  there was no nominee to block or confirm in 2007...nothing but bluster...just like the GOP today.

Is the statement false?

So what did they block or say that they would block.. Not talking about what ifs, but actual nominees?

Its one thing to say when there is nothing on the line, Its completely different when we are actually talking about doing the real job.

In 2007, it was just talk. Of course let's not forget how the Democrats blocked Robert Bork under Reagan.

Of course I'd be interested to know why what Schumer said in 2007 wouldn't apply today. He's one of the ones pushing for confirmation without a nomination either.

(02-17-2016 11:20 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 09:32 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

You've used some dubious sources in the past, but this one takes the freaking cake!

So are you arguing about his source, or is something that his source said meaningfully inaccurate?

(02-17-2016 05:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 11:20 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 09:32 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

You've used some dubious sources in the past, but this one takes the freaking cake!

So are you arguing about his source, or is something that his source said meaningfully inaccurate?

Thanks, we already covered it.

(02-17-2016 05:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Of course I'd be interested to know why what Schumer said in 2007 wouldn't apply today. He's one of the ones pushing for confirmation without a nomination either.

Huh??? Ho do you do that exactly?

(02-17-2016 11:23 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 04:40 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 04:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 04:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 03:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  That list is a joke. Nothing but activists, the last thing we need on the Supreme Court.

Then perhaps you should win a presidential election.

Perhaps if your savior wants an easy confirmation he should have held on to the Senate rather than having the people put Senators in place to block his leftist agenda.

Tom also ignores the fact we won a buch of elections, that's why the GOP has a voice in holding back their consent of activist judges.

Not ignoring anything. Nowhere did I say that the Senate did not have the right to hold back consent. They don't have the right however to not allow the President to nominate anyone.

Exactly. There exists a process, just follow it. The GOP controls the Senate and they would be foolish to say anything other than they will evaluate any candidate put forward as stipulated by the US Constitution. Outside of a moderate like Srinivasan, rejection of any other nominee will simply be political theater.

(02-17-2016 07:46 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 09:36 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 04:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 04:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 04:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Then perhaps you should win a presidential election.

Perhaps if your savior wants an easy confirmation he should have held on to the Senate rather than having the people put Senators in place to block his leftist agenda.

Hate to ruin your ignorant meme, but my savior is Jesus.

As for Obama, when did he ever say he wanted an "easy confirmation"? Hint, he didn't. He's simply asking for Congress to do its Constitutional duty and hold the hearings.

Hate to break your feel good slam, but your posting history suggests otherwise.

Who are you to judge someone's relationship with their God?

Maybe I need a new prescription. Can you please point out where I judged Tom on anything? Thanks.

(02-17-2016 06:03 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 05:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 11:20 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 09:32 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

You've used some dubious sources in the past, but this one takes the freaking cake!

So are you arguing about his source, or is something that his source said meaningfully inaccurate?

Thanks, we already covered it.

Not really, once I showed you the links, you never responded... So I guess silence is consent?


Sent from #ClutchCity using Tapatalk

Not so fast my friend. I didn't respond because you continue to use hack sources like the Washington Examiner. There's no point in trying to enlighten you.

But for #1. The meme says Democrats. And you pointed to one person, Schumer. And then you provided your source as the awful examiner. And funnier still, your link goes to a page that doesn't exist. Oops.

Here's what Schumer actually said:

Quote:“We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances,” Schumer said. “They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not.”

http://www.mediaite.com/columnists/youll...-hypocrite

Notice the bolded part. He provides the caveat for his comment about blocking. He does not say no period. He only says that the nominee should be vetted. That's all the democrats and Obama (and me) are asking for now.

Schumer also clarified recently what he meant:

Quote:"What I said in the speech given in 2007 is simple: Democrats, after a hearing, should entertain voting no if the nominee is out of the mainstream and tries to cover that fact up," he added Tuesday.

Schumer rips GOP for 'patently false' use of Supreme Court speech

And further still...again...he is the only one who made such a statement. It was not "Democrats".

(02-18-2016 10:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Not so fast my friend. I didn't respond because you continue to use hack sources like the Washington Examiner. There's no point in trying to enlighten you.

But for #1. The meme says Democrats. And you pointed to one person, Schumer. And then you provided your source as the awful examiner. And funnier still, your link goes to a page that doesn't exist. Oops.

Here's what Schumer actually said:

Quote:“We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances,” Schumer said. “They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not.”

http://www.mediaite.com/columnists/youll...-hypocrite

Notice the bolded part. He provides the caveat for his comment about blocking. He does not say no period. He only says that the nominee should be vetted. That's all the democrats and Obama (and me) are asking for now.

Schumer also clarified recently what he meant:

Quote:"What I said in the speech given in 2007 is simple: Democrats, after a hearing, should entertain voting no if the nominee is out of the mainstream and tries to cover that fact up," he added Tuesday.

Schumer rips GOP for 'patently false' use of Supreme Court speech

And further still...again...he is the only one who made such a statement. It was not "Democrats".

Yet you use mediaite.com??? what the **** is that?

Edit: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schume...le/2583283

(02-17-2016 06:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 05:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Of course I'd be interested to know why what Schumer said in 2007 wouldn't apply today. He's one of the ones pushing for confirmation without a nomination either.

Huh??? Ho do you do that exactly?

Has anyone been nominated?

No

So it's just as early to be insisting that Congress act when there isn't anything for them to act on. When Obama does his job (and he is correct to give a little time) THEN it will be time for Congress to hold hearings.... but there should be no 'requirement' that they do, or do not confirm anyone.

(02-16-2016 07:59 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Kennedy is not one of the more liberal justices. According to Supreme Court Review,

Poor/confusing choice of words on my part. He's certainly far more liberal than Bork (Reagan's first nomination) or Scalia... and despite being nominated by a conservative Republican, he often sides with the liberal justices. He is far more liberal than most of the justices nominated by conservatives.... that in my mind makes him one of the more liberal justices in this context. If Obama were to nominate a liberal who sides with 'the conservatives' as often as Kennedy sides with 'the liberals', (s)he would be one of the more conservative judges in my view... and I'd think the Congress should affirm such a judge (if they had reason to think that was going to be the outcome). A conservative liberal is about as good as you're going to get from Obama... and you'd never get that from Hillary or Bernie (if they win). You MIGHT do better under a Republican President, but you also might get a chance to replace a liberal with a conservative.

(02-18-2016 10:36 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 10:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Not so fast my friend. I didn't respond because you continue to use hack sources like the Washington Examiner. There's no point in trying to enlighten you.

Yet you use mediaite.com??? what the **** is that?

Edit: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schume...le/2583283

To both, with respect: Debating sources isn't enlightening and only deflects from the conversation. Bad sources sometimes have it right... and it should be obvious that no matter whom the source, it has been repeated often enough even in 'competing' sources that it is true.

Perfect example

Quote:But for #1. The meme says Democrats. And you pointed to one person, Schumer. And then you provided your source as the awful examiner. And funnier still, your link goes to a page that doesn't exist. Oops.

Here's what Schumer actually said:

Quote:“We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances,” Schumer said. “They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not.”

http://www.mediaite.com/columnists/youll...-hypocrite

Notice the bolded part. He provides the caveat for his comment about blocking. He does not say no period. He only says that the nominee should be vetted. That's all the democrats and Obama (and me) are asking for now.

Schumer also clarified recently what he meant:

Quote:"What I said in the speech given in 2007 is simple: Democrats, after a hearing, should entertain voting no if the nominee is out of the mainstream and tries to cover that fact up," he added Tuesday.

Schumer rips GOP for 'patently false' use of Supreme Court speech

And further still...again...he is the only one who made such a statement. It was not "Democrats".

None of this makes the other comments untrue or misleading.

And No he wasn't the only one. That's just silly to think that he was the only one who said it... given his position. Biden (head of the senate judiciary committee) said things in support of it, but not that specifically...

Unfortunately we didn't have 24/7/365 video clips of every comment back then.


All this is is someone who made a politically bad comment, and then tried to walk it back (and like Pacquio, failed)

Proving that a justice isn't out of the mainstream isn't 'extraordinary circumstances'.... The entire purpose of these hearings is to do just that... demonstrate 'where they are'. More to the point, Schumer's version of 'mainstream' isn't anywhere near 'the middle'. Its not as if that has some agreed upon definition.

It also isn't at all some monumental stretch to assume that a liberal president going into his last few months would seek to make a significant impact on the courts... just as he has and admitted so in his executive orders... especially when one of its most conservative justices is being replaced. I am sure that if you asked Republicans who made comments (and it has been some, not 'Republicans') they all would say... of course... if he were to nominate someone from what THEY saw as 'the mainstream', they would be more than happy to affirm such a candidate.

It's just that none of them expect that he would.

Another difference is that Reagan had a sitting (and relatively popular) VP running for Pres. Democrats really didn't have much of a shot at defeating 41... so they were fighting overwhelmingly to keep the Senate. That isn't at all or in any way the case today.

Hambone10 Wrote:None of this makes the other comments untrue or misleading.

Thanks HB, but not quite. The quote says "Democrats". Schumer is not "Democrats". He's one guy.

Quote:“Democrats in 2007 said that NO George W. Bush nominee should be approved…this was 19 MONTHS before Obama would be inaugurated.”

"Democrats" did not say this. Furthermore, ever Schumer did not say this. As I provided, he added the caveat that as long as the nominee is within the mainstream that he could be fine and possibly approved. He also said that "except in extraordinary circumstances." He did not say no nominee should be approved as McConnell et. al. are saying now.

When only one person says that 19 months out, that in no way means the whole party...or even several of them...are advocating this.

On the other hand, the current stance of many many Republicans is to delay everything until the next president.

That clearly is out of context and misleading. You're not being objective to say otherwise. Sorry.

Kennedy is far from liberal and has been an essential conservative jurist on many issues. He has sided with conservatives in their far more limited view of the commerce and necessary and proper clauses, he has continually sided with the conservatives on states rights issues and in fact been probably the most influential conservative jurist on those types of issues (the main case I remember him going against State's rights was in Bush v. Gore where the 5 conservatives jurists rules against Florida State law citing the liberal favorite equal protection clause to stop the recounts.) and he's been one of the foremost proponents of corporate personhood (a major conservative pet issue).

Conservatives consider him liberal because on issues of personal liberty he tends to side with the liberals.

(02-18-2016 01:03 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Hambone10 Wrote:None of this makes the other comments untrue or misleading.

Thanks HB, but not quite. The quote says "Democrats". Schumer is not "Democrats". He's one guy.

Quote:“Democrats in 2007 said that NO George W. Bush nominee should be approved…this was 19 MONTHS before Obama would be inaugurated.”

"Democrats" did not say this. Furthermore, ever Schumer did not say this. As I provided, he added the caveat that as long as the nominee is within the mainstream that he could be fine and possibly approved. He also said that "except in extraordinary circumstances." He did not say no nominee should be approved as McConnell et. al. are saying now.

When only one person says that 19 months out, that in no way means the whole party...or even several of them...are advocating this.

On the other hand, the current stance of many many Republicans is to delay everything until the next president.

That clearly is out of context and misleading. You're not being objective to say otherwise. Sorry.

Pot:Kettle

'Democrats' doesn't mean all of them, or even necessarily MOST of them. Certainly it wasn't Republicans saying it.

If you think Schumer was alone in his comments... literally the 'only' democrat as you want to characterize, you're sorely misinformed. The head of the Senate Judiciary Committee said similar (only slightly more 'correct') things. Plenty of others said similar things. I don't think there has EVER been anything that a remotely leading political leader of either party has EVER said that he didn't have subordinates, underlings and certainly pundits and voters echoing in far GREATER, not lesser degrees. If you were there, your memory is fading. Mine is pretty clear on the issue, especially given what I was doing/where I was at the time. Schumer was not alone, and he had numerous underlings and minions and voters and people in the press and other Congressmen agreeing with him.

(02-18-2016 01:05 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Kennedy is far from liberal and has been an essential conservative jurist on many issues.

Conservatives consider him liberal because on issues of personal liberty he tends to side with the liberals.

I'm just not sure what we're debating here. So he sides with the liberals on some issues, and sides with conservatives on others. That doesn't make him a conservative. It makes him a conservative liberal, or a liberal conservative. If you want to say he's a social liberal and fiscal conservative or something, okay... but it makes no sense to say that he's essentially a conservative, except on personal liberty issues... when speaking about a Constitutional Justice. The constitution is SIGNIFICANTLY about securing personal liberties/limiting the scope of government. The problem with Kennedy (and so called liberals, in my view) is that he doesn't seem to believe in personal liberty. Personal liberty means the right to have unpopular and even 'wrong' beliefs. Lots of beliefs that are popular today were unpopular in the past, often recently. If we decide that there is a single code by which all people must follow (what many liberals seem to endorse) then that puts an end to 'progress', almost by definition.... and you become the totalitarian state that many associate with 'the right'.

This is not an attempt to say he is 'bad' for his views. It is merely an attempt to distance him from being anywhere NEAR Bork (whom he replaced as a candidate) or Scalia (whom is the subject today).

(02-18-2016 04:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If you think Schumer was alone in his comments... literally the 'only' democrat as you want to characterize, you're sorely misinformed. The head of the Senate Judiciary Committee said similar (only slightly more 'correct') things. Plenty of others said similar things. I don't think there has EVER been anything that a remotely leading political leader of either party has EVER said that he didn't have subordinates, underlings and certainly pundits and voters echoing in far GREATER, not lesser degrees. If you were there, your memory is fading. Mine is pretty clear on the issue, especially given what I was doing/where I was at the time. Schumer was not alone, and he had numerous underlings and minions and voters and people in the press and other Congressmen agreeing with him.

Simple solution. Name them and source when and what they said, and I'll gladly say I was wrong.

(02-18-2016 04:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Simple solution. Name them and source when and what they said, and I'll gladly say I was wrong.

Well, there are going to be millions of things then that we can't talk about. Believe it or not, not every word uttered by every person is captured on the internet.

My primary source is my own eyes, plus the simple logic that there are innumerable sheep in this world and always have been. The idea that Schumer was a lone wolf here is pure folly. If you choose not to agree, that it fine... but I think we all (even you) know better.

Since all we're arguing about is whether it is 'democrats' or 'a' democrat that said this, I hardly think it important enough for me to peruse the internet to prove something I didn't say myself to you.

Ted Kennedy was VERY vocal, as was Joe Biden. This wasn't their primary objection to Bork, but it was certainly among them. Howell Heflin said this would be the most exhaustive/most compete examination of any nominee EVER to the Supreme Court. I don't know what you think THAT means, but it seems pretty clear. All admitting that Bork was IMMENENTLY qualified.... and yet all completely unwilling to confirm him under any circumstances.

The biggest difference is that Reagan was replacing a retiring justice, so he knew about it before it happened and those Senators actually had a target to point to. All Republicans have to point at is Obama's track record, his most recent end-arounds w/r/t Executive orders and his own words about using the system to accomplish the goals that he hasn't been able to accomplish legislatively (a paraphrase of course).

Bottom line, it's not as different as you guys seem to want to make it... and really doesn't make any difference. If they had said nothing at all, they still wouldn't vote to confirm a liberal justice any more than Democrats voted to affirm Bork.

The arguments are stupid.

Hambone10 Wrote:Since all we're arguing about is whether it is 'democrats' or 'a' democrat that said this, I hardly think it important enough for me to peruse the internet to prove something I didn't say myself to you.

Then stop butting in and arguing it. You do this all the time!

But I'm not talking about Bork, never was. I'm/We're talking about Schumer and what he said around 2007, 19 months before the inauguration. And yes, he was on an island then. No one else said anything even remotely the same at that time.

The meme is not correct.

Just admit it.

It's not hard.

But I was quite amused that your source was your eyes and not your ears...but I digress.

And yes, I agree that it's wrong on both sides. Never really said otherwise though.

(02-19-2016 11:01 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Hambone10 Wrote:Since all we're arguing about is whether it is 'democrats' or 'a' democrat that said this, I hardly think it important enough for me to peruse the internet to prove something I didn't say myself to you.

Then stop butting in and arguing it. You do this all the time!

But I'm not talking about Bork, never was. I'm/We're talking about Schumer and what he said around 2007, 19 months before the inauguration. And yes, he was on an island then. No one else said anything even remotely the same at that time.

The meme is not correct.

Just admit it.

It's not hard.

But I was quite amused that your source was your eyes and not your ears...but I digress.

And yes, I agree that it's wrong on both sides. Never really said otherwise though.

UT, you and meme's don't seem to work very well together...perhaps you should stop using them.