Dereliction of Duty

maineman said:
Dixie still has not explained why he has said that Sotomayor is unacceptable to be on SCOTUS because 3 of the 5 opinions (60%) she wrote that were taken up by SCOTUS were overturned.... but, yet he NEVER demanded that Alito be rejected by the Senate as unacceptable because BOTH (100%) of the opinions that HE wrote that were taken up by SCOTUS were overturned. He rails loudly about a democratic president's nominee but says NOTHING about a republican president's nominee... and somehow, he wants us to believe that he is something other than a partisan hack.

And I dare you to find a post from ME that demanded that Alito be rejected as a SCOTUS associate... or Roberts... or even Scalia. Unlike Dixie, I think that winning elections give president's the right to chose their SCOTUS nominees and, unless they are WAY outside the mainstream, the Senate ought to confirm them.
Click to expand...

:thup:
 
Dixie said:
Taichicklet, you need to learn how to post. I have no intention of parsing out your commentary from within my own post, just so I can respond to you. Learn to post like the rest of us, or don't bother.
Click to expand...

LEARN TO READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY, JACKASS. Learn to follow the chronological order of posts and how to click the icons to go back to original postings. Here, let me dumb it down for you:

I congratulated Christie with a thumbs up.....the fool that professes to be Smarter than everyone else got pissed and railed against me...but HE just quoted my thumbs up, and NOT Christie's response, as I did.

Got that, bunky?

As for the rest of your BS...been there, done that as the previous posts show.
 
Dixie said:
Sototmayor has never served on the SC either, both her and Bork were nominated. THAT is the basis of comparison, the NOMINATIONS. So you have completely dodged my question again, and attempted to make the "argument" into something it has never been. I'm comparing apples to apples, and you are trying to change one of them into an orange while no one is looking.
Click to expand...

Bork had a confirmation hearing and his nomination was rejected. Sotomayor won't have her confirmation hearing for another month, yet you've already judged her and found her wanting, based on RW propaganda. You're the one who's dodging.

Btw, since when is "Latina" a race?
 
Dixie said:
Now YOU are comparing apples to oranges. Alito was appointed and is serving on the SC. He is obviously qualified, because his nomination was confirmed by the Senate. We are talking about Bork and Sotomayor, people who have been NOMINATED to serve.
Click to expand...

One of your own criteria for determining Sotomayor's unfitness for the position is the fact that she has had appellate opinions overturned by SCOTUS. I point out your blatant hypocrisy for not calling Alito unfit at the time of his nomination for the very same reason.
 
maineman said:
sez Mr. Shrug???? :lmao:

your opinions of my statements are worth less than a bucket of warm spit.

sorry.
Click to expand...
In other words, when you can't substantiate your position you ignore those who point that out. Just like your Christian support of abortion and gay marriage. *shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
In other words, when you can't substantiate your position you ignore those who point that out. Just like your Christian support of abortion and gay marriage. *shrug*
Click to expand...

it's up to YOU to substantiate your scurrilous accusation. You cannot find any posts by me where I have EVER supported stonewalling judicial appointments made by any president, republican or democrat.... and the reason that you cannot find such posts is that I have NEVER supported such behavior.

And if you have a problem with the theological positions of my denomination, I suggest you simply refrain from worshipping at one of our churches. I personally could care LESS what your opinion of it is.
 
maineman said:
it's up to YOU to substantiate your scurrilous accusation. You cannot find any posts by me where I have EVER supported stonewalling judicial appointments made by any president, republican or democrat.... and the reason that you cannot find such posts is that I have NEVER supported such behavior.

And if you have a problem with the theological positions of my denomination, I suggest you simply refrain from worshipping at one of our churches. I personally could care LESS what your opinion of it is.
Click to expand...

In other words, when you can't substantiate your position you ignore those who point that out. :)
 
christiefan915 said:
Bork had a confirmation hearing and his nomination was rejected. Sotomayor won't have her confirmation hearing for another month, yet you've already judged her and found her wanting, based on RW propaganda. You're the one who's dodging.

Btw, since when is "Latina" a race?
Click to expand...

I never said "Latina" is a race, where did you see me post such a thing? And what difference does that make, or have I said it does make? I have clearly NOT judged Sotomayor by propaganda, I have judged her by the fact she apparently has trouble with Constitutional interpretation, evidenced by the 3 cases which the SCOTUS found her incompetent in her decision. If Bork was rejected with NO cases overturned by SCOTUS, surely Sotomayor should be rejected with THREE! If Bork was rejected on "ideological grounds" that same standard should also apply to Sotomayor. If Senators have a duty and responsibility under the Constitution, to "advise and consent" on the president's selection, this should be the case regardless of who the nominee is, but Harry Reid hadn't read any of Sototmayor's decisions, and hopes he doesn't have to... he plans on voting to confirm her, based on the fact a Democrat president nominated her, and nothing more. So he effectively surrenders his Constitutional duty to advise and consent, a role that was all-too-important to sacrifice with a Republican nominee.

In short, Democrats are two-faced double-standard bastards!
 
Last edited:
christiefan915 said:
Bork had a confirmation hearing and his nomination was rejected. Sotomayor won't have her confirmation hearing for another month, yet you've already judged her and found her wanting, based on RW propaganda. You're the one who's dodging.

Btw, since when is "Latina" a race?
Click to expand...

But that seems to be the status quo for the rabid neocons on these boards....their opinion, predictions, prejudgements, suppositions and conjectures blend into facts and logic for them. And if you call them on it, you're accused of all sorts of things that the recorded posts just doesn't support. Worse yet, they'll just discount any information or point that contradicts their mantras. Oh well, life goes on!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top