Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
So the only lawyer that should be admitted to the Supreme Court is one who’s record is 100%
Do you think any lawyer wins every case?
Since you have such great concern about the vetting of proposed justices, why do you think it is unnecessary in the current case?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
"So the only lawyer that should be admitted..."
You know you've clobbered a liberal, when you say something, and they respond with "so what you're saying is....." and then claim that you said something that you never came close to saying. The last pathetic act of a desperate and defeated person, who isn't adult enough to EVER say, "you know what? That's a valid point".
I never said one needs a reversal rate of 0% to be qualified for SC. What I said, was that reversal rate seems like a good barometer to use to rank judges. And if Sotomayor was reversed unanimously, and they went as far as saying her legal conclusion was "odd, to say the least", doesn't that suggest to you, that the SC thought she blew it big time? "Odd, to say the least", is pretty clear language...They thought her legal conclusion was stupid.
You asked me to cite the cases, and I did. You have ben destroyed, bitch-slapped, once again.
You asked for the cases, and I provided them. Is there any chance you can show me the same courtesy and respond to a question of mine? What's your opinion of the fat that Biden once famously said that presidents shouldn't make SC nominations in an election year, and if they do, the Senate should refuse to vote (they called that the Biden rule). Then in 2016, when it suited him, he flipped 180 degrees.
What's your opinion of that flip-flop, and how is it remotely different from McConnells obvious flip flop here?
Please try and respond to what I'm actually saying, not to what the voices in your head tell you I'm saying.