Maybe they are trolling him to deliver a raging liberal. That would be to Rs advantage I think. Work it for election fun. If Rs win they get a better judge. If Rs lose they do no worse.
Biden in 1992: President should wait to fill any Supreme Court vacancies until after election
- Thread starter The Tradition
- Start date
So he didn't say the same thing. Good...we're making progress. And when he said he would have no problems considering a moderate nominee - that he would hold hearings and send the nominee to the floor? How does THAT compare to GOPpie rhetoric? You didn't address that.
Sorry, you're full of it. The video does not reflect the spin job you're trying to pull.
Why would a constitutional scholar like Joe Biden threaten to do something he knows is unconstitutional and advise his peers to consider doing something unconstitutional?
Did he say there would be no hearings on any nominee? Did he say they would refuse to even MEET with a nominee? Yes or no.
DID HE SAY, “Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.”? Yes or no.
Even three months before the election, was Biden STILL willing to fulfill his constitutional obligations? Yes or no.
You can somehow try to make it what it isn't...but it's more Trad bullshyte.
That's not on the video. Don't know where you're pulling that from, but it's not on the video.
It was more than four months until the election. Why do you and Cow Tipper suck so badly at reading calendars? And it was nearly 7 months until Bush's term as POTUS ended.
Just how arrogant is it that Senator Biden declared he would fulfill his constitutional obligations and consider the hypothetical nominee IF, and only IF, Biden decided that the nominee was sufficiently moderate?
I just caught this video clip again. He actually seems to be saying the president should just nominate after the election by one reading of that clip. As in between November and January. But you aren't seriously asking us to defend Joe or asking us to believe you respect Joe as any sort of scholar are you? I think we can all hold hands and toss Joe under the buss together.
OMG!!! People can find information from something OTHER THAN video snippets!!! Who knew??!!
Yeah, I'm sure ol' Joe would have been okay with lame duck GHWB making a last minute nomination on his way out the door rather than waiting for WJC to make the selection.
Joe is a constitutional scholar. I know this because he said so.
OMG!!! People can find information from something OTHER THAN video snippets!!! Who knew??!!
It would be helpful if he'd link to a source of this alleged modification of the statement on the video.
Here's another aspect to consider. When Biden said President Bush should consider waiting until after the election to name a nominee, he insisted that it was not for political reasons but rather so the nominee could be ensured a fair process.
"If that were the course we were to choose as a Senate, to not consider holding hearings until after the election, instead it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway - and it is - action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise it seems to me, Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution."
Is the campaign season not already underway? Are we not already in the full throes of an election year? Because if the election campaign is already underway then Joe seems quite adamant that it's not a good idea to hold hearings until after the election is over.
Blah, blah, blah. You found one video that Joe's actions and words didn't support in the weeks that followed it. Maybe you call this a win, I call it selective hearing.
Problem here is that Obama is far from being a lame duck. He's also got a full year until he's out the door. I would hardly call that last minute.
You didn't even come close to understanding the context of that post. Natural said that Joe just wanted Bush to wait until after the election rather than nominating someone in June. I replied that I don't think Joe would have been too keen on confirming a nominee during the final two months of Bush's term.
You said that Obama only has a few minutes before he's out the door. I pointed out that it's more like a full year. What exactly did I miss in your post? A hypothetical question from 25 years ago isn't the same as reality today, no matter how badly you want it to be.
Not quite a full year....
330
DAYS
08
HOURS
32
MINUTES
44
SECONDS
Time until Friday, January 20, 2017 (Washington DC, District of Columbia
Reeaaally? Color me shocked that you would get info from a site that spins like a top. Look it up.
*sigh* AGAIN...did he EVER say he would consider no nominee at all under any circumstances? If your answer is no...and it must be...then this has absolutely NOTHING to do with what the GOP is doing now. There is NO "Biden rule" and you look dumber every minute you try to pretend otherwise.
And you don't come close to understanding the context of Joe's quote. Read carefully: There was no vacancy on the Supreme Court when he made these statements. Biden was proposing changes to the nomination process after the bitter, drawn out fight to place Clarence Thomas on the bench. Biden was not, and never intended to impede any judicial nomination. He was proposing changes in an election year. The proposal was never taken up by the full Senate, and Joe dropped the idea.
Joe was butthurt about Thomas getting confirmed so he was threatening to stonewall any subsequent nominees if Bush didn't choose someone more moderate. It was the same thing with Chuck Schumer in 2007. He was butthurt about Alito so he too threatened to stonewall any subsequent nominees. The fact that these guys never got a chance to follow through with their threats doesn't change the fact that they made those threats.
That's bullshit and I think you know it. You got called out on being wrong about Biden's statement, and now your only choice is to double down. The GOP senate today is playing brinkmanship with the Federal government for the sake of making Obama fail, not caring what damage they do to the nation, now and in the future.
Did you watch the video? How does the fact that no actual vacancy existed change ANYTHING that ol' Joe said?
So you can't grasp the difference between arguing hypotheticals and actually obstructing the government?
A hypothetical argument is arguing what you'd do if the situation should arise.
He's flat-out WARNING the president to not go there (in a hypothetical way).
So making horseshit threats doesn't mean anything until you actually follow through? If that's the case then why are you so bent out of shape about what the Republicans are saying when they haven't actually done anything yet? What's Obama's record so far on getting his SCOTUS nominees confirmed?
You're absolutely right. The two scenarios are not 100.0% equal. No two scenarios are ever 100.0% equal. These two scenarios are about 95% equal.
Biden and Schumer threatening to block any nominee who doesn't meet their standard is almost, but not quite, the same as threatening to block any nominee. Especially since Republicans haven't actually done anything yet, no nominee has been named yet, and Republicans are probably just posturing to pressure Obama to nominate a moderate.
Perhaps you could show me the clause in our Constitution that states the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee shall hold hearings and a vote on the nominee at his own discretion if he feels like the nominee meets his personal criteria for holding moderate political views. I'll make some popcorn while you look that up for us.
Furthermore, Biden made it clear that he believed it wasn't fair to the nominee to hold hearings while we're in the throes of an election year. He made it clear that the President should seriously consider waiting until after the election to name a candidate. He made it clear that his colleagues in the Senate should seriously consider not holding hearings until after the election. He made it clear that he felt this was critical. It was probably just coincidence that he came up with this epiphany during an election year while the Republicans held the White House.
I'm sure he still feels the same way now that his team has the ball. I'm sure he's advising President Obama right now that he should seriously consider waiting until after the election to name a nominee. Because it's critical for our system of government, according to Joe Biden.
Fine, if McConnell acts like a reasonable human being and does his job, I'll eat crow. His history tells me I won't have to.
Similar threads
