He's correct, you know
- Thread starter CarolinaHawkeye
- Start date
Joe Biden was responsible for holding up a Supreme Court nomination? He refused to hold hearings for an open seat?
Dems are just mad because Republicans got a chance to do what Dems threatened to do in 1992 and again in 2007 but never got a chance to follow through on.
Or Dems just like to make crazy, empty threats. Either that or my earlier comment must be true. Which is it?
Who was opposed in 1992? In 2007, I assume you are referring to the comments made by Schumer over a year and a half before the election. Which nominee didn't get a hearing? Which nominee didn't get so much as a courtesy visit? Given your inability to make a case for any nominee receiving said treatment or even an endorsement by the party for such an action, your claims are rated "pants on fire". Your earlier comments have no relationship to truth.
Your attempts to excuse what DID happen as opposed to what was discussed by one or two people once again put the lie to your claims to be anything but a right-wing apologist.
Have you ever actually read the speech you're referring to, or are you just trusting Mitch McConnell's interpretation?
It won't matter to ole TJ. Once he has his hooks in an argument, you'll never dislodge him with anything like pesky facts.
I keep telling myself that if you read and reply to enough of my posts then somehow, some way, you’ll eventually interpret one of them exactly as it was written. But you continue to defy the laws of probability.
I did not say any nominees didn’t get a hearing or even a courtesy visit. Quite the opposite, in fact. I clearly stated that Dems threatened to do so and wanted to do so but never got the chance to follow through.
Why is that concept so difficult for you to understand?
Neither side should blink, Repubs should use Nuclear Option to push through BK, Democrats should then use it when it is there turn and we shall never show respect for those with differing opinions/ideas ever again.
We're all but there. It's probably going to take a massive national tragedy combined with a once in a millennia leader emerging to bring people together.
If a speech on the floor of the United States doesn’t move the needle for you then you have a high threshold.You have a really low threshold for what constitutes as a threat.
For the record, and I’ve said this in the past, I believe the Senate should have held hearings and a vote on Garland. I thought it was wrong to refuse and frankly I thought it was a poor strategic gambit, given that it appeared almost certain Hillary was going to win.You have a really low threshold for what constitutes as a threat.
But Democrats can’t simply erase the fact that both Biden and Schumer had previously declared their intentions to do the same thing if given the chance.
Here’s a fun activity for you to try this afternoon. Read the entire text of Biden’s speech and then try to imagine him saying those same exact words if a Democrat was in the White House.
I bet you can’t do it with a straight face.
It's pretty unreasonable to think that discussion in an arena specifically created for open debate would constitute a threat. Either way it's clear that you're either playing devil's advocate or very confused.
Your post is easy to interpret...it's totally incorrect. "Dems" didn't do anything. Interpret that. Biden gave a speech on June 25, 1992 proposing that no SCOTUS nominee be considered until after the next election. Interpret that. He didn't say the sitting president couldn't make the nomination. He didn't say the sitting president's nominee wouldn't get a hearing. He didn't predicate it on WHO the next president would be...he was concerned about how toxic the process had become. Had you bothered to read what he said and interpreted it correctly, you wouldn't be so wrong. Unfortunately, you didn't and you are.
Your other example is Chuck Schumer. I'll ask again...was his stance backed by the Dems as YOU claim? Citation? No? Let's interpret that. You couldn't be more wrong...again. If you wish to continue your charade then I can post any damn fool thing said be any Republican and claim it's the stance of the party as a whole...it's idiotic but if you want to play that game - fine. The laws of probability indicate that reading your posts will inevitably turn up such gross errors. That you get upset by that...well...that's on you.
Again, you don't even seem to have an accurate grasp of what Biden said in that speech.
The nonexistent "Biden Rule" that wingnuts love to tout is just another attempt at false equivalence on their part to somehow rationalize the irresponsible and unethical behavior of McConnell and Grassley in denying Garland the hearing he was entitled to. Pathetic actually.
It’s cute that you think the Senate has time between the election and the end of the legislative session to shoehorn hearings and a vote on a nominee. What are there, about 10 days that the Senate is in session during that period?
Ummm...I think if you go back in time to the latest post election period, the Senate was in session continually. Did you forget that? Why do you think they did that?
My hope is still that Trump is just that (the tragedy, not the leader). Right now we're still in the midst of it. The aftermath should be interesting.
Pro forma sessions held for a few minutes every third day and designed to block recess appointments don’t last long enough or have anywhere near enough members present to conduct any actual business, let alone debating a SCOTUS nomination.
Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that if there was a SCOTUS vacancy in summer 1992 and Bush submitted a nominee that Biden was going to give that nominee serious consideration between Clinton’s election win in November and the end of the legislative session in December?
That’s beyond ludicrous. But I guess maybe your imagination is more vivid than mine.
I find it amazing that any of you can defend any of the actions of these idiots.
I think Trump will need to get a lot worse for him to qualify as a uniting tragedy. 90% of cons still think he’s great.
I have OiT-like visions. One is of Trump completely losing his mind and saying fvckit, ratting out himself and everyone else connected to this mess, then jumps in a golf cart in his robe, putters down Pennsylvania Ave with whoever's going to arrest him on his tail (a sort of nod to the white Bronco chase), gets to the nearest cheeseburger drive-thru option, defiantly orders 69 cheeseburgers while being apprehended.
Ah shit, that won't unify us. Pubbers will call themselves the "party of honesty" for Trump's fessing up, hold it against Dems for not investigating fast enough for us to avoid this mess.
Goddammit.
Trump has already said plenty of horrible things that didn’t move the needle. I believe he would actually have to do something clear cut for his base to turn on him and I struggle to guess what that would be.
So....still "no" to both my questions. Thanks for having my back.
LOL...I'm talking about what each side actually did and you're claiming some magical insight into what you think they would have done and you think I'm the one with a vivid imagination.That's funny in a sad way. Even better...you're taking what one person proposed in regard to a hypothetical and trying to claim equity with what a unified GOP did in reality as a party. As I pointed out, facts really don't matter to you as long as you can defend the right-wing against all criticism. Your comparison is for shit. You know it...you won't ever admit it.
Does it bother you even slightly that Republicans are on the verge of packing the court with a guaranteed majority of authoritarians and corporate shills?
This is not a matter of R and D game-playing, it's an existential crisis for democracy.
Similar threads
