Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
TRANSLATION: I think Gorsuch is quite qualified to be a USSC justice. But I’ll still use every cockamamie excuse I can think of to keep him off the court, for no particular reason. If he were a leftist fanatic, then and only then would I let him on the court.If Gorsuch were filling a vacancy during Trumps term, I would support his nomination. He seems like a straight shooter, with strong values, even if they are conservative
But since he is filling a vacancy that occurred during Obama's term, I urge Democrats to take every available action to block filling the vacancy
Just acknowledging the new norm in selecting SCOTUS judgesTRANSLATION: I think Gorsuch is quite qualified to be a USSC justice. But I’ll still use every cockamamie excuse I can think of to keep him off the court, for no particular reason. If he were a leftist fanatic, then and only then would I let him on the court.If Gorsuch were filling a vacancy during Trumps term, I would support his nomination. He seems like a straight shooter, with strong values, even if they are conservative
But since he is filling a vacancy that occurred during Obama's term, I urge Democrats to take every available action to block filling the vacancy
In other words, my attitude is no different from the attitude of every leftist fanatic who hates everything Trump and will simply block and obstruct everything he does.
Republicans allowed Barack Obama to confirm TWO Supreme Court nominees early in his Presidency and then stonewalled one late in his second term! The precedence has been set. If you liberals want to hold up a confirmation in Trump's last year...feel free to do so. That way the voters will once again have a hand in the decision. Blocking a confirmation of someone who is eminently qualified in the first two months of a new Presidency is one political party telling the voters to go screw themselves.
Blocking a confirmation for a year is saying about the same, don't you think? You set the precedent, and proved we can survive without a full court. Why change now?
If Gorsuch were filling a vacancy during Trumps term, I would support his nomination. He seems like a straight shooter, with strong values, even if they are conservative
But since he is filling a vacancy that occurred during Obama's term, I urge Democrats to take every available action to block filling the vacancy
.
Just acknowledging the new norm in selecting SCOTUS judgesTRANSLATION: I think Gorsuch is quite qualified to be a USSC justice. But I’ll still use every cockamamie excuse I can think of to keep him off the court, for no particular reason. If he were a leftist fanatic, then and only then would I let him on the court.If Gorsuch were filling a vacancy during Trumps term, I would support his nomination. He seems like a straight shooter, with strong values, even if they are conservative
But since he is filling a vacancy that occurred during Obama's term, I urge Democrats to take every available action to block filling the vacancy
In other words, my attitude is no different from the attitude of every leftist fanatic who hates everything Trump and will simply block and obstruct everything he does.
The norm used to be qualified or not. Now it is strictly political
Republicans allowed Barack Obama to confirm TWO Supreme Court nominees early in his Presidency and then stonewalled one late in his second term! The precedence has been set. If you liberals want to hold up a confirmation in Trump's last year...feel free to do so. That way the voters will once again have a hand in the decision. Blocking a confirmation of someone who is eminently qualified in the first two months of a new Presidency is one political party telling the voters to go screw themselves.
Blocking a confirmation for a year is saying about the same, don't you think? You set the precedent, and proved we can survive without a full court. Why change now?
The "same" would be allowing Trump to name his choice for the Supreme Court as Obama was allowed to do with both Kagan and Sotomayor. The "same" would be blocking a confirmation if it occurs late in a President's term...AKA the "Biden Rule"...and what Republicans did in the last year of Obama's second term!.
Republicans allowed Barack Obama to confirm TWO Supreme Court nominees early in his Presidency and then stonewalled one late in his second term! The precedence has been set. If you liberals want to hold up a confirmation in Trump's last year...feel free to do so. That way the voters will once again have a hand in the decision. Blocking a confirmation of someone who is eminently qualified in the first two months of a new Presidency is one political party telling the voters to go screw themselves.
Blocking a confirmation for a year is saying about the same, don't you think? You set the precedent, and proved we can survive without a full court. Why change now?
The "same" would be allowing Trump to name his choice for the Supreme Court as Obama was allowed to do with both Kagan and Sotomayor. The "same" would be blocking a confirmation if it occurs late in a President's term...AKA the "Biden Rule"...and what Republicans did in the last year of Obama's second term!.
I know you have been told to cite the Biden rule, but I'm pretty sure you don't know what was actually said, or the circumstances they were said in.
Biden's floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than when Scalia died.
There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.
There was no nominee to consider.
The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.
Nonetheless, Biden took to the floor in a speech addressing the Senate president to urge delay if a vacancy did appear. But he didn't argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell did. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992, long before the next president was inaugerated
In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year
Once again...Barack Obama was given two liberal judges to mark his time in office...you on the left now refuse to give Donald Trump one because you feel "cheated" because Obama wasn't given the chance to name a third!
What's amusing about all this posturing now by the left is that very few of you screamed from the rooftops when Garland wasn't confirmed because you all believed that Hillary Clinton would be the next President of the United States and that SHE would be choosing not only Scalia's replacement but probably Ginsberg's replacement as well! A funny thing happened on the way to that result however...didn't it?
Republicans allowed Barack Obama to confirm TWO Supreme Court nominees early in his Presidency and then stonewalled one late in his second term! The precedence has been set. If you liberals want to hold up a confirmation in Trump's last year...feel free to do so. That way the voters will once again have a hand in the decision. Blocking a confirmation of someone who is eminently qualified in the first two months of a new Presidency is one political party telling the voters to go screw themselves.
Blocking a confirmation for a year is saying about the same, don't you think? You set the precedent, and proved we can survive without a full court. Why change now?
The "same" would be allowing Trump to name his choice for the Supreme Court as Obama was allowed to do with both Kagan and Sotomayor. The "same" would be blocking a confirmation if it occurs late in a President's term...AKA the "Biden Rule"...and what Republicans did in the last year of Obama's second term!.
I know you have been told to cite the Biden rule, but I'm pretty sure you don't know what was actually said, or the circumstances they were said in.
Biden's floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than when Scalia died.
There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.
There was no nominee to consider.
The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.
Nonetheless, Biden took to the floor in a speech addressing the Senate president to urge delay if a vacancy did appear. But he didn't argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell did. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992, long before the next president was inaugerated
In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year
Biden's point...was that if a new Supreme Court Justice DID need to be named late in a President's term...that it should be put off until after the election...ergo...to allow the voters to decide. You and Biden are now trying to argue that he would have been fine with a lame duck President naming a new Justice after the election...which is laughable! Why would you wait until after an election if you were going ignore the will of the voters IN that election? To claim that Biden would have been fine with Reagan choosing another Justice in the waning hours of his second term with Bill Clinton about to be sworn in is pure fantasy! Biden would have fought that tooth and nail and you know it!
Republicans allowed Barack Obama to confirm TWO Supreme Court nominees early in his Presidency and then stonewalled one late in his second term! The precedence has been set. If you liberals want to hold up a confirmation in Trump's last year...feel free to do so. That way the voters will once again have a hand in the decision. Blocking a confirmation of someone who is eminently qualified in the first two months of a new Presidency is one political party telling the voters to go screw themselves.
Blocking a confirmation for a year is saying about the same, don't you think? You set the precedent, and proved we can survive without a full court. Why change now?
The "same" would be allowing Trump to name his choice for the Supreme Court as Obama was allowed to do with both Kagan and Sotomayor. The "same" would be blocking a confirmation if it occurs late in a President's term...AKA the "Biden Rule"...and what Republicans did in the last year of Obama's second term!.
I know you have been told to cite the Biden rule, but I'm pretty sure you don't know what was actually said, or the circumstances they were said in.
Biden's floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than when Scalia died.
There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.
There was no nominee to consider.
The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.
Nonetheless, Biden took to the floor in a speech addressing the Senate president to urge delay if a vacancy did appear. But he didn't argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell did. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992, long before the next president was inaugerated
In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year
Biden's point...was that if a new Supreme Court Justice DID need to be named late in a President's term...that it should be put off until after the election...ergo...to allow the voters to decide. You and Biden are now trying to argue that he would have been fine with a lame duck President naming a new Justice after the election...which is laughable! Why would you wait until after an election if you were going ignore the will of the voters IN that election? To claim that Biden would have been fine with Reagan choosing another Justice in the waning hours of his second term with Bill Clinton about to be sworn in is pure fantasy! Biden would have fought that tooth and nail and you know it!
You might be clairvoyant, and know what he was thinking. All I can go by is what he said. I know you like to laugh at old homespun Joe, but he's sharp enough to say what he means. He said after the election, not after the inauguration.
Blocking a confirmation for a year is saying about the same, don't you think? You set the precedent, and proved we can survive without a full court. Why change now?
The "same" would be allowing Trump to name his choice for the Supreme Court as Obama was allowed to do with both Kagan and Sotomayor. The "same" would be blocking a confirmation if it occurs late in a President's term...AKA the "Biden Rule"...and what Republicans did in the last year of Obama's second term!.
I know you have been told to cite the Biden rule, but I'm pretty sure you don't know what was actually said, or the circumstances they were said in.
Biden's floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than when Scalia died.
There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.
There was no nominee to consider.
The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.
Nonetheless, Biden took to the floor in a speech addressing the Senate president to urge delay if a vacancy did appear. But he didn't argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell did. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992, long before the next president was inaugerated
In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year
Biden's point...was that if a new Supreme Court Justice DID need to be named late in a President's term...that it should be put off until after the election...ergo...to allow the voters to decide. You and Biden are now trying to argue that he would have been fine with a lame duck President naming a new Justice after the election...which is laughable! Why would you wait until after an election if you were going ignore the will of the voters IN that election? To claim that Biden would have been fine with Reagan choosing another Justice in the waning hours of his second term with Bill Clinton about to be sworn in is pure fantasy! Biden would have fought that tooth and nail and you know it!
You might be clairvoyant, and know what he was thinking. All I can go by is what he said. I know you like to laugh at old homespun Joe, but he's sharp enough to say what he means. He said after the election, not after the inauguration.
Joe Biden sharp? I hate to break this to you, Bulldog...but Joe Biden's having a good day if he doesn't drool on himself!
Why would you wait until AFTER an election...but then ignore the results of the election by having a lame duck President appoint a Supreme Court Justice? I know that you on the left have been trying to walk back Joe's comments dating from the end of the Reagan Presidency but his intent was clear. Embarrassing now...but still clear!
Once again...Barack Obama was given two liberal judges to mark his time in office...you on the left now refuse to give Donald Trump one because you feel "cheated" because Obama wasn't given the chance to name a third!
What's amusing about all this posturing now by the left is that very few of you screamed from the rooftops when Garland wasn't confirmed because you all believed that Hillary Clinton would be the next President of the United States and that SHE would be choosing not only Scalia's replacement but probably Ginsberg's replacement as well! A funny thing happened on the way to that result however...didn't it?
Confirmed soon.
Ginsburg is dead within a year.
NEXT !!!!
Once again...Barack Obama was given two liberal judges to mark his time in office...you on the left now refuse to give Donald Trump one because you feel "cheated" because Obama wasn't given the chance to name a third!
What's amusing about all this posturing now by the left is that very few of you screamed from the rooftops when Garland wasn't confirmed because you all believed that Hillary Clinton would be the next President of the United States and that SHE would be choosing not only Scalia's replacement but probably Ginsberg's replacement as well! A funny thing happened on the way to that result however...didn't it?
Obama was only allowed three years out of a four year term to appoint justices. A 25% cut
If you can cut 25% why not 100%?
The "same" would be allowing Trump to name his choice for the Supreme Court as Obama was allowed to do with both Kagan and Sotomayor. The "same" would be blocking a confirmation if it occurs late in a President's term...AKA the "Biden Rule"...and what Republicans did in the last year of Obama's second term!.
I know you have been told to cite the Biden rule, but I'm pretty sure you don't know what was actually said, or the circumstances they were said in.
Biden's floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than when Scalia died.
There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.
There was no nominee to consider.
The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.
Nonetheless, Biden took to the floor in a speech addressing the Senate president to urge delay if a vacancy did appear. But he didn't argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell did. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992, long before the next president was inaugerated
In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year
Biden's point...was that if a new Supreme Court Justice DID need to be named late in a President's term...that it should be put off until after the election...ergo...to allow the voters to decide. You and Biden are now trying to argue that he would have been fine with a lame duck President naming a new Justice after the election...which is laughable! Why would you wait until after an election if you were going ignore the will of the voters IN that election? To claim that Biden would have been fine with Reagan choosing another Justice in the waning hours of his second term with Bill Clinton about to be sworn in is pure fantasy! Biden would have fought that tooth and nail and you know it!
You might be clairvoyant, and know what he was thinking. All I can go by is what he said. I know you like to laugh at old homespun Joe, but he's sharp enough to say what he means. He said after the election, not after the inauguration.
Joe Biden sharp? I hate to break this to you, Bulldog...but Joe Biden's having a good day if he doesn't drool on himself!
Why would you wait until AFTER an election...but then ignore the results of the election by having a lame duck President appoint a Supreme Court Justice? I know that you on the left have been trying to walk back Joe's comments dating from the end of the Reagan Presidency but his intent was clear. Embarrassing now...but still clear!
His intent was clear. You're the one changing what he said. It was all hypothetical anyway. There was no vacancy on the court. There was no one to appoint. There is no reason to believe what one person said would have anything to do with what would have happened if there would have been someone to nominate.
Once again...Barack Obama was given two liberal judges to mark his time in office...you on the left now refuse to give Donald Trump one because you feel "cheated" because Obama wasn't given the chance to name a third!
What's amusing about all this posturing now by the left is that very few of you screamed from the rooftops when Garland wasn't confirmed because you all believed that Hillary Clinton would be the next President of the United States and that SHE would be choosing not only Scalia's replacement but probably Ginsberg's replacement as well! A funny thing happened on the way to that result however...didn't it?
Obama was only allowed three years out of a four year term to appoint justices. A 25% cut
If you can cut 25% why not 100%?
Why not give Trump the same thing that Obama was given?
Oh, that's right...you're a progressive...one of those "do as I say...not as I do" kind of people!
Once again...Barack Obama was given two liberal judges to mark his time in office...you on the left now refuse to give Donald Trump one because you feel "cheated" because Obama wasn't given the chance to name a third!
What's amusing about all this posturing now by the left is that very few of you screamed from the rooftops when Garland wasn't confirmed because you all believed that Hillary Clinton would be the next President of the United States and that SHE would be choosing not only Scalia's replacement but probably Ginsberg's replacement as well! A funny thing happened on the way to that result however...didn't it?
Obama was only allowed three years out of a four year term to appoint justices. A 25% cut
If you can cut 25% why not 100%?
Why not give Trump the same thing that Obama was given?
Oh, that's right...you're a progressive...one of those "do as I say...not as I do" kind of people!
What was Obama given?
3/4 of a term?
