It's Called the Biden Rule, Leftists

[Weatherman2020]

Delusional

Like I said, you now know you're lying, but you're still doing it. After all, the other kewl kids are lying, and if you didn't lie, you couldn't hang out with them. It would take integrity to admit you had been misled by propagandists, and you have none.

Again, here's the quote you're running from.

“If a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow … or at the end of the summer, President Bush should not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.”

He specifically said Bush _should_ name a nominee after the election. It was not a statement that Bush had no right to name a nominee. It was a statement that the vote on such a nominee should wait until after the election.

You are lying, and now you're doing it deliberately.

There was no vacancy, dufus.

 

[Weatherman2020]

It's Called the Biden Rule, Leftists

It's called Arguments Five Year Olds Make, psuedocons.

"B-b-b-b-but Billy did it, too!"

And I have the same response your mother probably gave you: If the Democrats jumped off a bridge, would you follow them?

Why are you so hot to model your childish behavior after the Democrats? This is fascinating.

Karma is a bitch.

Yep. Turnabout is fair play, and you are going to be on the receiving end of every benchmark you pseudocons set for the past eight years.

Holding your breath till you turn blue. Making up lie after lie after lie. Obstructionism. Whining. Thrashing about. Moaning. Flying into fits of rage over small and imaginary slights.

Fun times ahead.

Karma is a bitch.
And she is slapping you leftists silly these last 2 weeks.

 

[edward37]

the assholiness of your leader ,,,for starters

'Assholiness'?

Better come up with something else or it will be back-to-back-TO-BACK historical, record-setting losses.

I have a strong feeling people from wisc mich and penn will come to their senses Repubs didn't win by much there

 

[kaz]

The Biden rule was to prevent politically timed retirements by Judges .

Scalia died .

All you leftists were arguing for Obama's first two SCOTUS picks they were replacing leftists and you should get anyone you wanted to maintain the balance of the court that was so critical to you. I called you liars, you just wanted leftists. Oh no, you said, this is a deep personal conviction to you. So, when Scalia died, why didn't Obama nominate Gorsuch himself? Why didn't you demand he did.

OMG, it just occurred to me Timmy. You and your messiah ... lied ...

 

[kaz]

No it will be the McConnell rule. The Presidents party must control the Senate to get a SCJ on the bench. Good Job Mitch!

Biden said Republicans aren't getting a conservative through in an election year

Democrats went nuclear to get the ACA

Democrats went nuclear for trial judges

Now suddenly maintaining senate rules is a standard for you? Sure it is ...

 

[JoeMoma]

Biden did not say Bush should not name a nominee. That's an outright lie.

“If a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow … or at the end of the summer, President Bush should not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.”

He said that, in such a theoretical case, Bush should name a nominee after the election. At that point, they'd vote on him.

That is, the "Biden Rule" is a total fiction. What a surprise, that Republicans are brazenly lying to everyone's face.

I understand that some of them didn't know they were lying. Their cult feeds them crap, and they regurgitate it. Independent thought is not something they're known for. However, they know it's a lie now. And every one of them will still proudly repeat it. Their cult told them to lie, so they're going to lie, period.

I spend my life seeking for one honest Republican. I haven't found one yet. Without exception, every one of them lies proudly and often.

Yes, Bush(41) should name a nominee after the election. At that point, they'd vote on him if Bush won the election, otherwise they would wait for the new president to make the nomination after taking office.
No Justices died or retired during Bush 41's last year in office, so the Biden Rule did not have a chance to be exercised until 2016-2017. So the lesson is be careful what you say, it may come back to bite you, right democrats?

 

[Richard-H]

Named after its author, Democrat Senator Joe Biden. You might have heard of him. He was Democrat President Barack Obama’s Democrat Vice President for the last eight years. Anyway, Joe came up with the Biden Rule in 1992 when the Democrats controlled the Senate, to stop Republican President Bush from naming a conservative to the court during the last quarter of his Administration. Some might have considered that a partisan act.

With Republicans controlling both Houses and the Harry Reid Rule in place thanks to Democrats again, the game is over.

Karma is a bitch.

There is no such thing as the "Biden Rule".

Your misinterpretation of Biden's 1992 speech shows how disingenuine conservatives are.

Biden's speech suggested that the President should delay any judicial nomination. It said noting about the Senate refusing to consider a nominee.

Pure wingnut BULLSHIT!

 

[Weatherman2020]

Named after its author, Democrat Senator Joe Biden. You might have heard of him. He was Democrat President Barack Obama’s Democrat Vice President for the last eight years. Anyway, Joe came up with the Biden Rule in 1992 when the Democrats controlled the Senate, to stop Republican President Bush from naming a conservative to the court during the last quarter of his Administration. Some might have considered that a partisan act.

With Republicans controlling both Houses and the Harry Reid Rule in place thanks to Democrats again, the game is over.

Karma is a bitch.

There is no such thing as the "Biden Rule".

Your misinterpretation of Biden's 1992 speech shows how disingenuine conservatives are.

Biden's speech suggested that the President should delay any judicial nomination. It said noting about the Senate refusing to consider a nominee.

Pure wingnut BULLSHIT!

Running away will get you nowhere.

Karma is a bitch, and she has been slapping you leftists silly for 2 weeks straight now.

 

[JoeMoma]

Delusional

Like I said, you now know you're lying, but you're still doing it. After all, the other kewl kids are lying, and if you didn't lie, you couldn't hang out with them. It would take integrity to admit you had been misled by propagandists, and you have none.

Again, here's the quote you're running from.

“If a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow … or at the end of the summer, President Bush should not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.”

He specifically said Bush _should_ name a nominee after the election. It was not a statement that Bush had no right to name a nominee. It was a statement that the vote on such a nominee should wait until after the election.

You are lying, and now you're doing it deliberately.

And why should Bush wait until after the election to name a nominee? Could it have something to do with waiting to see who wins the election? Do you really think that a Bush nominee would get approval from a democrat senate with Bush serving his last 3 months in office? Hell no!

 

[kaz]

Delusional

Like I said, you now know you're lying, but you're still doing it. After all, the other kewl kids are lying, and if you didn't lie, you couldn't hang out with them. It would take integrity to admit you had been misled by propagandists, and you have none.

Again, here's the quote you're running from.

“If a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow … or at the end of the summer, President Bush should not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.”

He specifically said Bush _should_ name a nominee after the election. It was not a statement that Bush had no right to name a nominee. It was a statement that the vote on such a nominee should wait until after the election.

You are lying, and now you're doing it deliberately.

And of course Biden meant the Senate would confirm his nominee even if Clinton won, right? What a ridiculously contrived scenario. What Biden told Republicans is they aren't picking a SCOTUS in an election year. The Senate in that contrived scenario would never have confirmed a conservative if Slick won. That's exactly what the Republicans did. As MJ said when he swatted a layup away. Get that shit out of here ...

 

[Richard-H]

Exactly. There was no such rule. It was a theoretical discussion. The right is trying to wiggle it's way out and justify stealing a SCOTUS seat.

They set a precedent.

That would be the loser's side of the story but the truth is -- THE most important decision a POTUS makes these days is his nominations for SCOTUS.

In the last year of a sitting President's term, it is only fair to let THE PEOPLE decide who should be nominated....... NOT an outgoing President who won't be around to take responsibility for his/her appointment.

The People decided. You lost.

Get over it.

Or not. Don't really care.

BTW, what do you people plan on campaigning on in 2018 and 2020? Inclusiveness? Cooperation?

If the founding fathers thought that judicial nominations should be based on popular vote they could have written that into the Constitution. They did not.

If the founding fathers wanted judicial nominations delayed in election years they could have written that into the Constitution. They did not.

They specifically said that it was the sitting President that makes the nomination.

Are you anti-Constitution? Do you think we should be a pure democracy as opposed to a representative democracy?

Sounds like you are.

 

[kaz]

Named after its author, Democrat Senator Joe Biden. You might have heard of him. He was Democrat President Barack Obama’s Democrat Vice President for the last eight years. Anyway, Joe came up with the Biden Rule in 1992 when the Democrats controlled the Senate, to stop Republican President Bush from naming a conservative to the court during the last quarter of his Administration. Some might have considered that a partisan act.

With Republicans controlling both Houses and the Harry Reid Rule in place thanks to Democrats again, the game is over.

Karma is a bitch.

There is no such thing as the "Biden Rule".

Your misinterpretation of Biden's 1992 speech shows how disingenuine conservatives are.

Biden's speech suggested that the President should delay any judicial nomination. It said noting about the Senate refusing to consider a nominee.

Pure wingnut BULLSHIT!

Running away will get you nowhere.

Karma is a bitch, and she has been slapping you leftists silly for 2 weeks straight now.

It's a beauty to watch after the belligerent double standard constant rule changing of the left my whole life

 

[kaz]

Exactly. There was no such rule. It was a theoretical discussion. The right is trying to wiggle it's way out and justify stealing a SCOTUS seat.

They set a precedent.

That would be the loser's side of the story but the truth is -- THE most important decision a POTUS makes these days is his nominations for SCOTUS.

In the last year of a sitting President's term, it is only fair to let THE PEOPLE decide who should be nominated....... NOT an outgoing President who won't be around to take responsibility for his/her appointment.

The People decided. You lost.

Get over it.

Or not. Don't really care.

BTW, what do you people plan on campaigning on in 2018 and 2020? Inclusiveness? Cooperation?

If the founding fathers thought that judicial nominations should be based on popular vote they could have written that into the Constitution. They did not.

If the founding fathers wanted judicial nominations delayed in election years they could have written that into the Constitution. They did not.

They specifically said that it was the sitting President that makes the nomination.

Are you anti-Constitution? Do you think we should be a pure democracy as opposed to a representative democracy?

Sounds like you are.

So you think Biden is anti-Constitution and opposes representative democracy? Wow, some harsh words. I think you got the wrong issue for him and he was right on that one, but you're certainly accurate overall about Biden, he's a douche.

Hey, here's an interesting factoid. The President can't get whomever he wants without question. Did you know that? Find the answer to why that is ... in the Constitution. Let's play where's Waldo ...

 

[Richard-H]

Named after its author, Democrat Senator Joe Biden. You might have heard of him. He was Democrat President Barack Obama’s Democrat Vice President for the last eight years. Anyway, Joe came up with the Biden Rule in 1992 when the Democrats controlled the Senate, to stop Republican President Bush from naming a conservative to the court during the last quarter of his Administration. Some might have considered that a partisan act.

With Republicans controlling both Houses and the Harry Reid Rule in place thanks to Democrats again, the game is over.

Karma is a bitch.

There is no such thing as the "Biden Rule".

Your misinterpretation of Biden's 1992 speech shows how disingenuine conservatives are.

Biden's speech suggested that the President should delay any judicial nomination. It said noting about the Senate refusing to consider a nominee.

Pure wingnut BULLSHIT!

Running away will get you nowhere.

Karma is a bitch, and she has been slapping you leftists silly for 2 weeks straight now.

It's a beauty to watch after the belligerent double standard constant rule changing of the left my whole life

What rule?

 

[edward37]

No it will be the McConnell rule. The Presidents party must control the Senate to get a SCJ on the bench. Good Job Mitch!

Biden said Republicans aren't getting a conservative through in an election year

Democrats went nuclear to get the ACA

Democrats went nuclear for trial judges

Now suddenly maintaining senate rules is a standard for you? Sure it is ...

To this point, I have (almost) stayed quiet but I can' t take it anymore! I know this may rub some of you the wrong way, but I have to say, so far I agree with almost every decision he has made. I know some of those decisions have been very controversial. I know a lot of people don't like him, but he has surrounded himself with some of the greatest minds. I know that history will judge him as one of the best - if not the very best - we have ever seen. There's no denying his leadership qualities are superb. I know not everyone is going to agree with me, but these are just a few of the reasons why I love Bill Belichick.

 

[Richard-H]

Exactly. There was no such rule. It was a theoretical discussion. The right is trying to wiggle it's way out and justify stealing a SCOTUS seat.

They set a precedent.

That would be the loser's side of the story but the truth is -- THE most important decision a POTUS makes these days is his nominations for SCOTUS.

In the last year of a sitting President's term, it is only fair to let THE PEOPLE decide who should be nominated....... NOT an outgoing President who won't be around to take responsibility for his/her appointment.

The People decided. You lost.

Get over it.

Or not. Don't really care.

BTW, what do you people plan on campaigning on in 2018 and 2020? Inclusiveness? Cooperation?

If the founding fathers thought that judicial nominations should be based on popular vote they could have written that into the Constitution. They did not.

If the founding fathers wanted judicial nominations delayed in election years they could have written that into the Constitution. They did not.

They specifically said that it was the sitting President that makes the nomination.

Are you anti-Constitution? Do you think we should be a pure democracy as opposed to a representative democracy?

Sounds like you are.

So you think Biden is anti-Constitution and opposes representative democracy? Wow, some harsh words. I think you got the wrong issue for him and he was right on that one, but you're certainly accurate overall about Biden, he's a douche.

Hey, here's an interesting factoid. The President can't get whomever he wants without question. Did you know that? Find the answer to why that is ... in the Constitution. Let's play where's Waldo ...

What Biden said was a suggestion to the President and nothing more. It had nothing to do with what McConnell did in refusing to consider the President's nominee.

But keep shitting on the board and strutting around like you won...if it makes you feel better....

 

[AntonToo]

Anything and everything Bidden has ever said that the right wants to use against Democrats is a RULE, otherwise it is just something crazy uncle Bidden says.

 

[kaz]

Exactly. There was no such rule. It was a theoretical discussion. The right is trying to wiggle it's way out and justify stealing a SCOTUS seat.

They set a precedent.

That would be the loser's side of the story but the truth is -- THE most important decision a POTUS makes these days is his nominations for SCOTUS.

In the last year of a sitting President's term, it is only fair to let THE PEOPLE decide who should be nominated....... NOT an outgoing President who won't be around to take responsibility for his/her appointment.

The People decided. You lost.

Get over it.

Or not. Don't really care.

BTW, what do you people plan on campaigning on in 2018 and 2020? Inclusiveness? Cooperation?

If the founding fathers thought that judicial nominations should be based on popular vote they could have written that into the Constitution. They did not.

If the founding fathers wanted judicial nominations delayed in election years they could have written that into the Constitution. They did not.

They specifically said that it was the sitting President that makes the nomination.

Are you anti-Constitution? Do you think we should be a pure democracy as opposed to a representative democracy?

Sounds like you are.

So you think Biden is anti-Constitution and opposes representative democracy? Wow, some harsh words. I think you got the wrong issue for him and he was right on that one, but you're certainly accurate overall about Biden, he's a douche.

Hey, here's an interesting factoid. The President can't get whomever he wants without question. Did you know that? Find the answer to why that is ... in the Constitution. Let's play where's Waldo ...

What Biden said was a suggestion to the President and nothing more. It had nothing to do with what McConnell did in refusing to consider the President's nominee.

But keep shitting on the board and strutting around like you won...if it makes you feel better....

You aren't accepting reality and I'm shitting on the board, got it.

Speaking of shitting on the board, you think Biden said if HW did pick a nominee they'd seriously consider him? Yeah Gomer, that's what he meant ...

And Biden was right. Election years are too politically charged for a SCOTUS pick when the Senate is run by the other party as the President. And until this year, no one ever went off the deep end in deabilitating butt hurt like the left. You exceeded your own lofty bar from the 2000 election where you lost and refused to accept it

 

[Coyote]

...

Exactly. There was no such rule. It was a theoretical discussion. The right is trying to wiggle it's way out and justify stealing a SCOTUS seat.

They set a precedent.

That would be the loser's side of the story but the truth is -- THE most important decision a POTUS makes these days is his nominations for SCOTUS.

In the last year of a sitting President's term, it is only fair to let THE PEOPLE decide who should be nominated....... NOT an outgoing President who won't be around to take responsibility for his/her appointment.

The People decided. You lost.

Get over it.

Or not. Don't really care.

BTW, what do you people plan on campaigning on in 2018 and 2020? Inclusiveness? Cooperation?

If the founding fathers thought that judicial nominations should be based on popular vote they could have written that into the Constitution. They did not.

If the founding fathers wanted judicial nominations delayed in election years they could have written that into the Constitution. They did not.

They specifically said that it was the sitting President that makes the nomination.

Are you anti-Constitution? Do you think we should be a pure democracy as opposed to a representative democracy?

Sounds like you are.

So you think Biden is anti-Constitution and opposes representative democracy? Wow, some harsh words. I think you got the wrong issue for him and he was right on that one, but you're certainly accurate overall about Biden, he's a douche.

Hey, here's an interesting factoid. The President can't get whomever he wants without question. Did you know that? Find the answer to why that is ... in the Constitution. Let's play where's Waldo ...

What Biden said was a suggestion to the President and nothing more. It had nothing to do with what McConnell did in refusing to consider the President's nominee.

But keep shitting on the board and strutting around like you won...if it makes you feel better....

You aren't accepting reality and I'm shitting on the board, got it.

Speaking of shitting on the board, you think Biden said if HW did pick a nominee they'd seriously consider him? Yeah Gomer, that's what he meant ...

And Biden was right. Election years are too politically charged for a SCOTUS pick when the Senate is run by the other party as the President. And until this year, no one ever went off the deep end in deabilitating butt hurt like the left. You exceeded your own lofty bar from the 2000 election where you lost and refused to accept it

They only became too politically charged when it was Obama.

 

[Timmy]

The Biden rule was to prevent politically timed retirements by Judges .

Scalia died .

All you leftists were arguing for Obama's first two SCOTUS picks they were replacing leftists and you should get anyone you wanted to maintain the balance of the court that was so critical to you. I called you liars, you just wanted leftists. Oh no, you said, this is a deep personal conviction to you. So, when Scalia died, why didn't Obama nominate Gorsuch himself? Why didn't you demand he did.

OMG, it just occurred to me Timmy. You and your messiah ... lied ...

There are no "left seats" or "right seats". Just seats.

This thread is about the rights obstruction of the constitution.