It's Called the Biden Rule, Leftists

[kaz]

...

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.

The Republicans confirmed Obama's two picks before the last year of his term, then followed the Biden rule on his third pick, which is the only pick that was subject to the Biden rule. So explain what you are referring to

 

[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 ...

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

This thread is about the rights obstruction of the constitution.

So Biden was obstructing the Constitution? Wow, you do hate the guy. He's done a lot of obstructing, I'll give you that even if I don't agree with you this is the best example of that.

If there are no left and right seats, then why do you care that Obama needed to fill it over Trump? It's going to be filled now. That's what you just said is all you want. So no problem, right?

 

[Dreadnaught1968]

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

We DID come to our senses. That's why Hildebeast didn't win here.

 

[jillian]

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.

no, nutbar, it isn't....

now shut up.... the karma was what you guys did to our judicial nomination, ignoramous.

 

[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....

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

So your suggesting adoption a new Senate rule that conflicts with the U.S. Constitution based on speculation of what you think Biden and the Democrats would or would not have done following the suggestion of a single Democrat in reference to a situation that was purely hypothetical at the time?

Why don't you admit that McConnell's gross misinterpretation of Biden's speech was just a excuse for Republicans to refuse their Constitutional responsibility based on pure partisanship. And if that's so, it justifies the Democrats refusing to allow any Republican judicial nominee for any length of time.

 

[kaz]

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 think Biden said if HW did pick a nominee they'd seriously consider him? Yeah Gomer, that's what he meant ...

So your suggesting adoption a new Senate rule that conflicts with the U.S. Constitution based on speculation of what you think Biden and the Democrats would or would not have done following the suggestion of a single Democrat in reference to a situation that was purely hypothetical at the time?

Why don't you admit that McConnell's gross misinterpretation of Biden's speech was just a excuse for Republicans to refuse their Constitutional responsibility based on pure partisanship. And if that's so, it justifies the Democrats refusing to allow any Republican judicial nominee for any length of time.

I'm confused by your post. You bolded the first half as if that is my statement you are responding to, but it's your statement, not mine. Are you debating the voices in your head again? Please clarify it

 

[BlindBoo]

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 ...

Actually Mitch has already set the new rule, Two SCJ appointments per Preisdent. Imo, It's not worth the fight for the Dems. They still need 5 to win, plus they are replacing a con. The balance will not change. But what goes around comes around.

 

[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 ...

Actually Mitch has already set the new rule, Two SCJ appointments per Preisdent. Imo, It's not worth the fight for the Dems. They still need 5 to win, plus they are replacing a con. The balance will not change. But what goes around comes around.

I agree with you. But recognize that no matter what happens now, if the next President is Democrat and the Republicans try to filibuster them, the Democrats will change the rule then just like for the ACA and for trial judges last time.

My only point is if Democrats filibuster a SCOTUS Trump pick now or in the future, if the Republicans don't go nuclear, they are just stupid. Unfortunately in the past they have shown they are that stupid. Many of us said under W Democrats will go nuclear the first time they needed it and Republicans were being stupid for not doing it now. And the response we got was no, we want to preserve the filibuster, so we aren't doing it

 

[BlindBoo]

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 ...

Actually Mitch has already set the new rule, Two SCJ appointments per Preisdent. Imo, It's not worth the fight for the Dems. They still need 5 to win, plus they are replacing a con. The balance will not change. But what goes around comes around.

I agree with you. But recognize that no matter what happens now, if the next President is Democrat and the Republicans try to filibuster them, the Democrats will change the rule then just like for the ACA and for trial judges last time.

My only point is if Democrats filibuster a SCOTUS Trump pick now or in the future, if the Republicans don't go nuclear, they are just stupid. Unfortunately in the past they have shown they are that stupid. Many of us said under W Democrats will go nuclear the first time they needed it and Republicans were being stupid for not doing it now. And the response we got was no, we want to preserve the filibuster, so we aren't doing it

On this seat I don't think the Dems should filibuster. It might be appropriate in the future but not now.

 

[Edgetho]

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.

They also gave the Senate the right to confirm, deny or even refuse to hold hearings on said nomination.

Did you get your degree in dumbassery online or at an Ivy League School??

Get an advanced degree in it and you'll be ready to run for Office as a dimocrap

 

[AntonToo]

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.

They also gave the Senate the right to confirm, deny or even refuse to hold hearings on said nomination.

Did you get your degree in dumbassery online or at an Ivy League School??

Get an advanced degree in it and you'll be ready to run for Office as a dimocrap

What they DID NOT give a right to is IGNORE the nomination and not even give a hearing to the nominee.

If they simply voted him down that would be one thing, but what they did was flat wrong.

 

[kaz]

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.

They also gave the Senate the right to confirm, deny or even refuse to hold hearings on said nomination.

Did you get your degree in dumbassery online or at an Ivy League School??

Get an advanced degree in it and you'll be ready to run for Office as a dimocrap

What they DID NOT give a right to is IGNORE the nomination and not even give a hearing to the nominee.

If they simply voted him down that would be one thing, but what they did was flat wrong.

Obama got an answer to his nomination. Show where providing hearings is in the Constitution?

And wow, another liberal who hates Biden. This isn't his day

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

With advise and consent of the senate. The senate advised the president they would not consider the nomination during an election year, which was with precedent

 

[Richard-H]

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 think Biden said if HW did pick a nominee they'd seriously consider him? Yeah Gomer, that's what he meant ...

So your suggesting adoption a new Senate rule that conflicts with the U.S. Constitution based on speculation of what you think Biden and the Democrats would or would not have done following the suggestion of a single Democrat in reference to a situation that was purely hypothetical at the time?

Why don't you admit that McConnell's gross misinterpretation of Biden's speech was just a excuse for Republicans to refuse their Constitutional responsibility based on pure partisanship. And if that's so, it justifies the Democrats refusing to allow any Republican judicial nominee for any length of time.

I'm confused by your post. You bolded the first half as if that is my statement you are responding to, but it's your statement, not mine. Are you debating the voices in your head again? Please clarify it

Bold is used for emphasis. Sorry if it confused you.

 

[jc456]

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.

Just like Merrick Garland, Neil Gorsuch is a respected judge. He should receive the same type of fair & honest consideration in the Senate.

so do you deny the precedence that was used by the GOP? . Why do you feel they did something out of the ordinary?

 

[kaz]

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 think Biden said if HW did pick a nominee they'd seriously consider him? Yeah Gomer, that's what he meant ...

So your suggesting adoption a new Senate rule that conflicts with the U.S. Constitution based on speculation of what you think Biden and the Democrats would or would not have done following the suggestion of a single Democrat in reference to a situation that was purely hypothetical at the time?

Why don't you admit that McConnell's gross misinterpretation of Biden's speech was just a excuse for Republicans to refuse their Constitutional responsibility based on pure partisanship. And if that's so, it justifies the Democrats refusing to allow any Republican judicial nominee for any length of time.

I'm confused by your post. You bolded the first half as if that is my statement you are responding to, but it's your statement, not mine. Are you debating the voices in your head again? Please clarify it

Bold is used for emphasis. Sorry if it confused you.

You wrote half in bold and then half in not bold. That makes it visually appear the bold is my statement and the non-bold is your response to it. So yes, it confuses me what you are saying that I'm supposed to respond to. I didn't mean it to just chastise you, I'm asking you to clarify

 

[mamooth]

And of course Biden meant the Senate would confirm his nominee even if Clinton won, right?

Almost certainly, as it's likely Bush I would have nominated a reasonable conservative, who would have been quickly confirmed.

What a ridiculously contrived scenario. What Biden told Republicans is they aren't picking a SCOTUS in an election year.

Given he said the opposite, that's clearly untrue. And that's not going to change just because it means you can't tell one of your favorite lies.

The Senate in that contrived scenario would never have confirmed a conservative if Slick won.

Of course they would have. You keep assuming the opposition has to be as treasonous as you are. You need to understand that we are not like you.

 

[kaz]

And of course Biden meant the Senate would confirm his nominee even if Clinton won, right?

Almost certainly, as it's likely Bush I would have nominated a reasonable conservative, who would have been quickly confirmed.

What a ridiculously contrived scenario. What Biden told Republicans is they aren't picking a SCOTUS in an election year.

Given he said the opposite, that's clearly untrue. And that's not going to change just because it means you can't tell one of your favorite lies.

The Senate in that contrived scenario would never have confirmed a conservative if Slick won.

Of course they would have. You keep assuming the opposition has to be as treasonous as you are. You need to understand that we are not like you.

You actually believe that if Slick won and HW appointed a lame duck SCOTUS nomination, the Democrats would have confirmed them when they knew Slick would nominate a liberal.

You are liar, you know that's ridiculous

 

[mamooth]

You actually believe that if Slick won and HW appointed a lame duck SCOTUS nomination, the Democrats would have confirmed them when they knew Slick would nominate a liberal.

You are liar, you know that's ridiculous

No, I know that we follow the Constitution, hence that's exactly what would have happened. Democrats are bipartisan to a fault, even when it damages them.

You don't follow the Constitution, so you can't imagine that anybody else would.

 

[kaz]

Democrats are bipartisan to a fault, even when it damages them

OMG that's funny. You don't follow the news, do you? Like all your life. I'm 53 and Democrats have never had a bi-partisan bone in your bodies in my lifetime