It's Called the Biden Rule, Leftists

[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.

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

What precedent?

 

[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.

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

What precedent?

Didn't read the thread title, did you?

 

[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.

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

What precedent?

Didn't read the thread title, did you?

Sure. It's a lie. There isn't any precedent. This hasn't been done before. Pubs are grasping at straws trying to justify their actions rather than taking responsibility for setting a precedent.

 

[edward37]

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?

just how ordinary is it for congress to refuse an up and down vote? on a sc judge even your pos thomas got in

 

[BlindBoo]

Whose nomination did Biden Block to receive a rule named in his honor?

The precedent was set by the greatest obstructionist Congress in modern history.

 

[bendog]

Whose nomination did Biden Block to receive a rule named in his honor?

The precedent was set by the greatest obstructionist Congress in modern history.

The Biden Rule is really to say that when a vacancy opens up late in a potus term, there shouldn't be any confirmation unless the person the potus wants to put up for nomination truly has bipartisan support.

I think that's a bit naïve and simplistic for the era of no consensus we are in, unfortunately. I have not problem with what McConnell, a/k/a Mitch the Turtle, so long as the minority has the power to filibuster. Traditionally potus nominees were not filibustered, but before Bork, if a nominee has the judicial expertise and wasn't a member of a club that excluded blacks or Jews or something ... they got confirmed. I could go back to that too.

 

[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?

just how ordinary is it for congress to refuse an up and down vote? on a sc judge even your pos thomas got in

why didn't you just answer my question?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Scalia died .

At this point, what difference does it make?

 

[edward37]

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?

just how ordinary is it for congress to refuse an up and down vote? on a sc judge even your pos thomas got in

why didn't you just answer my question?

They did do something out of the ordinary How often has an up down vote been refused ? How many ways can I tell you that weather?

 

[Richard-H]

The Constitution says:

"The President.... shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate"

The Senate has an obligation to advise if it objects to the nominee at least - which means that the Senate has an obligation to hold a hearing unless it it no objection. If the Senate does nothing within a reasonable amount of time then the nominee should receive the appointment by default. Silence is golden.

The Senate's failure to hold a hearing and vote on Pres. Obama's appointee means that he should have gotten the appointment by default.

 

[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.

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

What precedent?

Didn't read the thread title, did you?

Sure. It's a lie. There isn't any precedent. This hasn't been done before. Pubs are grasping at straws trying to justify their actions rather than taking responsibility for setting a precedent.

Biden announced Republicans weren't getting a SCOTUS through unless they won the election. What is more "precedent" than that? You're just being partisan ... again ...

 

[TooTall]

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.

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.

Parts of the ‘Biden Rule.’


“Biden’s own words from 1992, when George H.W. Bush was president and Biden was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

"In my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.”

"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

 

[TooTall]

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

Actually, they finally came to their senses this election.

 

[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.

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

Here is the totality of your stupid argument: Congress doesn't have to consider nomination.

If Garland got held up for 250 days, that's fine. If he got held up for 8 years? That's fine too.

 

[TooTall]

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....

Biden was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee when he addressed his fellow Senators. He was not addressing the President. And McConnell referred to Biden's comments to justify not confirming an SC Justice during the election year.

 

[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

Here is the totality of your stupid argument: Congress doesn't have to consider nomination.

If Garland got held up for 250 days, that's fine. If he got held up for 8 years? That's fine too.

You're so stupid. I said, "Obama got an answer to his nomination." And you heard, "Congress doesn't have to consider nomination."

Again, the question you didn't see at all, "Show where providing hearings is in the Constitution?" The Constitution says nominations are subject to the "advice and consent" of the Senate. It does not dictate how that consent is given or withheld.

Biden and McConnell both gave the same answer. No in election years

 

[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

Actually, they finally came to their senses this election.

far as I recall you won 3 dem states by 76K votes A little slim no,,to expect a repeat is on the way?

 

[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.

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

Here is the totality of your stupid argument: Congress doesn't have to consider nomination.

If Garland got held up for 250 days, that's fine. If he got held up for 8 years? That's fine too.
You're so stupid. I said, "Obama got an answer to his nomination." And you heard, "Congress doesn't have to consider nomination."

Again, the question you didn't see at all, "Show where providing hearings is in the Constitution"

Your argument is that NON-CONSIDERATION is a legitimate answer. IT IS NOT if you want to have a functional system.

 

[TooTall]

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.

What part of the Constitution was obstructed?

 

[edward37]

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....

Biden was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee when he addressed his fellow Senators. He was not addressing the President. And McConnell referred to Biden's comments to justify not confirming an SC Justice during the election year.

guess republicans are very selective in who they listen to