It's Called the Biden Rule, Leftists

[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....

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.

And I agree with Biden. He had no obligation to provide such a controversial, politicized process in the middle of an election

 

[TooTall]

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.

Nothing in the Constitution puts a time limit on giving an SC nominee a hearing.

 

[kaz]

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.

No ... I said they did consider it, the answer was no. Let's try again. I'll turn up the volume since you repeatedly don't hear it

SHOW WHERE PROVIDING HEARINGS IS IN THE CONSTITUTION

 

[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.

What part of the Constitution was obstructed?

It's the problem the dumb asses have chanting whatever Democrats tell them to say. They can't answer questions about their positions because they don't know

 

[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....

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

Republicans are saying Biden and McConnell were right when they said the same thing. Democrats are saying the reverse, they won't criticize Biden while they criticize McConnell for saying the same thing. So how does that make your comment apply to Republicans not Democrats? It makes no sense

 

[edward37]

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

Republicans are saying Biden and McConnell were right when they said the same thing. Democrats are saying the reverse, they won't criticize Biden while they criticize McConnell for saying the same thing. So how does that make your comment apply to Republicans not Democrats? It makes no sense

NOW they say Biden was right??? What about back then ?? I doubt strongly repubs said Biden was right

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

 

[jc456]

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

Scalia died .

At this point, what difference does it make?

the left looking for an excuse to be unconstitutional.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

Don't worry. Supreme Court nominees will be filled quickly thanks to the Harry Reid rule.

Can't wait to watch you moonbats when Ginsburg is pulled from her feeding tube and replaced with a conservative Constitutionalist.

 

[jc456]

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]

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

Republicans are saying Biden and McConnell were right when they said the same thing. Democrats are saying the reverse, they won't criticize Biden while they criticize McConnell for saying the same thing. So how does that make your comment apply to Republicans not Democrats? It makes no sense

NOW they say Biden was right??? What about back then ?? I doubt strongly repubs said Biden was right

What I said: "they won't criticize Biden"

What you heard: "NOW they say Biden was right???"

Seriously?

 

[jc456]

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

Scalia died .

At this point, what difference does it make?

the left looking for an excuse to be unconstitutional.

cause the left really enjoys playing tit for tat. I've never seen a group of adults act like little kids playing in gutters in my entire life. I hope their constituents appreciate having children represent them in an adult environment.

 

[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.

Don't worry. Supreme Court nominees will be filled quickly thanks to the Harry Reid rule.

Can't wait to watch you moonbats when Ginsburg is pulled from her feeding tube and replaced with a conservative Constitutionalist.

She died years ago and her body is just too evil to stop

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

Don't worry. Supreme Court nominees will be filled quickly thanks to the Harry Reid rule.

Can't wait to watch you moonbats when Ginsburg is pulled from her feeding tube and replaced with a conservative Constitutionalist.

She died years ago and her body is just too evil to stop

Sometimes the batteries in the animatronics go dead.

 

[jc456]

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.

Don't worry. Supreme Court nominees will be filled quickly thanks to the Harry Reid rule.

Can't wait to watch you moonbats when Ginsburg is pulled from her feeding tube and replaced with a conservative Constitutionalist.

She died years ago and her body is just too evil to stop

Sometimes the batteries in the animatronics go dead.

View attachment 110329

 

[kaz]

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.

Don't worry. Supreme Court nominees will be filled quickly thanks to the Harry Reid rule.

Can't wait to watch you moonbats when Ginsburg is pulled from her feeding tube and replaced with a conservative Constitutionalist.

She died years ago and her body is just too evil to stop

Sometimes the batteries in the animatronics go dead.

View attachment 110329

Ginsberg fell asleep once on the sidewalk and they drew chalk lines around her

 

[HenryBHough]

Ginsberg fell asleep once on the sidewalk and they drew chalk lines around her

Had they used RED chalk it would have been ignored as just another of Obama's notorious doodling with red lines......

 

[kaz]

Ginsberg fell asleep once on the sidewalk and they drew chalk lines around her

Had they used RED chalk it would have been ignored as just another of Obama's notorious doodling with red lines......

True, people would have stepped right over it like the Syrians did

 

[Avatar4321]

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

Democrats would be wise to encourage Republicans to use the nuclear option. It's the best choice for them politically speaking.

Why? Because they in danger of losing more seats in 2018. Democrats up for reelection in trump red states can try to block the nomination. Which will piss off trump voters in their state who wanted trump to make the sc pick. Or they can vote for cloture and piss off the Dem base.

Best option is to have Republicans go nuclear and try to blame them for being unfair somehow. Sure the argument still sucks but what can they do?

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

The senate did advise. They said we wont consider anything before the election. Obama had this advise before he made the nomination.

Nothing in the constitution requires hearings or a vote. If Republicans really wanted to annoy you guys they senate leadership would announce we consent and there is nothing democrats could do about it.

Of course getting their votes on the record benefits Republicans politically. Because democrats in red states are hurt no matter what way they vote.