Why not wait until the election in 2016 to nominate a supreme court justice

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

See "Biden Rule".

========
The " Biden Rule " only exists in the minds of demented raging righties.

Biden suggested not confirming anyone BUT THE DEMS DID NOT DO IT -- IN FACT THEY CONFIRMED THE NOMINEE.

Yeah, the THIRD nominee, who turned out to be a flaming liberal on the court! Why did you leave that part out?[/QUOTE

========
Because it's irrelevant.

The argument is whether the Senate should do it's job or not.

The fact was that the so called " Biden Rule " has NEVER EXISTED. It was just a suggestion he made ( perhaps while high ) and the DEMS did not do it.

Raging righties talk as though because he made a suggestion it HAPPENED when in fact they know it did not.

Democrats DID confirm a Supreme Court Justice during Bush's last year in office and Bush nominated him ... the Democrats did not nominate him but they did confirm a Justice. The political flavor of that justice is irrelevant to the argument of whether or not Democrats have confirmed a justice during the last year of a Republicans term and THEY HAVE.

So GFY.

You should really lay off the mind-altering substances while posting. Exactly who did Bush nominate in his last year? Don't bother denying it, but you screwed up!

Neither George H. W. Bush, not George W. Bush nominated and had a justice confirmed in the last year they were in office.

I await your apology, but I won't hold my breath!

========
I won't apologize ... but I will admit I was wrong.

Justice Kennedy was appointed in 1988 the last year of REAGAN'S Presidency.

Sorry bout that, got them mixed up.

But the point is still VALID ... Democrats HAVE confirmed a Justice during the last year of a Republican Presidents term.

Once again, you did not tell the whole truth. The vacancy actually occurred in 1987. The Senate messed around denying his first two nominees for well over a year after the vacancy occurred. Why not just let the seat sit idle until January 2017? That will be less time than the Democrats stalled.

 

[Arizona Willie]

========
The " Biden Rule " only exists in the minds of demented raging righties.

Biden suggested not confirming anyone BUT THE DEMS DID NOT DO IT -- IN FACT THEY CONFIRMED THE NOMINEE.

Yeah, the THIRD nominee, who turned out to be a flaming liberal on the court! Why did you leave that part out?[/QUOTE

========
Because it's irrelevant.

The argument is whether the Senate should do it's job or not.

The fact was that the so called " Biden Rule " has NEVER EXISTED. It was just a suggestion he made ( perhaps while high ) and the DEMS did not do it.

Raging righties talk as though because he made a suggestion it HAPPENED when in fact they know it did not.

Democrats DID confirm a Supreme Court Justice during Bush's last year in office and Bush nominated him ... the Democrats did not nominate him but they did confirm a Justice. The political flavor of that justice is irrelevant to the argument of whether or not Democrats have confirmed a justice during the last year of a Republicans term and THEY HAVE.

So GFY.

You should really lay off the mind-altering substances while posting. Exactly who did Bush nominate in his last year? Don't bother denying it, but you screwed up!

Neither George H. W. Bush, not George W. Bush nominated and had a justice confirmed in the last year they were in office.

I await your apology, but I won't hold my breath!

========
I won't apologize ... but I will admit I was wrong.

Justice Kennedy was appointed in 1988 the last year of REAGAN'S Presidency.

Sorry bout that, got them mixed up.

But the point is still VALID ... Democrats HAVE confirmed a Justice during the last year of a Republican Presidents term.

Once again, you did not tell the whole truth. The vacancy actually occurred in 1987. The Senate messed around denying his first two nominees for well over a year after the vacancy occurred. Why not just let the seat sit idle until January 2017? That will be less time than the Democrats stalled.

========

First of all no one was talking about when the vacancy occurred.

You righties claim that Dems have never confirmed a nominee in a Republican Presidents last year of his term and I proved that is not true.

He WAS confirmed during the last year of Reagan's Presidency --- when the office became vacant is irrelevant and was not the point of the discussion.

When you people are proven wrong you try to change the terms of the debate.

Why not let the court stay the way it is?

I'M ALL FOR THAT.

When Scalia died you righties lost control of the court and THAT'S what has your panties in a bunch.

The SC just refused to interfere with Colorado's Marijuana laws and if Scalia had still been on the court
I'm sure he would have made sure they ruled to overturn Colorado's laws.

YES INDEED LET'S WAIT ABOUT 4 MORE YEARS because the court is more liberal now.

You guys got your head up your ass, as usual, and don't even realize you are demanding the court stay more liberal. Obama's nominee is CONSERVATIVE --- but not bat shit crazy like Scalia.

So instead of putting another conservative on the court you demand to keep the court more liberal.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Yeah, the THIRD nominee, who turned out to be a flaming liberal on the court! Why did you leave that part out?[/QUOTE

========
Because it's irrelevant.

The argument is whether the Senate should do it's job or not.

The fact was that the so called " Biden Rule " has NEVER EXISTED. It was just a suggestion he made ( perhaps while high ) and the DEMS did not do it.

Raging righties talk as though because he made a suggestion it HAPPENED when in fact they know it did not.

Democrats DID confirm a Supreme Court Justice during Bush's last year in office and Bush nominated him ... the Democrats did not nominate him but they did confirm a Justice. The political flavor of that justice is irrelevant to the argument of whether or not Democrats have confirmed a justice during the last year of a Republicans term and THEY HAVE.

So GFY.

You should really lay off the mind-altering substances while posting. Exactly who did Bush nominate in his last year? Don't bother denying it, but you screwed up!

Neither George H. W. Bush, not George W. Bush nominated and had a justice confirmed in the last year they were in office.

I await your apology, but I won't hold my breath!

========
I won't apologize ... but I will admit I was wrong.

Justice Kennedy was appointed in 1988 the last year of REAGAN'S Presidency.

Sorry bout that, got them mixed up.

But the point is still VALID ... Democrats HAVE confirmed a Justice during the last year of a Republican Presidents term.

Once again, you did not tell the whole truth. The vacancy actually occurred in 1987. The Senate messed around denying his first two nominees for well over a year after the vacancy occurred. Why not just let the seat sit idle until January 2017? That will be less time than the Democrats stalled.

========

First of all no one was talking about when the vacancy occurred.

You righties claim that Dems have never confirmed a nominee in a Republican Presidents last year of his term and I proved that is not true.

He WAS confirmed during the last year of Reagan's Presidency --- when the office became vacant is irrelevant and was not the point of the discussion.

When you people are proven wrong you try to change the terms of the debate.

Why not let the court stay the way it is?

I'M ALL FOR THAT.

When Scalia died you righties lost control of the court and THAT'S what has your panties in a bunch.

The SC just refused to interfere with Colorado's Marijuana laws and if Scalia had still been on the court
I'm sure he would have made sure they ruled to overturn Colorado's laws.

YES INDEED LET'S WAIT ABOUT 4 MORE YEARS because the court is more liberal now.

You guys got your head up your ass, as usual, and don't even realize you are demanding the court stay more liberal. Obama's nominee is CONSERVATIVE --- but not bat shit crazy like Scalia.

So instead of putting another conservative on the court you demand to keep the court more liberal.

Nice deflection. You again cannot formulate a response without glossing over the specific details. The current nominee by Obama is about as conservative as Hillary is attractive.

Why is impossible for you to be truthful?

 

[mamooth]

Here in Indiana, Governor Pence, in the last year of his 4-year-term, is nominating a state supreme court replacement.

Not being dishonest partisan hacks, none of the Democrats are screaming it has to wait until after the next election.

Being dishonest partisan hacks, none of the Republicans are screaming it has to wait until after the next election.