Punching Back Twice As Hard: GOP Uses Schumer’s Words Against Him:

[Weatherman2020]

Senate Democrats are in a rough spot.

It’s embarrassing enough that they have to fight Neil Gorsuch, a Supreme Court nominee whom they once unanimously supported. But now they must defend a position they spent all of last year blasting as indefensible.

Now Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has the unfortunate task of explaining his double standard. Somehow, he must show why leaving a Supreme Court seat vacant was wrong for Republicans but suddenly right for Democrats. It’s a tough job.

And Republicans aren’t making it any easier. They’ve launched a new supercut video of Democrat statements, interviews, and speeches protesting the way Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., treated Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland.

It’s a good primer on the strategic dangers of invoking principle in defense of naked politics.

Republicans use Chuck Schumer's words against him

The video:

 

[Weatherman2020]

View attachment 110204

"It’s embarrassing enough that they have to fight Neil Gorsuch, a Supreme Court nominee whom they once unanimously supported. But now they must defend a position they spent all of last year blasting as indefensible."

 

[JakeStarkey]

 

[Weatherman2020]

View attachment 110207

Oh boy, another post of the same stupid pointless cartoon.
If the left had even a tad of self awareness they would crawl under a rock with shame.

 

[tinydancer]

Biden argued for delaying the Supreme Court pick. 1992. The Dems don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[tinydancer]

Joe Biden Argued for Delaying Supreme Court Picks in 1992
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVISFEB. 22, 2016

WASHINGTON — As a senator more than two decades ago, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. argued that President George Bush should delay filling a Supreme Court vacancy, should one arise, until the presidential election was over, and that it was “essential” that the Senate refuse to confirm a nominee to the court until then.

Mr. Biden’s words, though uttered long ago, are a direct contradiction to President Obama’s position in the battle over naming a successor to Justice Antonin Scalia.
Mr. Obama has said it is his constitutional responsibility to name a successor to Justice Scalia, who died Feb. 13 at the age of 79. The president has reacted with incredulity to the suggestion by several Republican presidential candidates and senators, including Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, that the decision should wait until after Mr. Obama has left office.
“Historically, this has not been viewed as a question,” Mr. Obama said last week. “There’s no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off years — that’s not in the constitutional text.”

But in a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.”

The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.


“Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention,” Mr. Biden said at the time. “It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.
“That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me,” he added, “we will be in deep trouble as an institution.”
Photo

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the chairman of the Judiciary committee, with Ruth Bader Ginsburg in June 1993. She was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Bill

More at link:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/...elaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html?_r=0

 

[JakeStarkey]

View attachment 110207

Oh boy, another post of the same stupid pointless cartoon.
If the left had even a tad of self awareness they would crawl under a rock with shame.

The cartoon is straight to the point.

Pubs would not hold hearings on Garland, and now the Senate GOP is acting petulantly. Yes, they should crawl under a rock in shame.

Poor, poory wussy alt and far righties. Cannot walk the walk, only talk the talk, and they do that poorly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Garland and Gorsuch: there is the comparison.

 

[Weatherman2020]

View attachment 110207

Oh boy, another post of the same stupid pointless cartoon.
If the left had even a tad of self awareness they would crawl under a rock with shame.

The cartoon is straight to the point.

Pubs would not hold hearings on Garland, and now the Senate GOP is acting petulantly. Yes, they should crawl under a rock in shame.

Poor, poory wussy alt and far righties. Cannot walk the walk, only talk the talk, and they do that poorly.

The world is enjoying watching the hypocrisy of the left, from nomination proceedings to rallies for free speech to prevent people from speaking.

 

[JakeStarkey]

View attachment 110207

Oh boy, another post of the same stupid pointless cartoon.
If the left had even a tad of self awareness they would crawl under a rock with shame.

The cartoon is straight to the point.

Pubs would not hold hearings on Garland, and now the Senate GOP is acting petulantly. Yes, they should crawl under a rock in shame.

Poor, poory wussy alt and far righties. Cannot walk the walk, only talk the talk, and they do that poorly.

The world is enjoying watching the hypocrisy of the left, from nomination proceedings to rallies for free speech to prevent people from speaking.

Only in your silly head there.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Joe Biden Argued for Delaying Supreme Court Picks in 1992
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVISFEB. 22, 2016

WASHINGTON — As a senator more than two decades ago, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. argued that President George Bush should delay filling a Supreme Court vacancy, should one arise, until the presidential election was over, and that it was “essential” that the Senate refuse to confirm a nominee to the court until then.

Mr. Biden’s words, though uttered long ago, are a direct contradiction to President Obama’s position in the battle over naming a successor to Justice Antonin Scalia.
Mr. Obama has said it is his constitutional responsibility to name a successor to Justice Scalia, who died Feb. 13 at the age of 79. The president has reacted with incredulity to the suggestion by several Republican presidential candidates and senators, including Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, that the decision should wait until after Mr. Obama has left office.
“Historically, this has not been viewed as a question,” Mr. Obama said last week. “There’s no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off years — that’s not in the constitutional text.”

But in a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.”

The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.


“Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention,” Mr. Biden said at the time. “It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.
“That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me,” he added, “we will be in deep trouble as an institution.”
Photo

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the chairman of the Judiciary committee, with Ruth Bader Ginsburg in June 1993. She was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Bill

More at link:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/...elaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html?_r=0

But the NY Times is a rightwing mouthpiece for Trump!

 

[Weatherman2020]

View attachment 110207

Oh boy, another post of the same stupid pointless cartoon.
If the left had even a tad of self awareness they would crawl under a rock with shame.

The cartoon is straight to the point.

Pubs would not hold hearings on Garland, and now the Senate GOP is acting petulantly. Yes, they should crawl under a rock in shame.

Poor, poory wussy alt and far righties. Cannot walk the walk, only talk the talk, and they do that poorly.

The world is enjoying watching the hypocrisy of the left, from nomination proceedings to rallies for free speech to prevent people from speaking.

Only in your silly head there.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No merit to your comparison, but go ahead.

 

[Weatherman2020]

No merit to your comparison, but go ahead.

If you wish to say Democrats are unpatriotic, who am I to argue?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No merit to your comparison, but go ahead.

If you wish to say Democrats are unpatriotic, who am I to argue?

They are no more unpatriotic than mainstream GOP. The Alt Right like you are unAmerican, yes, you have that right.

 

[Claudette]

America is watching the Dems right now.

2018 is fast approaching and they have seats to defend.

Wonder how voters will like what the Dems are doing right now??

 

[blackhawk]

Sen. Chuck Schumer said in July 2007 that no George W. Bush nominee to the Supreme Court should be approved, except in extraordinary circumstances, 19 months before a new president was set to be inaugurated. Yet somehow Republicans doing what the Democrats would have done given the opportunity is wrong and yes I know the Republicans flip flopped their view on this before anyone ask.

 

[Coyote]

Senate Democrats are in a rough spot.

It’s embarrassing enough that they have to fight Neil Gorsuch, a Supreme Court nominee whom they once unanimously supported. But now they must defend a position they spent all of last year blasting as indefensible.

Now Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has the unfortunate task of explaining his double standard. Somehow, he must show why leaving a Supreme Court seat vacant was wrong for Republicans but suddenly right for Democrats. It’s a tough job.

And Republicans aren’t making it any easier. They’ve launched a new supercut video of Democrat statements, interviews, and speeches protesting the way Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., treated Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland.

It’s a good primer on the strategic dangers of invoking principle in defense of naked politics.

Republicans use Chuck Schumer's words against him

The video:

Didn't the Republicans support Merrick Garland?

Gorsuch did, and shamed the Republicans for blocking it.

They should probably not block this one. Save it for if there is another opening - then they can say well it's an election year (or 2 yrs or 3 yrs before an election) and we should let "the people" decide.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Senate Democrats are in a rough spot.

It’s embarrassing enough that they have to fight Neil Gorsuch, a Supreme Court nominee whom they once unanimously supported. But now they must defend a position they spent all of last year blasting as indefensible.

Now Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has the unfortunate task of explaining his double standard. Somehow, he must show why leaving a Supreme Court seat vacant was wrong for Republicans but suddenly right for Democrats. It’s a tough job.

And Republicans aren’t making it any easier. They’ve launched a new supercut video of Democrat statements, interviews, and speeches protesting the way Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., treated Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland.

It’s a good primer on the strategic dangers of invoking principle in defense of naked politics.

Republicans use Chuck Schumer's words against him

The video:

Didn't the Republicans support Merrick Garland?

Gorsuch did, and shamed the Republicans for blocking it.

They should probably not block this one. Save it for if there is another opening - then they can say well it's an election year (or 2 yrs or 3 yrs before an election) and we should let "the people" decide.

Don't blame me for the Biden rule

 

[Coyote]

Senate Democrats are in a rough spot.

It’s embarrassing enough that they have to fight Neil Gorsuch, a Supreme Court nominee whom they once unanimously supported. But now they must defend a position they spent all of last year blasting as indefensible.

Now Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has the unfortunate task of explaining his double standard. Somehow, he must show why leaving a Supreme Court seat vacant was wrong for Republicans but suddenly right for Democrats. It’s a tough job.

And Republicans aren’t making it any easier. They’ve launched a new supercut video of Democrat statements, interviews, and speeches protesting the way Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., treated Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland.

It’s a good primer on the strategic dangers of invoking principle in defense of naked politics.

Republicans use Chuck Schumer's words against him

The video:

Didn't the Republicans support Merrick Garland?

Gorsuch did, and shamed the Republicans for blocking it.

They should probably not block this one. Save it for if there is another opening - then they can say well it's an election year (or 2 yrs or 3 yrs before an election) and we should let "the people" decide.

Don't blame me for the Biden rule

I'm not. How can I blame you for something that doesn't exist except in the rightwing world of "alternative facts"? It's not your fault after all....