Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"

[Ray From Cleveland]

and if there is?


are they going to claim to be better than the McConnell Senate, by blocking his picks.

and how many are they going to block?

2 years of nominees?

4?

6?

all that is going to do is prove their own hypocrisy.

They’ll block them all until there’s a new president. And thst’s not hypocrisy — it’s in accordance with the McConnell Rule.

Then they'll lose their seats in 2018 for being for nothing just obstructionists.

You mean like Republicans did in 2016?

The dems need to let this guy sail through he's a moderate more like Kennedy.

There’s nothing Democrats can do to prevent Republicans from confirming Kavanaugh. It’s not about Kennedy’s seat. Kennedy is a conservative and he’ll be replaced by s conservative. This is about Ginsberg’s or Breyer’s seat. Democrats need to win the Senate in November to ensure Trump can’t replace a Liberal with s conservative.

It may not be able to be stopped now that McCain chimed in and surprisingly, expressed his support for Kavanaugh. Prior to that, it was a threat that Dems could stop it. McCain really surprised me with that because he hates Trump more than Democrats.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, but there might be a different party in control of the Senate.

and if there is?


are they going to claim to be better than the McConnell Senate, by blocking his picks.

and how many are they going to block?

2 years of nominees?

4?

6?

all that is going to do is prove their own hypocrisy.

They’ll block them all until there’s a new president. And thst’s not hypocrisy — it’s in accordance with the McConnell Rule.

Then they'll lose their seats in 2018 for being for nothing just obstructionists.

You mean like Republicans did in 2016?

The dems need to let this guy sail through he's a moderate more like Kennedy.

That's not what I understand. He is to the right of Kennedy, just not far right.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

From February, 2016, when Scalia died, to January, 2017, when Obama left office. 11 months.

But suuure, there’s no difference between 4 months and 11 months, so there must not be a difference between 11 months and 72 months.

Henry Baldwin died April 21, 1844.
His replacement wasn't confirmed until Aug 3, 1846.
Over 27 months.


Smith Thompson died December 18, 1843
His replacement wasn't confirmed until February 4, 1845.
Over 13 months.


Henry Stanbery nominated Apr 1866.
No action until December 1869.
44 months.

Again you're talking about nominees by people who were not elected president?

Not the same thing. McConnell said the people should pick the person to decide USSC justices. The people picked Obama in 2012. The people did not pick Tyler or Johnson to be president.

Again you're talking about nominees by people who were not elected president?

Yes, I'm talking about nominations by Presidents.

Not the same thing.

You'll have to show me where the Constitution gives the appointment power to Presidents, only if they are elected.

McConnell said the people should pick the person to decide USSC justices.

Yes, that's what he said.

The people picked Obama in 2012.

The people picked Trump in 2016.

The people did not pick Tyler or Johnson to be president.

They weren't on the ticket?

Great, so using your logic, the people get to pick again this November when the Senate is up for grabs.

Nope, 'cause he's talking about the Presidency, and this year is not a Presidential election.

This is something they cannot understand. They think apples are oranges and oranges are apples.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In reality, the American people don't matter. What matters is money. Lobbyists. Big business. Washington. Your piddly little vote is worthless.

What difference do the democrats even think midterms would make? Short of an extremely unlikely outcome, republicans keep the senate.

Some Democrats are playing double or nothing. Stop this appointment at any cost, even if it means Senators for reelection falling on the sword. But if they lose seats because of it, Trump will be able to nominate anybody he wants, including somebody more right of Kavanaugh.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Henry Baldwin died April 21, 1844.
His replacement wasn't confirmed until Aug 3, 1846.
Over 27 months.


Smith Thompson died December 18, 1843
His replacement wasn't confirmed until February 4, 1845.
Over 13 months.


Henry Stanbery nominated Apr 1866.
No action until December 1869.
44 months.

Again you're talking about nominees by people who were not elected president?

Not the same thing. McConnell said the people should pick the person to decide USSC justices. The people picked Obama in 2012. The people did not pick Tyler or Johnson to be president.

Again you're talking about nominees by people who were not elected president?

Yes, I'm talking about nominations by Presidents.

Not the same thing.

You'll have to show me where the Constitution gives the appointment power to Presidents, only if they are elected.

McConnell said the people should pick the person to decide USSC justices.

Yes, that's what he said.

The people picked Obama in 2012.

The people picked Trump in 2016.

The people did not pick Tyler or Johnson to be president.

They weren't on the ticket?

Great, so using your logic, the people get to pick again this November when the Senate is up for grabs.

Nope, 'cause he's talking about the Presidency, and this year is not a Presidential election.

This is something they cannot understand. They think apples are oranges and oranges are apples.

Well, maybe the apples FEEL like they're oranges. Who are you to tell them otherwise?

 

[Papageorgio]

Thing is the people already decided when the GOP hijacked the process under Obama. Like that act or not it put the direction of the court FIRMLY in the hands of the voter.
Voters chose and the left lost so why hold up more nominees when the people have already spoken?

And spare me the popular vote or Russia Russia Russia bullshit.

Sounds like a good idea. Let's see the make up of the Senate after November. If, as trumpanzees claim, they hold on to the majority, why are they so afraid?

Democrats thought they were a shoe in in 2016 and that backfired, so Republicans would rather collect their winnings before squandering them. A lot better strategy than counting your chickens before they’re hatched.

 

[asaratis]

Actually, it's called the Biden Rule...for a reason.

Nope, there’s no such thing as the Biden rule as it was never implemented. Even worse for the nutty right, unlike what McConnell actually did, which was to tell the president there’s no point in nominating anyone because the Senate was not going to confirm any Obama nominee; what Biden suggested was to hold off confirmation hearings until after the election, which was just a few months away, and then hold hearings. He never said he wanted to utterly deny a duly elected president his Constitutional authority to appoint Supreme Court justices. That’s the McConnell rule.

The Biden Standard

SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE), Then-Judiciary Committee Chairman: “…it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not - and not - name a nominee until after the November election is completed.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.16316-7, 6/25/1992)



BIDEN: In Multiple Instances, ‘The President Himself Withheld Making A Nomination Until After The Election Was Held’
SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE): “Can our Supreme Court nomination and confirmation processes, so racked by discord and bitterness, be repaired in a Presidential election year? History teaches us that this is extremely unlikely. Some of our Nation's most bitter and heated confirmation fights have come in Presidential election years. The bruising confirmation fight over Roger Taney's nomination in 1836; the Senate's refusal to confirm four nominations by President Tyler in 1844; the single vote rejections of nominees Badger and Black by lameduck Presidents Fillmore and Buchanan, in the mid-19th century; and the narrow approvals of Justices Lamar and Fuller in 1888 are just some examples of these fights in the 19th century.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.16316, 6/25/1992)

• BIDEN: “…in 1800, 1828, 1864, and 1956-the President himself withheld making a nomination until after the election was held. …it is time to consider whether this unbroken string of historical tradition should be broken. In my view, what history supports, common sense dictates in the case of 1992.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.16316, 6/25/1992)

BIDEN: ‘The Senate Judiciary Committee Should Seriously Consider Not Scheduling Confirmation Hearings On The Nomination Until After The Political Campaign Season Is Over’
SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE): “The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.16317, 6/25/1992)

• BIDEN: “I am sure, Mr. President, after having uttered these words some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save the seat on the Court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course to choose in the Senate to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, 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 is central to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.16317, 6/25/1992)

Do you realize nothing you posted refuted or contradicted what I said?

Yes. It merely documents that the idea of not confirming a President's nominee in a Presidential election year has long been called "The Biden Standard (rule)"....NOT "The McConnel Rule" as you erroneously claimed. Neither has ever been added to the Senate Rules.

Are you an idiot or a liar? Biden never proposed refusing a president's nominee a confirmation hearing.

As far as the McConnell rule not being added to the Senate rules, neither was your so called, "Biden rule," yet here you are, pretending like there is such a thing.

No. It is you that is either an idiot or a liar. However, I suspect both are spot on.

You called it the McConnell Rule. I gave you evidence that Uncle Joe porposed it many years ago and it became known as the "Biden Standard".

You are a fucking idiot....and you lie a lot.

 

[oreo]

You bet. The Dem majority leader can refuse to bring the nomination to the Senate floor.
Who is the Dem majority leader?

That's the whole point, the Democrat Party doesn't have the votes to stop the nomination of this fabulous choice.

The first step if they are interested is to win the Senate.

The Republican Senate majority isn't that big, it's only 1 vote, and they wiould like to have a bi-partisan confirmation. They used the nuclear option on Niel Gorsuch, but John McCain complained about that, because what it did was insure that when Democrats are the majority in the Senate they will now use the nuclear option on SCOTUS nominees--with an excuse that Republicans did it..

So Republicans may decide NOT to use the nuclear option in this instance--because they know it eventually will get shoved up a dark spot someday in the future. So they may insist on the 61 vote threshold--which they don't have.

Go back to post # 511 on this thread for a better explanation. It's just politics 101

i don't think it matters what the repubs do here. if the liberals have a chance to get their way by going nuke, they'll do it. to expect the other side not to do it is ludicrous.

Republicans have their own fears going into the midterm election cycle. This link will explain it. The general public is pissed off, and if people show up to vote this coming November it's looking very ugly for Republicans. IOW the last thing they want to do is shove another Trump nominee down the public's throats by using the nuclear option. I think they will insist on the 61 vote threshold, in order to keep the peace. They don't have 61 votes.
Blue wave coming this November 2018

Now the interesting thing about Kavanaugh is this, and it makes perfect sense why Trump wants him to be the next SCOTUS.

A decade later, after Kavanaugh had worked closely with President George W. Bush, he wrote in a law review that he had new appreciation for the demands of the presidency and the toll any legal proceeding could take on the White House. He recommended presidents be shielded from civil and criminal litigation until they leave office."Having seen first-hand how complex and difficult that job is," he wrote, "I believe it vital that the President be able to focus on his never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible." He acknowledged that blocking litigation would suggest the President was "above the law," but he added that "the point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and investigations until the President is out of office."Kavanaugh noted in the 2009 Minnesota Law Review piece that a check against a "bad-behaving or law-breaking President" would still exist. "If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available."

Who is Brett Kavanaugh? Washington insider has said presidents should be shielded from litigation while in office - CNNPolitics

There is not a snowballs chance in hell, that Democrats will vote for a SCOTUS nominee that is on record for stating that President's shouldn't be investigated or litigated until after "they're out of office."

I think they will insist on the 61 vote threshold, in order to keep the peace.

60 votes ends a filibuster.
He'll be confirmed with a lot fewer than 60.

Maybe, but I believe Repulbicans will go for bipartisan approval. If they don't get it, I imagine they're going to wait until after the midterms.

Bret Kavanaugh was confirmed as a Federal District court judge, like Niel Gorsuch, both G.W Bush appointee's by a Democrat majority in 2006. Again they could have easily rejected Kavanaugh. He's already run the guanlet on Roe v Wade & other issues. But his recorded statement that he doesn't believe that Presidents should be under investigation while they're in office is going to destroy him. They are going to hammer that one home.

I imagine that after the midterms,Trump will be required to select another nominee.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's the whole point, the Democrat Party doesn't have the votes to stop the nomination of this fabulous choice.

The first step if they are interested is to win the Senate.

The Republican Senate majority isn't that big, it's only 1 vote, and they wiould like to have a bi-partisan confirmation. They used the nuclear option on Niel Gorsuch, but John McCain complained about that, because what it did was insure that when Democrats are the majority in the Senate they will now use the nuclear option on SCOTUS nominees--with an excuse that Republicans did it..

So Republicans may decide NOT to use the nuclear option in this instance--because they know it eventually will get shoved up a dark spot someday in the future. So they may insist on the 61 vote threshold--which they don't have.

Go back to post # 511 on this thread for a better explanation. It's just politics 101

i don't think it matters what the repubs do here. if the liberals have a chance to get their way by going nuke, they'll do it. to expect the other side not to do it is ludicrous.

Republicans have their own fears going into the midterm election cycle. This link will explain it. The general public is pissed off, and if people show up to vote this coming November it's looking very ugly for Republicans. IOW the last thing they want to do is shove another Trump nominee down the public's throats by using the nuclear option. I think they will insist on the 61 vote threshold, in order to keep the peace. They don't have 61 votes.
Blue wave coming this November 2018

Now the interesting thing about Kavanaugh is this, and it makes perfect sense why Trump wants him to be the next SCOTUS.

A decade later, after Kavanaugh had worked closely with President George W. Bush, he wrote in a law review that he had new appreciation for the demands of the presidency and the toll any legal proceeding could take on the White House. He recommended presidents be shielded from civil and criminal litigation until they leave office."Having seen first-hand how complex and difficult that job is," he wrote, "I believe it vital that the President be able to focus on his never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible." He acknowledged that blocking litigation would suggest the President was "above the law," but he added that "the point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and investigations until the President is out of office."Kavanaugh noted in the 2009 Minnesota Law Review piece that a check against a "bad-behaving or law-breaking President" would still exist. "If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available."

Who is Brett Kavanaugh? Washington insider has said presidents should be shielded from litigation while in office - CNNPolitics

There is not a snowballs chance in hell, that Democrats will vote for a SCOTUS nominee that is on record for stating that President's shouldn't be investigated or litigated until after "they're out of office."

I think they will insist on the 61 vote threshold, in order to keep the peace.

60 votes ends a filibuster.
He'll be confirmed with a lot fewer than 60.

Maybe, but I believe Repulbicans will go for bipartisan approval. If they don't get it, I imagine they're going to wait until after the midterms.

Bret Kavanaugh was confirmed as a Federal District court judge, like Niel Gorsuch, both G.W Bush appointee's by a Democrat majority in 2006. Again they could have easily rejected Kavanaugh. He's already run the guanlet on Roe v Wade & other issues. But his recorded statement that he doesn't believe that Presidents should be under investigation while they're in office is going to destroy him. They are going to hammer that one home.

I imagine that after the midterms,Trump will be required to select another nominee.

Maybe, but I believe Repulbicans will go for bipartisan approval. If they don't get it, I imagine they're going to wait until after the midterms.

If they get 51 votes they'll just say, "Never mind, we'll try again later"?

But his recorded statement that he doesn't believe that Presidents should be under investigation while they're in office is going to destroy him.

Why?

They are going to hammer that one home.

They'll hammer. He'll get enough votes and he'll be confirmed.

I imagine that after the midterms,Trump will be required to select another nominee.

Well, that's true. Sotomayor and Ginsburg aren't going to replace themselves.

 

[oreo]

Thing is the people already decided when the GOP hijacked the process under Obama. Like that act or not it put the direction of the court FIRMLY in the hands of the voter.
Voters chose and the left lost so why hold up more nominees when the people have already spoken?

And spare me the popular vote or Russia Russia Russia bullshit.

Turn about is fair play. Democrats have every right to block this nominee until after the midterm election cycle. Republicans blocked Merrick Garland, Obama's last pick 6 months before the election, so they could campaign on the SCOTUS, and I would expect that Democrats will do the same.

After campaigning on the SCOTUS--Trump picked a nominee in Niel Gorsuch that Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama voted for in 2006. Niel Gorsuch, a G.W. Bush nominee to the Federal 10th district court of appeals. In fact Democrats confirmed Niel Gorsuch, at a time when they could have easily rejected him, as they were the majority in the Senate at that time.

Here are the Democrats that voted for Niel Gorsuch in 2006.

Niel Gorsuch is the only nominee to my memory that stated during confirmation hearings that Roe v Wade is precedent in the Constitution, meaning set it stone.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

The ONLY reason Democrats tried to block Niel Gorsuch this time around is because they were pissed that Republicans blocked Obama's last nominee, Merrick Garland. But even at that, they didn't put up a huge fight because they obviously liked Niel Gorsuch. This new pick Brett Kavanaugh--look for a yuuuuuge fight.

Democrats have a very good chance of taking back the house, and possibly the senate this coming November, and they are just thinking ahead. If they win back the Senate, it will be they that make the confirmations and decide who the SCOTUS will be. So of course they're going to try and block Brett Kavanaugh, whether they like him or not.
Blue wave coming this November 2018

It's just politics 101

They don't have the votes retard..

neither did Garland

That is not a sure thing.

Garland needed 60, with a Republican Senate.

VERY unlikely

It was a democrat majority senate that confirmed both Niel Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh in 2006. They could have easily rejected both of them. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer and many other Democrats voted for them.

Where Kavanaugh stepped into it, is he has stated that he doesn't believe that Presidents should be investigated while in office. He just lost all of his former Democrat support in that statement.

We'll see but I think Kavanaugh gets kicked to the curb for another nominee, and I believe that Republicans will agree to that, as they are desperate to get bipartisan support prior to the midterm election cycle. If they use another nuclear option, they will give Democrats a great campaign gift.

 

[Faun]

Nope, there’s no such thing as the Biden rule as it was never implemented. Even worse for the nutty right, unlike what McConnell actually did, which was to tell the president there’s no point in nominating anyone because the Senate was not going to confirm any Obama nominee; what Biden suggested was to hold off confirmation hearings until after the election, which was just a few months away, and then hold hearings. He never said he wanted to utterly deny a duly elected president his Constitutional authority to appoint Supreme Court justices. That’s the McConnell rule.

The Biden Standard

SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE), Then-Judiciary Committee Chairman: “…it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not - and not - name a nominee until after the November election is completed.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.16316-7, 6/25/1992)



BIDEN: In Multiple Instances, ‘The President Himself Withheld Making A Nomination Until After The Election Was Held’
SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE): “Can our Supreme Court nomination and confirmation processes, so racked by discord and bitterness, be repaired in a Presidential election year? History teaches us that this is extremely unlikely. Some of our Nation's most bitter and heated confirmation fights have come in Presidential election years. The bruising confirmation fight over Roger Taney's nomination in 1836; the Senate's refusal to confirm four nominations by President Tyler in 1844; the single vote rejections of nominees Badger and Black by lameduck Presidents Fillmore and Buchanan, in the mid-19th century; and the narrow approvals of Justices Lamar and Fuller in 1888 are just some examples of these fights in the 19th century.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.16316, 6/25/1992)

• BIDEN: “…in 1800, 1828, 1864, and 1956-the President himself withheld making a nomination until after the election was held. …it is time to consider whether this unbroken string of historical tradition should be broken. In my view, what history supports, common sense dictates in the case of 1992.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.16316, 6/25/1992)

BIDEN: ‘The Senate Judiciary Committee Should Seriously Consider Not Scheduling Confirmation Hearings On The Nomination Until After The Political Campaign Season Is Over’
SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE): “The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.16317, 6/25/1992)

• BIDEN: “I am sure, Mr. President, after having uttered these words some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save the seat on the Court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course to choose in the Senate to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, 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 is central to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.16317, 6/25/1992)

Do you realize nothing you posted refuted or contradicted what I said?

Yes. It merely documents that the idea of not confirming a President's nominee in a Presidential election year has long been called "The Biden Standard (rule)"....NOT "The McConnel Rule" as you erroneously claimed. Neither has ever been added to the Senate Rules.

Are you an idiot or a liar? Biden never proposed refusing a president's nominee a confirmation hearing.

As far as the McConnell rule not being added to the Senate rules, neither was your so called, "Biden rule," yet here you are, pretending like there is such a thing.

No. It is you that is either an idiot or a liar. However, I suspect both are spot on.

You called it the McConnell Rule. I gave you evidence that Uncle Joe porposed it many years ago and it became known as the "Biden Standard".

You are a fucking idiot....and you lie a lot.

I see you’re an idiot AND a liar.

McConnell denied Obama a confirmation hearing for the remainder of Obama’s presidency.

That’s not what Biden suggested. Biden suggested the Senate postponed confirmation hearings only until after the election.

I don’t care how rightarded you are, postpone is not the same as permanent.

 

[asaratis]

The Biden Standard

SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE), Then-Judiciary Committee Chairman: “…it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not - and not - name a nominee until after the November election is completed.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.16316-7, 6/25/1992)



BIDEN: In Multiple Instances, ‘The President Himself Withheld Making A Nomination Until After The Election Was Held’
SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE): “Can our Supreme Court nomination and confirmation processes, so racked by discord and bitterness, be repaired in a Presidential election year? History teaches us that this is extremely unlikely. Some of our Nation's most bitter and heated confirmation fights have come in Presidential election years. The bruising confirmation fight over Roger Taney's nomination in 1836; the Senate's refusal to confirm four nominations by President Tyler in 1844; the single vote rejections of nominees Badger and Black by lameduck Presidents Fillmore and Buchanan, in the mid-19th century; and the narrow approvals of Justices Lamar and Fuller in 1888 are just some examples of these fights in the 19th century.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.16316, 6/25/1992)

• BIDEN: “…in 1800, 1828, 1864, and 1956-the President himself withheld making a nomination until after the election was held. …it is time to consider whether this unbroken string of historical tradition should be broken. In my view, what history supports, common sense dictates in the case of 1992.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.16316, 6/25/1992)

BIDEN: ‘The Senate Judiciary Committee Should Seriously Consider Not Scheduling Confirmation Hearings On The Nomination Until After The Political Campaign Season Is Over’
SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE): “The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.16317, 6/25/1992)

• BIDEN: “I am sure, Mr. President, after having uttered these words some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save the seat on the Court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course to choose in the Senate to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, 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 is central to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.16317, 6/25/1992)

Do you realize nothing you posted refuted or contradicted what I said?

Yes. It merely documents that the idea of not confirming a President's nominee in a Presidential election year has long been called "The Biden Standard (rule)"....NOT "The McConnel Rule" as you erroneously claimed. Neither has ever been added to the Senate Rules.

Are you an idiot or a liar? Biden never proposed refusing a president's nominee a confirmation hearing.

As far as the McConnell rule not being added to the Senate rules, neither was your so called, "Biden rule," yet here you are, pretending like there is such a thing.

No. It is you that is either an idiot or a liar. However, I suspect both are spot on.

You called it the McConnell Rule. I gave you evidence that Uncle Joe porposed it many years ago and it became known as the "Biden Standard".

You are a fucking idiot....and you lie a lot.

I see you’re an idiot AND a liar.

McConnell denied Obama a confirmation hearing for the remainder of Obama’s presidency.

That’s not what Biden suggested. Biden suggested the Senate postponed confirmation hearings only until after the election.

I don’t care how rightarded you are, postpone is not the same as permanent.

LMAO! Both suggested waiting until after the election. Had Hillary won, she could have nominated Garland again....and the Senate majority could have gone to the Democrats.

 

[Faun]

No, you

Do you realize nothing you posted refuted or contradicted what I said?

Yes. It merely documents that the idea of not confirming a President's nominee in a Presidential election year has long been called "The Biden Standard (rule)"....NOT "The McConnel Rule" as you erroneously claimed. Neither has ever been added to the Senate Rules.

Are you an idiot or a liar? Biden never proposed refusing a president's nominee a confirmation hearing.

As far as the McConnell rule not being added to the Senate rules, neither was your so called, "Biden rule," yet here you are, pretending like there is such a thing.

No. It is you that is either an idiot or a liar. However, I suspect both are spot on.

You called it the McConnell Rule. I gave you evidence that Uncle Joe porposed it many years ago and it became known as the "Biden Standard".

You are a fucking idiot....and you lie a lot.

I see you’re an idiot AND a liar.

McConnell denied Obama a confirmation hearing for the remainder of Obama’s presidency.

That’s not what Biden suggested. Biden suggested the Senate postponed confirmation hearings only until after the election.

I don’t care how rightarded you are, postpone is not the same as permanent.

LMAO! Both suggested waiting until after the election. Had Hillary won, she could have nominated Garland again....and the Senate majority could have gone to the Democrats.

Lying idiot... Biden said the current sitting president’s nominee would get a confirmation hearing; compared to McConnell who said the current sitting president’s nominee would not be given a confirmation hearing.

Have someone more intelligent than you, which is anyone, explain to you how temporary is not the same as permanent.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"


the people have already decided

they gave trump 4 years to do his thing

this is well within his 4 years

end of story

 

[Faun]

Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"


the people have already decided

they gave trump 4 years to do his thing

this is well within his 4 years

end of story

So? The people decided Obama would get 4 years before Trump. Senate Republicans chose to take that away from the public. Republicans did it to Obama, Democrats, if they take over the Senate, can do it to Trump.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"


the people have already decided

they gave trump 4 years to do his thing

this is well within his 4 years

end of story

So? The people decided Obama would get 4 years before Trump. Senate Republicans chose to take that away from the public. Republicans did it to Obama, Democrats, if they take over the Senate, can do it to Trump.

After DumBama's reelection the country started to turn against him mostly because of Commie Care I'm guessing. He lost the Senate, 2/3 of the country went to Republican Governors, and hundreds of smaller state seats to boot. While the MSM predicted Hil-Liar to win, it was clear the country was against Democrat policies.

 

[Auld Phart]

Turn about is fair play. Democrats have every right to block this nominee until after the midterm election cycle. Republicans blocked Merrick Garland, Obama's last pick 6 months before the election, so they could campaign on the SCOTUS, and I would expect that Democrats will do the same.

After campaigning on the SCOTUS--Trump picked a nominee in Niel Gorsuch that Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama voted for in 2006. Niel Gorsuch, a G.W. Bush nominee to the Federal 10th district court of appeals. In fact Democrats confirmed Niel Gorsuch, at a time when they could have easily rejected him, as they were the majority in the Senate at that time.

Here are the Democrats that voted for Niel Gorsuch in 2006.

Niel Gorsuch is the only nominee to my memory that stated during confirmation hearings that Roe v Wade is precedent in the Constitution, meaning set it stone.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

The ONLY reason Democrats tried to block Niel Gorsuch this time around is because they were pissed that Republicans blocked Obama's last nominee, Merrick Garland. But even at that, they didn't put up a huge fight because they obviously liked Niel Gorsuch. This new pick Brett Kavanaugh--look for a yuuuuuge fight.

Democrats have a very good chance of taking back the house, and possibly the senate this coming November, and they are just thinking ahead. If they win back the Senate, it will be they that make the confirmations and decide who the SCOTUS will be. So of course they're going to try and block Brett Kavanaugh, whether they like him or not.
Blue wave coming this November 2018

It's just politics 101

They don't have the votes retard..

neither did Garland

That is not a sure thing.

Garland needed 60, with a Republican Senate.

VERY unlikely

It was a democrat majority senate that confirmed both Niel Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh in 2006. They could have easily rejected both of them. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer and many other Democrats voted for them.

Where Kavanaugh stepped into it, is he has stated that he doesn't believe that Presidents should be investigated while in office. He just lost all of his former Democrat support in that statement.

We'll see but I think Kavanaugh gets kicked to the curb for another nominee, and I believe that Republicans will agree to that, as they are desperate to get bipartisan support prior to the midterm election cycle. If they use another nuclear option, they will give Democrats a great campaign gift.

What are you talking about?

And what does it have to do with what I posted?

 

[Auld Phart]

No, you

Yes. It merely documents that the idea of not confirming a President's nominee in a Presidential election year has long been called "The Biden Standard (rule)"....NOT "The McConnel Rule" as you erroneously claimed. Neither has ever been added to the Senate Rules.

Are you an idiot or a liar? Biden never proposed refusing a president's nominee a confirmation hearing.

As far as the McConnell rule not being added to the Senate rules, neither was your so called, "Biden rule," yet here you are, pretending like there is such a thing.

No. It is you that is either an idiot or a liar. However, I suspect both are spot on.

You called it the McConnell Rule. I gave you evidence that Uncle Joe porposed it many years ago and it became known as the "Biden Standard".

You are a fucking idiot....and you lie a lot.

I see you’re an idiot AND a liar.

McConnell denied Obama a confirmation hearing for the remainder of Obama’s presidency.

That’s not what Biden suggested. Biden suggested the Senate postponed confirmation hearings only until after the election.

I don’t care how rightarded you are, postpone is not the same as permanent.

LMAO! Both suggested waiting until after the election. Had Hillary won, she could have nominated Garland again....and the Senate majority could have gone to the Democrats.

Lying idiot... Biden said the current sitting president’s nominee would get a confirmation hearing; compared to McConnell who said the current sitting president’s nominee would not be given a confirmation hearing.

Have someone more intelligent than you, which is anyone, explain to you how temporary is not the same as permanent.

Biden said the current sitting president’s nominee would get a confirmation hearing;

Got a link for that?

Because I've posted just the opposite, at least 3 times

 

[Faun]

Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"


the people have already decided

they gave trump 4 years to do his thing

this is well within his 4 years

end of story

So? The people decided Obama would get 4 years before Trump. Senate Republicans chose to take that away from the public. Republicans did it to Obama, Democrats, if they take over the Senate, can do it to Trump.

After DumBama's reelection the country started to turn against him mostly because of Commie Care I'm guessing. He lost the Senate, 2/3 of the country went to Republican Governors, and hundreds of smaller state seats to boot. While the MSM predicted Hil-Liar to win, it was clear the country was against Democrat policies.

Great, so using your logic, should Democrats win the Senate this November, it’s a signal the country is against conservative policies and doesn’t wan Trump to replace any more Supreme Court justices. Glad you’re on board.

 

[Faun]

No, you

Are you an idiot or a liar? Biden never proposed refusing a president's nominee a confirmation hearing.

As far as the McConnell rule not being added to the Senate rules, neither was your so called, "Biden rule," yet here you are, pretending like there is such a thing.

No. It is you that is either an idiot or a liar. However, I suspect both are spot on.

You called it the McConnell Rule. I gave you evidence that Uncle Joe porposed it many years ago and it became known as the "Biden Standard".

You are a fucking idiot....and you lie a lot.

I see you’re an idiot AND a liar.

McConnell denied Obama a confirmation hearing for the remainder of Obama’s presidency.

That’s not what Biden suggested. Biden suggested the Senate postponed confirmation hearings only until after the election.

I don’t care how rightarded you are, postpone is not the same as permanent.

LMAO! Both suggested waiting until after the election. Had Hillary won, she could have nominated Garland again....and the Senate majority could have gone to the Democrats.

Lying idiot... Biden said the current sitting president’s nominee would get a confirmation hearing; compared to McConnell who said the current sitting president’s nominee would not be given a confirmation hearing.

Have someone more intelligent than you, which is anyone, explain to you how temporary is not the same as permanent.

Biden said the current sitting president’s nominee would get a confirmation hearing;

Got a link for that?

Because I've posted just the opposite, at least 3 times

No, you didn’t post the opposite of that. You don’t understand what you posted. What you posted was Biden suggesting the Senate hold off on confirmation hearings until after the November elections so as not to make the election about a Supreme Court vacancy. You know, the opposite of McConnell’s motives of politicizing the Supreme Court.