Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You already confirmed it’s not the Biden rule when you admitted Biden never suggested the sitting president be denied appointing a replacement for the remainder of his presidency; like McConnell did.and if he nominates a woman?So? The Democrats find more women to cry rape until January.
based on butthurt?Then Democrats deny trump confirmation hearings for the next 2 years.
Biden ruleYou know, the McConnell rule of denying a sitting president confirmation hearings until a new president is sworn in.
It was during G.H.W. Bush's last year (1992) that stalled the retirement of Blackmun and allowed Breyer to be his replacement. So, yeah. That is exactly what Biden was doing.Great, let’s see you do what no other rightie could... quite Biden saying Bush will never get a confirmation hearing on any nominees for the remainder of his presidency....
It’s a rule now. Now, it’s acceptable to not hold confirmation hearings for the duration of a president’s terms.
No, just using the biden rule.They ceded that ground when they denied a sitting president his Constitutional authority to appoint a Supreme Court justice.
Great, so let’s see you quote Biden saying Bush should be denied confirmation hearings for the rest of his presidency so the next president could pick the new justice....They ceded that ground when they denied a sitting president his Constitutional authority to appoint a Supreme Court justice.Republicans voted to confirm and didn't threaten a filibuster.Democrats controlled the Senate when Sotomayor and Kagen were appointed. Republicans couldn’t withhold confirmation hearings then.
On this issue, the Rs have the moral high ground in motherfucking spades.
No, just using the biden rule.
Rumors that William Rehnquist and/or Harry Blackmun were considering retirement were circulating during that time. Remember, the last confirmed GOP Justice was none other than Clarence Thomas.There is no Biden Rule, because what Biden did was make a speech and had nothing to do with rules.
I'm fine with sexual misconduct being a disqualifier to be a judge.After the dems put up such a circus against Kavanaugh, one of the most qualified candidates in history, what repercussions can the dems expect from the GOP going forward. IMHO any "sexual misconduct" (including bringing the big dog out) is one, any "juvenile transgression" (theft, underage drinking, etc.), any drug use, including marijuana, any DUI, any PFA, any felony, etc.
I'm sure the FBI or Senate investigators could find something disqualifying on any and all democrat nominees going forward. If they can even find anyone to run that gauntlet.
The selection of Judges for the Supreme CourtI think we need to go even further
Congress has shown it is incapable of keeping partisanship out of the process. 75 percent is unachievable in today’s climate
Both parties should nominate a justice and let the people decide. Terms should be limited to 12 years
The idea of term limits has some merit, but I don't think it is essential to destroy the particular problem we are experiencing.
I think problem exists the most in 51% being a goal, that in itself, supports a two party strangle hold on our current political climate. If 51% is all that is required, then that is a motivator to run towards one side or the other. It forces people to group in situations that may not accurately represent a fair picture of their true political leanings and actual desires, in order for them to more or less do the best they can to keep someone else from doing something, instead of representing what each voters actually wants.
To require a supermajority (75% may be a little steep for the people who just want to fight, and 67% may be more suitable), could allow (no guarantee it will), the opportunity for people to find (or group in) additional parties that more closely represent their own concerns. Then those parties could work together to find the common ground necessary to produce more responsible legislation. I am not trying to fix things so they can get screwed up again, but make it so people are forced to come up with solutions where a simple divide won't accomplish much more than one team versus another.
I also don't want to suggest that I would expect anything to be easily accomplished, because I am not looking for a fast solution as much as a better solution, whether it may be legislation, appointments, or politics in general. I don't care if they don't do crap in Washington DC, and I am more interested in ensuring what they do manage to accomplish, better serves everyone.
If Washington DC cannot manage to get something done, the 10th Amendment of the Constitution indicates the states, or the people themselves, can choose to govern what they think is necessary.
Her story had more credibility than Kavanaughs choirboy claimsYou just heard the usual from the left. When they lose a milestone, they try to hang a millstone around the right's neck with what is known as a "self-fulfilling prophecy." With this literary device, they create a scenario they want (usually to get rid of the best conservative they can by any means possible), build a castle in Spain around it, and enough people will fall for it until it comes true. However, like beating a dead horse, the self-fulfilling prophecy device has been used one too many times, and the American voters are getting a little more savvy, except the ones who fell for the Ford tearjerking thespian play of lying her ass off while making it seem believable by employing even more communication anomalies known best by real Hollywood stars to make people love them when they play heroines, longsuffering victims, or heroes, whichever shoe fits the act. It's all smoke and mirrors when they're behind. I hope that is the final toss in this attempted character assassination that went south on the Democrat Party.He was?Ask Garland why he was disqualified
Don't remember reading anything about him being 'disqualified'.
Ask Biden why Garland was disqualified.Ask Garland why he was disqualified
Biden talked weeks before an election, McConnell stretched that to one yearYes he was. He was disqualified for being a nominee of Obama's.He was?Ask Garland why he was disqualified
Don't remember reading anything about him being 'disqualified'.
pretty much.
McConnell, AND Biden, felt that the nomination should be delayed til after an upcoming presidential election, giving the new, or incoming president, the chance to name their own Justice.
And, why did they do that?The Republicans wouldn't give Merrick Garland so much as a hearing. Then they changed the Senate rules, creating an all new precedent for approving Supreme Court Justices, thereby watering down the whole point of the Senate even more.
You mean the Dems are whining about the consequences of elections?Now they are whining about the consequences of their actions!
Who started it?They wanted a nuclear war, and they got one.
Ummm......Bruh.....Biden supported Garland and still does
Show where Biden ever advocated a Supreme Court seat lay vacant for a year
Ummm.....Bruh.....Biden talked weeks before an election, McConnell stretched that to one year
Now, all bets are off and an opposing party is under no obligation to allow a seat to be filled
The McConnell Rule
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.
Did not destroy his career? Hello? He was not able to sit on the Supreme Court! I'd say that is a pretty big fucking blow to one's career.Who blocked his confirmation hearings if not Republicans?Being an Obama nominee.Oh, yes, the feeble Garland defense. What was he accused of again?
That's enough to destroy a life, for sure, but how's that the Republican's fault?
Blocking his hearing was wrong, as I have maintained all along. It did not, however, destroy his life, family, or career.
and the liberals are now running with the RAPIST mantra and don't know fuck about him either other than their "side" doesn't want him in - now go attack them in the streets as waters and other liberal leaders condone.The pseudocons were told that Garland was an extreme far left judge. They blindly parroted that without knowing fuck-all about him.No, by telling a sitting president he would not be allowed to seat any more Supreme Court justices for the remainder of his presidency.
Majority Leader McConnell didn't have to tell the President anything, the vote wasn't happening, because he wasn't bringing it to the floor and had the power necessary to make it so.
And future Senate Majority Leaders will have no problem doing the same thing. Leave a seat unfilled until you have a President from your party
Not sure about this, saw it in a post. But suppose that Garland's voting record was 95% in line with Kavanaugh's. IMHO that nominee could get support from both sides. If a president recognizes the reality that he won't get anyone approved except a moderate that might help get nominees thru even a partisan Senate of the opposite party.
they take any port in a storm and go straight to max drama. any attempt to say "slow down" results in getting insulted and attacked as well.and the liberals are now running with the RAPIST mantra and don't know fuck about him either other than their "side" doesn't want him in - now go attack them in the streets as waters and other liberal leaders condone.The pseudocons were told that Garland was an extreme far left judge. They blindly parroted that without knowing fuck-all about him.Majority Leader McConnell didn't have to tell the President anything, the vote wasn't happening, because he wasn't bringing it to the floor and had the power necessary to make it so.
And future Senate Majority Leaders will have no problem doing the same thing. Leave a seat unfilled until you have a President from your party
Not sure about this, saw it in a post. But suppose that Garland's voting record was 95% in line with Kavanaugh's. IMHO that nominee could get support from both sides. If a president recognizes the reality that he won't get anyone approved except a moderate that might help get nominees thru even a partisan Senate of the opposite party.
That's the ticket. Kavanaugh wasn't even accused of rape, yet the idiots are calling him a rapist. Sad, sad day indeed.
You play with the cards you’re dealt. Democrats didn’t have a hand where they had any control over blocking Kavanaugh’s confirmation.Who blocked his confirmation hearings if not Republicans?Being an Obama nominee.Oh, yes, the feeble Garland defense. What was he accused of again?
That's enough to destroy a life, for sure, but how's that the Republican's fault?
Blocking his hearing was wrong, as I have maintained all along. It did not, however, destroy his life, family, or career. No one accused him of misconduct, no one sent the FBI to interview people about allegations from his childhood, no one came out of the woodwork with tales carefully crafted so as to be almost impossible to verify, and on it goes. Aside from being associated with Obama, nothing negative happened to him, as no one used anything from his life and career as a reason to vote against him.
Contrast that with the concerted attempt to personally destroy Kavanaugh by any means necessary and possible. It seems that you're trying to equate the two and excuse what's going on as a consequence. That's ludicrous.
