[xerxes]

The Biden rule isn't a thing. From the speech that's being excerpted:

$1:

"I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate," he said. "Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President [George H.W. Bush] consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter."

[Thanos]

martin14 martin14:

Thanos Thanos:

If that continues then the legacy you leave behind will be spit on by future generations. There's vastly more important things to get done than incessantly sticking it to other people you have a ravenous hatred for.

Lots already spit on the legacy of what the USA has done and given to the world.


It isn't ravenous hatred, it's Joe Biden's own speech in 1992.

Here, stop your silly gifs and educate yourself.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... e-in-2016/

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The Democrats will be made to choke on their own Senate Rules.

The Dems rejected Robert Bork for being too radical over his "there is no such thing as freedom of choice in the Constitution" bullshit but then voted for Anthony Kennedy who turned out to be far more conservative than they bargained for. Then, under Bush The Elder, after a good public fight they settled for Clarence Thomas despite the sexual harassment stuff that got brought up. They also went along with Sam Alito, despite him being the heavyweight behind the absolute catastrophe of the Citizens United decision. They held their noses and compromised in these instances, didn't engage in kamakazi puritanism, because that how the American system works and that's when it works best. The past thirty to forty years of hyper-partisanship is the antithesis of the American system, and it flies in the face of the previous two hundred years of legal, political, and social success.

All else on this issue, especially if the GOP rejects a candidate that they themselves had on a shortlist, is just more moronic cheerleading. Yay, OUR GUY won, THEIR GUY lost! Yay, we're so terrific!

[martin14]

xerxes xerxes:

The Biden rule isn't a thing. From the speech that's being excerpted:

$1:

"I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate," he said. "Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President [George H.W. Bush] consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter."

wrong quote

Here, listen for yourself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/po ... .html?_r=0


He even cites precedent.

$1:

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.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage

“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.”

Now tell me how you backtrack from that.

Thanos Thanos:

The Dems rejected Robert Bork for being too radical over his "there is no such thing as freedom of choice in the Constitution" bullshit but then voted for Anthony Kennedy who turned out to be far more conservative than they bargained for. Then, under Bush The Elder, after a good public fight they settled for Clarence Thomas despite the sexual harassment stuff that got brought up. They also went along with Sam Alito, despite him being the heavyweight behind the absolute catastrophe of the Citizens United decision. They held their noses and compromised in these instances, didn't engage in kamakazi puritanism, because that how the American system works and that's when it works best. The past thirty to forty years of hyper-partisanship is the antithesis of the American system, and it flies in the face of the previous two hundred years of legal, political, and social success.

You're missing the entire point -- entirely.



The argument isn't about the candidate, it's about the process.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The Democrats will be made to choke on their own Senate Rules.

[xerxes]

And it's not like this nominee is some lefty radical. He's about as vanilla as they, both literally and figuratively. I, for one, would have like to see Obama taunt the GOP by nominating some taliban wannabe like Roy Moore and see them try and oppose the nomination then.

[martin14]

The argument isn't about the candidate, it's about the process.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The Democrats will be made to choke on their own Senate Rules.

[xerxes]

martin14 martin14:

xerxes xerxes:

The Biden rule isn't a thing. From the speech that's being excerpted:

$1:

"I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate," he said. "Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President [George H.W. Bush] consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter."

wrong quote

Here, listen for yourself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/po ... .html?_r=0


He even cites precedent.

$1:

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.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage

“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.”

Now tell me how you backtrack from that.

Again, the bit I quoted before is from the same speech, just later. The NYT is being shitty and only showing that one clip which conservatives have cherry picked. Here's another:



And if it it's going to be called the Biden rule, then it's going to have to be quickly renamed:

$1:

As Chairman, Biden repeatedly confirmed Bush's judicial nominees during the 1992 election season. In the second session of the 102nd Congress, "the Senate confirmed more nominees, 11, to the courts of appeals that year than in any other presidential election year in United States history," holding hearings "on district court nominees every month from January to September; court of appeals nominees received hearings in every month from February to September."

It's about the man. It always has been. But it's not about Merrick Garland. It's about Obama. This is just another time the GOP is doing what it can to block Obama.

[martin14]

Your clip has no reference to the SCOTUS during an election year.

Courts of Appeals are different from the SCOTUS.

Fail.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The Democrats will be made to choke on their own Senate Rules.

[BartSimpson]

xerxes xerxes:

And it's not like this nominee is some lefty radical.

Back in 2001 Garland was then touted as Al Gore's 'first tier' pick for the USSC based upon his rulings and opinions in favor of environmental regulations, third trimester abortions, government authority to seize property for private purposes, and against free speech, gun rights, voter identification, and immigration controls.

And all of that is irrelevant as I expect the GOP to stand by their word and to refuse to hear this nomination until the next President is sworn in.

[Lemmy]

They probably will stand by their word, which would prove them to be children.

The GOP should take this guy before President Clinton proposes someone different.

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

They probably will stand by their word, which would prove them to be children.

What do you say of the Democrats who have done the same thing in the past?

[N_Fiddledog]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Back in 2001 Garland was then touted as Al Gore's 'first tier' pick for the USSC based upon his rulings and opinions in favor of environmental regulations, third trimester abortions, government authority to seize property for private purposes, and against free speech, gun rights, voter identification, and immigration controls.

Where did the media get the idea he was some kind of moderate then, I wonder.

No wait, I get it. In Progtopia that is moderate.

[Thanos]

Yeah, it's more important to have "constitutionalists" on SCOTUS that are more than willing to gut the actually Constitution and void the Bill of Rights in order to appease Biblical literalists. You're the kind of guy who comes across like you'd want to see Roy Moore in Alabama be cloned eight times so he and his copies could fill all the seats on the highest court in the land and then say "why yes, the United States absolutely must be governed by the kind of ideas that you'd find on the Bundy ranch or at a Glenn Beck rally" instead of what the Enlightened Founders wanted.

[N_Fiddledog]

Thanos Thanos:

Yeah, it's more important to have "constitutionalists" on SCOTUS that are more than willing to gut the actually Constitution and void the Bill of Rights in order to appease Biblical literalists. You're the kind of guy who comes across like you'd want to see Roy Moore in Alabama be cloned eight times so he and his copies could fill all the seats on the highest court in the land and then say "why yes, the United States absolutely must be governed by the kind of ideas that you'd find on the Bundy ranch or at a Glenn Beck rally" instead of what the Enlightened Founders wanted.

You must be one of these "moderates" the lamestreamers keep telling us about.

[Thanos]

I can see that the real right wing would have a lot of hatred for Merrick Garland considering he was the one who prosecuted Tim McVeigh and put a needle in his arm.

[Lemmy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Lemmy Lemmy:

They probably will stand by their word, which would prove them to be children.

What do you say of the Democrats who have done the same thing in the past?

Shameful.