CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 19939
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:49 am
 


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."


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
Profile
Posts: 33561
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 12:02 pm
 


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. :lol:


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!

Image


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33691
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 12:13 pm
 


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. :lol:




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. :lol:


Last edited by martin14 on Wed Mar 16, 2016 12:23 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 19939
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 12:13 pm
 


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.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33691
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 12:23 pm
 


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. :lol:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 19939
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 1:45 pm
 


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. :lol:



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.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33691
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 2:00 pm
 


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. :lol:


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 3:13 pm
 


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.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 12349
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 3:51 pm
 


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.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 4:12 pm
 


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?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26145
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 5:27 pm
 


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.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
Profile
Posts: 33561
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:17 pm
 


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.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26145
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:52 pm
 


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" [huh] the lamestreamers keep telling us about. :wink:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
Profile
Posts: 33561
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 7:40 pm
 


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.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 12349
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:18 pm
 


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.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.