In 1992, Joe Biden called for an election-year blockade of Supreme Court nominations
[Biden] said, President George H. W. Bush should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed” and, if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...t-nominations/
- I B Hankering
- 02-22-2016, 05:20 PM
- LexusLover
- 02-22-2016, 05:46 PM
Is Joe "trying not to lie" ALSO?
- IIFFOFRDB
- 02-22-2016, 05:59 PM
- i'va biggen
- 02-22-2016, 06:39 PM
Sounds just like blaming Bush. It is alright to do it if democrats did it? Monkey see monkey do.
- IIFFOFRDB
- 02-22-2016, 06:55 PM
Sounds just like blaming Bush. It is alright to do it if democrats did it? Monkey see monkey do. Originally Posted by i'va biggenSo "Independent" 0zombie just stick your finger up your ass and go in and out in and out in and out in and out in and out... so and so on... same as usual...
then your reward will come, mouth agape... you ready.
- i'va biggen
- 02-22-2016, 07:00 PM
- JD Barleycorn
- 02-23-2016, 11:38 AM
Sounds just like blaming Bush. It is alright to do it if democrats did it? Monkey see monkey do. Originally Posted by i'va biggen
No monkeys here (is that some sort of Obama reference?). What this means is that the dems don't have a proverbial leg to stand on. They should just shutup regardless of what the GOP decides unless they violate the Constitution which is something the dems should be screaming about when Obama does it.
- i'va biggen
- 02-23-2016, 12:01 PM
No monkeys here (is that some sort of Obama reference?). What this means is that the dems don't have a proverbial leg to stand on. They should just shutup regardless of what the GOP decides unless they violate the Constitution which is something the dems should be screaming about when Obama does it. Originally Posted by JD BarleycornWhat it means judy, is the right wing blaming dems for doing what they are advocating on doing themselves. Here on this board. Try to keep up.
- lustylad
- 02-23-2016, 04:27 PM
What it means judy, is the right wing blaming dems for doing what they are advocating on doing themselves. Here on this board. Try to keep up. Originally Posted by i'va biggenSo IvanLittledick - explain why you expect Republicans to observe standards or traditions or principles that the Dems have repeatedly trashed and refused to follow themselves...
if you can... otherwise don't embarrass yourself.
- lustylad
- 02-23-2016, 04:39 PM
Greatest Democratic Judicial Hits
What Republicans learned from Harry Reid and Barack Obama.
Feb. 19, 2016 6:51 p.m. ET
Senate Democrats haven’t made much progress shaming Republicans into yielding on President Obama’s upcoming Supreme Court nominee, and no wonder. As much as they’re trying, they can’t erase their own abusive history of double and sometimes triple standards in confirmation politics.
Earlier this week we chronicled New York Senator Chuck Schumer’s faked alibi for his categorical 2007 demand that Democrats reject any George W. Bush nominee if a vacancy had emerged in his last 18 months in office. But there is so much more to recall:
• When Democrats ran the Senate from June 2001 to January 2003, they denied even a hearing before the Judiciary Committee to 32 of Mr. Bush’s nominees. When Republicans regained a 51-49 majority in the next Congress, Democrats broke the then-longstanding Senate norm of granting nominees an up-or-down vote. Before 2003, only one judicial nominee had been blocked with a filibuster, and that was the bipartisan 1968 rebellion against promoting the ethically challenged Justice Abe Fortas to Chief Justice.
Democrats applied the higher 60-vote standard to a rainbow coalition of Bush nominees, judging them not by traditional measures like experience or temperament or even “diversity.” They simply didn’t like their politics.
The targets included Priscilla Owen (a woman), Janice Rogers Brown (a black woman) and Miguel Estrada (a Hispanic). The 28-month Estrada filibuster was especially egregious because Democrats feared the smart young attorney’s ethnic background might make him formidable Supreme Court material if he served on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
• When Mr. Bush nominated Samuel Alito to the High Court in 2005, Democrats attempted to give him the same treatment. Some 25 Senators voted to support a filibuster, including Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Pat Leahy and Mr. Schumer.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest this week described Mr. Obama’s filibuster as merely a “symbolic vote” to protest Mr. Bush. He added that Mr. Obama “regrets the vote” because Democrats “shouldn’t have looked for a way to just throw sand in the gears of the process. And, frankly, looking back on it, the President believes that he should have just followed his own advice and made a strong public case on the merits.” No doubt he does—now.
• After blockading Mr. Bush’s judicial slate, Mr. Reid as Senate Majority Leader changed the rules for Mr. Obama’s nominees on a partisan vote. Senate rules require a two-thirds vote to change its rules in mid-session, but in 2013 Mr. Reid forced through a change solely with a narrow Democratic majority.
This allowed him to trigger the “nuclear option” lowering the Senate threshold for appellate but not Supreme Court nominees to 51 from 60. The goal was to pack the D.C. Circuit with left-leaning judges who would bless Mr. Obama’s abuses of power, especially on health care and climate regulation. Mr. Obama was cheering him on all the way.
• Mr. Reid now argues that the Senate’s “constitutional duty” is to give nominees an up-or-down vote, but in a May 2005 speech on Mr. Bush’s judges, he offered a different interpretation: “The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give Presidential appointees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.”
It’s impossible to know what Mr. Reid really believes, because whatever he claims to believe at any moment is whatever will maximize his own political power. Mr. Obama does have the power under the Constitution to nominate a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia, but Senate Republicans also have the right to ignore it or vote to confirm or deny.
Republicans have no obligation to submit to Democratic judicial ultimatums, which change with the political seasons.
.
What Republicans learned from Harry Reid and Barack Obama.
Feb. 19, 2016 6:51 p.m. ET
Senate Democrats haven’t made much progress shaming Republicans into yielding on President Obama’s upcoming Supreme Court nominee, and no wonder. As much as they’re trying, they can’t erase their own abusive history of double and sometimes triple standards in confirmation politics.
Earlier this week we chronicled New York Senator Chuck Schumer’s faked alibi for his categorical 2007 demand that Democrats reject any George W. Bush nominee if a vacancy had emerged in his last 18 months in office. But there is so much more to recall:
• When Democrats ran the Senate from June 2001 to January 2003, they denied even a hearing before the Judiciary Committee to 32 of Mr. Bush’s nominees. When Republicans regained a 51-49 majority in the next Congress, Democrats broke the then-longstanding Senate norm of granting nominees an up-or-down vote. Before 2003, only one judicial nominee had been blocked with a filibuster, and that was the bipartisan 1968 rebellion against promoting the ethically challenged Justice Abe Fortas to Chief Justice.
Democrats applied the higher 60-vote standard to a rainbow coalition of Bush nominees, judging them not by traditional measures like experience or temperament or even “diversity.” They simply didn’t like their politics.
The targets included Priscilla Owen (a woman), Janice Rogers Brown (a black woman) and Miguel Estrada (a Hispanic). The 28-month Estrada filibuster was especially egregious because Democrats feared the smart young attorney’s ethnic background might make him formidable Supreme Court material if he served on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
• When Mr. Bush nominated Samuel Alito to the High Court in 2005, Democrats attempted to give him the same treatment. Some 25 Senators voted to support a filibuster, including Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Pat Leahy and Mr. Schumer.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest this week described Mr. Obama’s filibuster as merely a “symbolic vote” to protest Mr. Bush. He added that Mr. Obama “regrets the vote” because Democrats “shouldn’t have looked for a way to just throw sand in the gears of the process. And, frankly, looking back on it, the President believes that he should have just followed his own advice and made a strong public case on the merits.” No doubt he does—now.
• After blockading Mr. Bush’s judicial slate, Mr. Reid as Senate Majority Leader changed the rules for Mr. Obama’s nominees on a partisan vote. Senate rules require a two-thirds vote to change its rules in mid-session, but in 2013 Mr. Reid forced through a change solely with a narrow Democratic majority.
This allowed him to trigger the “nuclear option” lowering the Senate threshold for appellate but not Supreme Court nominees to 51 from 60. The goal was to pack the D.C. Circuit with left-leaning judges who would bless Mr. Obama’s abuses of power, especially on health care and climate regulation. Mr. Obama was cheering him on all the way.
• Mr. Reid now argues that the Senate’s “constitutional duty” is to give nominees an up-or-down vote, but in a May 2005 speech on Mr. Bush’s judges, he offered a different interpretation: “The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give Presidential appointees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.”
It’s impossible to know what Mr. Reid really believes, because whatever he claims to believe at any moment is whatever will maximize his own political power. Mr. Obama does have the power under the Constitution to nominate a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia, but Senate Republicans also have the right to ignore it or vote to confirm or deny.
Republicans have no obligation to submit to Democratic judicial ultimatums, which change with the political seasons.
.
- i'va biggen
- 02-23-2016, 06:14 PM
So IvanLittledick - explain why you expect Republicans to observe standards or traditions or principles that the Dems have repeatedly trashed and refused to follow themselves...Thought the republicans were head and shoulders above democrats. Thanks for clearing that up.
if you can... otherwise don't embarrass yourself. Originally Posted by lustylad
- lustylad
- 02-23-2016, 06:28 PM
Thought the republicans were head and shoulders above democrats. Originally Posted by i'va biggenThey are. But they're not stupid enough to commit hara-kiri. Look at it this way - the Dems will lie and cheat and break any rules to win. The Repubs are loudly proclaiming - too bad you changed the rules last time... that means we're gonna have to play by your new rules now.
Karma's a bitch, right Ivan?
Or do you think it's ok for the Dems to move the goalposts but not the Republicans?
If you were an honest "Independent" you wouldn't be criticizing the wrong fucking party!
- i'va biggen
- 02-23-2016, 06:42 PM
They are. But they're not stupid enough to commit hara-kiri. Look at it this way - the Dems will lie and cheat and break any rules to win. The Repubs are loudly proclaiming - too bad you changed the rules last time... that means we're gonna have to play by your new rules now.If you could have understood my original post, we wouldn't be having this discussion now. I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand it.
Karma's a bitch, right Ivan?
Or do you think it's ok for the Dems to move the goalposts but not the Republicans?
If you were an honest "Independent" you wouldn't be criticizing the wrong fucking party! Originally Posted by lustylad
Might help if you read the OP.
- Munchmasterman
- 02-23-2016, 07:18 PM
They are. But they're not stupid enough to commit hara-kiri. Look at it this way - the Dems will lie and cheat and break any rules to win. The Repubs are loudly proclaiming - too bad you changed the rules last time... that means we're gonna have to play by your new rules now.So independents aren't independent unless they criticize the democrats? The wrong party?
Karma's a bitch, right Ivan?
Or do you think it's ok for the Dems to move the goalposts but not the Republicans?
If you were an honest "Independent" you wouldn't be criticizing the wrong fucking party! Originally Posted by lustylad
An honest independent knows there's something wrong with all of the parties. They all have their own version of people like you. All parties are made up of individuals. Good ones, bad ones, and assholes like you who feels they can sum up someone's character by who they vote for.
And you don't think putting donald trump at the top of their ticket isn't committing hara-kiri? Does the name sarah palin ring a bell?
Here's a link to what your "independents", I mean, the republicans have done. They're no different.
Congressional Record, V. 150, PT. 13, July 22, 2004 to ...
- Yssup Rider
- 02-23-2016, 10:58 PM
SPAM