It’s not more like a “Biden observation” (no surprise that a Salon article contains a bald-faced lie.) He was making imperative statements. Watch the clip yourself. Regardless of the fact that he was speaking in June and not March, the then-Senator said that the President should not nominate a new Supreme Court Justice “in the full throes of an election year,” and furthermore, even claimed it was historical precedent not to do so. He also stated that if the President were to do so anyway, the Senate should not hold confirmation hearings. This makes the Democrats look like total hypocrites. Not that that ever stops them.
Taking one position then, and another now, in the reversed situation? Yes, that is rank hypocrisy.
He said wait until the election is over to have hearings, meaning in November. Not the same thing as saying they would not entertain any suggestion the man had out of hand.
Did they ever refuse to hear a Rebuplican nominee?
This was already cited in post #184, btw.
Yep:
Funny you say that Mitch, as that’s exactly what’s just happened. I’m surprised you didn’t hear about it…it’s on all the news channels.
Yes there is no remedy.
Tell me how he is being canny or gentlemanly? How is pushing for a Supreme Court defeat canny? What the heck does gentlemanly have to do with anything?
Please listen to the full speech. Not only are you missing Biden’s actual point really hard, but Biden explicitly states that if the president proposes a moderate or actually consults with the senate before nominating, they would accept said person.
In fact, we *already *know it will be Schumer.
The Republicans should just go ahead and vote. It would be easy to claim a win by declaring that Obama played right into their hands. They can say they used reverse psychology and got just who they wanted.
You might be confusing the peanut gallery with your facetiousness?
The American people did have a voice in who leads the majority in the U.S. Senate. Some of candidates that the people voted for lost their election bid. They had a chance. They had a voice. Majority rules. The U.S.A. is a Democratic Republic. The voters elect representatives to represent them.
Step 1 - We the voters elected our U.S. Senators.
Step 2 - The majority in the Senate elect the Senate leader.
Millions of voters were involved in the process to elect the people who elect the Senate leader.
So, tell us, how is it that the *President *gets to make the nominations? Who elected him?
:rolleyes:
Quite so. And I lament the fact that we can’t use our voice more often. I sincerely hope that the American people use their voice this November to vote these goldbricking clowns out of office.
Even so, you do know it’s not that simple, right? Gerrymandering and other methods of disenfranchisement are issues. Not to mention our first-past-the-post system. It’s nowhere near as simple as “majority rules.” But that’s a hijack.
On topic, what do people think about the few republican Senators who have agreed to meet with Garland? I’d like to think that they are truly breaking ranks and acting like adults, but the cynic in me thinks that it’s just for show. They don’t have the ability to force a vote, so they are likely doing this because they think it could improve their reelection chances, while not actually having any effect on McConnell’s grand plan. I hope it doesn’t work.
Even more people were involved in the process to elect the person who nominates people to fill Supreme Court vacancies.
Not the American people, that’s for sure. That was five unelected judges who…oh wait, that was the guy before him. Nevermind.
Gerrymandering plays a part in the Senate? :dubious: Do tell.
He was certainly not wrong as to tradition and practice. I think it’s fair to say that the senate is obligated to consider the merits of a nomination. I think it’s also fair to say that if the nomination doesn’t make it beyond the judiciary committee the Senate has done all that is constitutionally required.
Fair enough, that’s not applicable to US Senate races, I misspoke. Still, my other points stand, it’s not as simple as “majority rules.” But I’d rather not continue the hijack here.
But small-state over-representation is quite real there.
Out of curiosity doorhinge, how do you want the GOP to handle this?
We may even want them to do the same thing. I want them to stand their unprincipled ground and refuse to hold hearings, waiting to see what the election will bring.
In my case I expect that such will bring about more of a Senate change to D than otherwise would occur and I hope that then Gardner withdraws or is withdrawn allowing Clinton to nominate someone else, younger and a bit less the conservatives’ choice, after all the people would have spoken. Gardner really is more of a consensus candidate than is ideal in my mind, I would go to much more left but a wee bit and younger for sure.
He has been a gentleman for 7 years and let the Rebups do their thing. They can’t open their mouths without trying to de-legitimize him.
In what way is he “pushing for a supreme court defeat”? What does that statement even mean?