Politifact is not a reputable fact-checking organization, and the New York Times story I cited makes it clear than then-Chairman Joe Biden of the Senate Judiciary Committee held up and blocked John Roberts’s nomination to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in the hopes that then-Governor Bill Clinton would be elected and be able to appoint a liberal to the seat Roberts was nominated to, as well as other liberals to other seats that Biden held up (Roberts wasn’t the only one). Here is another story on Biden’s blockage of Roberts.
So you’re doubling down, just like Trump whenever *he *gets caught out. :rolleyes:
How about at least telling us what the Constitutional cutoff date is for getting nominees their hearings and votes? We’ve narrowed it down to sometime between 9 and 44 months before the next Presidential election, but I still don’t see anything more specific. Please elaborate.
The Politifact story deals with SCOTUS nominations, not the Court of Appeals. No wonder you discredit fact-checkers. You lie about 'em.
Typical asshole Trumpy.
So, if we’re in the last 6 months of this President’s career, should he get a vote on his candidate?
Typical Republican thinking; they have the Executive branch, both houses of congress, a majority of state governors and they’ve successfully prevented a Democratic president from appointed a Supreme Court Justice (in complete opposition of what he’s complainig about) … and he still complain that they have nothing and that the other side has everything.
It’s like listening to a Christian bitch about persecution because someone said, “Happy Holidays,” to them.
SF Chronicles John Diaz’s take on Budget Director Mick (The Prick) Mulvaney’s March 16 justification for proposing budget cuts for “programs that don’t work”, which includes Meals On Wheels.
Fucking idiot. Can you even read? I never said John Roberts was nominated to the Supreme Court. I said, accurately, that Bush I nominated him to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1992, and Biden, who was then the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, held up and blocked the nomination, refusing to even give Roberts a committee hearing on his nomination.
In other words, Biden had a history of blocking judicial nominations (Roberts wasn’t the only one), yet bitched and moaned when Republicans blocked the judicial nomination of Merrick Garland because it was an election year and they wanted voters to decide—which was very similar to comments Biden made in 1992 urging Bush I not to nominate a Supreme Court justice in the throes of an election year campaign.
I didn’t lie about the Politifact story, and Biden is still a hypocrite.
Page number 666
The number of the beast.
I like it. I think the Dems should use it.
“We refuse to participate (or whatever) as this president is on his way out.”
That citation doesn’t say what you claim it says:
"Although Mr. Biden has complained about the conservative direction of the courts, he said it was necessary to continue to process nominees for courts that are backed up because of the judicial vacancies.
…
“It appears that Mr. Biden and his fellow Democrats will be more willing to confirm nominees at the district court level, the trial courts where judges are largely bound by precedent and have little ideological leeway. It is those courts that typically have the greatest backlogs.”
TLDR: Some Senate Democrats wanted to hold up Bush nominations but Biden wasn’t one of them. He prioritized nominees for lower courts aruging that that’s where the backlogs were, though the fact that those judges would be less able to make new law was likely also a strong motivation for the ordering.
This is truly amazing
I have to wonder if this wouldn’t back fire on the idiots? If I’m a woman on the fence about getting an abortion (FTR, I’m neither) - and the doctor tells me I can change my mind, wouldn’t I be more likely to start the process?
And then I guess they get free research as some percentage of the women ask for the reversing procedure, and we see how well it works.
Republicans would rather get their science from politicians than from scientists, and their medical information, too. Aren’t Republicans currently pretending to be against govt. mandates, however??
**Way **missed the edit window here, but in honor of the previously mentioned page number:
Happy 666th page Stupid Republican Idea Of The Day thread!!
[quote=“bobot, post:33275, topic:490897”]
**Way **missed the edit window here, but in honor of the previously mentioned page number:
Happy 666th page Stupid Republican Idea Of The Day thread!!
Was expecting this.
Stonehenge!
[quote=“bobot, post:33275, topic:490897”]
**Way **missed the edit window here, but in honor of the previously mentioned page number:
Happy 666th page Stupid Republican Idea Of The Day thread!!
Huh? I’m on 333, my page views are set to 100 posts/page. It’s an option you can set.
So I don’t understand your “Huh?” then, it sounds like you understand what’s going on.
Kayleigh McEnany blames Barack Obama for running off and playing golf instead of handling the murder of journalist Richard Pearl. Richard Pearl was murdered in 2002, when Barack Obama was in the Illinois state legislature.
House Republicans vote overwhelmingly to allow internet providers collect and sell their customers’ Web browsing history, location information, health data and other personal details.
Fuck’in pricks.