You’re absolutely right… as long as you consider what he actually said rather than what FoxNews said he said:
I know - how unusual for FoxNews to take a small excerpt of what someone said and pretend they meant the exact opposite of their actual views! They’ve never done THAT before.
But in case you’re not convinced, Biden has reiterated the point:
Glad to see you agree with it.
Despite all those Pub Senators’ public promises not to?
If Obama nominates a moderate judge not a radical leftist, he or she will be confirmed.
To the GOP, “moderate” = “radical leftist.” They know in the long run that control of the Supreme Court is more important than control of the Senate. They will do everything possible, including throwing a number of their own under the bus to make sure that the court stays as conservative as possible. Losing control of the Senate is a two-year problem. Losing control of the Supreme Court is a decades-long problem.
My point is that any judge nominated by Obama will be called “radical leftist” by the GOP regardless of their actual record.
No, he’s doing his own spin. He said they should not hold confirmation hearings during the campaign, and should wait until after the election. I suspect he was concerned that such hearings would adversely affect the Democrats in the election, but now he’s trying to act like it was some high minded purpose. It’s true that he did not say then what the GOP is saying now, but let’s get the record straight.
Well, then my question to the Republicans who are pretending they have the high road here is this: was Biden wrong 24 years ago? If so, why aren’t the Republican’s wrong now?
No. But if both sides play politics with Supreme Court nominations, then I say “both sides do it”.
Both sides are playing politics with nominations. If one didn’t complain about it when the Dems did it, one has no right to complain now.
Sorry, this “let’s pretend my flip-flops are the result of high-mindedness until the shoe is on the other foot and I flip back” is just a little too convenient. It’s like the New York Times and the filibuster several years back - when the Dems are in the minority, the filibuster is an important protection of the rights of the minority, and when the GOP is in the minority, suddenly it becomes a hideous violation of the principles of representative democracy. See also all the talk about how the President should replace a liberal with a liberal to maintain the balance of the court, and never consider balance as a factor when replacing a conservative.
And, of course, “Republicans are in the minority and they won’t compromise and do what Democrats want! WAAAAAH!” followed by “Republicans are in the majority and they won’t compromise and do what Democrats want! WAAAAH even louder!!!”
Regards,
Shodan
If Hillary wins and Democrats retake the Senate, they’ll have to go nuclear and dump the filibuster rule for Supreme Court nominees. Otherwise, as long as you have 40 Republicans or more in the Senate, no Supreme Court seat will ever be filled during a Democratic administration. We could very easily wind up with a Supreme Court with four or fewer justices by the end of Hillary’s second term. If Hillary wins and Republicans maintain the Senate, forget about any confirmations.
How is mocking Ronald Reagan as St. Ron not trolling? Why not simply refer to him as Ronald Reagan?
It’s a common derisive name for him. Like calling Bush Shrubya or Chimpy, or Republicans referring to the “Democrat Party”.
Why stop there? We could keep going until there is only one remaining (ala Highlander). Kagan is the youngest, so she has the inside track to be the entire supreme court!
Let them filibuster. All it does is take up floor time. If the Republicans have 40 members of the Senate, then all they can do is delay the nomination for 40 days or so, and that is if every single one of them is Strom Thurmond. Once every Republican has spoken, the filibuster is over. 40 days of no action from the Senate is par for the course these days.
PCP, accusations of trolling are not allowed in Great Debates. I’m giving you a warning for this. Please don’t do it again.
As for things such as ‘St Ron’ or ‘Democrat Party’ and such? I find such mockery distasteful but usually not actionable. I could see a context in which such IS moderatable but generally it slides.
Well, as long as we are quote mining from 25 years ago…
Ronald Reagan, 1988. Coincidentally an election year.
Most filibusters today are the procedural variety. All the minority party has to do is get 41 votes to prevent a cloture vote from passing, and the filibuster successfully blocks the business under consideration. Doesn’t take any time at all.
The GOP remind me of the Sith, always dealing in absolutes. Its impossible for their brain to comprehend that Biden didn’t support one side of the binary CONFIRM_NOMINEE_IN_ELECTION_YEAR vs. DO_NOT_CONFIRM_NOMINEE_IN_ELECTION_YEAR. People are complex, but to fool the Republican base, the more crafty of the party have to trick them using simple slogans to believe the world is black and white, and then take one side.
Of course Biden didn’t say something so stupid, he has nuance, he’s smart, even if his public persona is a goofy uncle. What McConnell and most of the rest of the GOP say now do not have nuance or intelligence, and will come back to haunt them. There is no amount of “it was taken out of context” that will save them 
So Reagan was correct, and McConnell and Biden and Obama were wrong? No doubt you can link to some condemnation, either by you or on the SDMB in general, condemning Obama for his desire to filibuster Alito.
Or else both sides are playing politics with the nomination process.
Regards,
Shodan
I agree with Mitch McConnell.