Politics And Current Events

[AuthorTony]

You don't see the difference between what McConnell said and what Biden said?

Where does Biden say that he would not permit a vote? He simply says he would oppose a nominee that he feels is too far right. Just as McConnell would oppose one to the left.

Yeah, I think the Rs would be better off to just shut up and allow Obama to nominate someone. If he puts up someone too liberal, block it and use it as an anti-Clinton rallying cry. But to take their ball and not allow the game to proceed comes off horribly if Obama were to nominate someone in the middle and will hurt them in all of the fall elections.

[Freddy Rumsen]

I recognize that Biden’s remarks were long. With the materials he submitted for inclusion in the record, they span over 20,000 words (spanning fourteen, three-column pages in the Congressional Record). Still, the only way someone could claim that Biden did not propose refusing to consider a Supreme Court nomination to fill a vacancy that arose in an election year would be if that person a) failed to read the entire speech, or even the relevant excepts in their context, or b) did not care what Biden actually said. I’ll let readers decide for themselves which happened here.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-mem ... -denialism

[slappybrown]

Am I going to have to read the entire speech based on that NR blog post? I must be bored today.

[columbia]

Obama should nominate Biden.

[count2infinity]

The R's are saying "let the people decide"

To paraphrase Warren... the people did decide when they voted in 2012. And just as Biden suggested, when the White House and legislative branch is divided, it's necessary for compromise. Now stop acting like Kindergartners because the other group smells funny and meet with the person Obama nominates. If (s)he is not moderate enough, vote them down. Simple as that.

[Freddy Rumsen]

Well Chuck Schumer takes option B.

https://twitter.com/INJO/status/702171272302743552

[tifosi77]

The Constitution requires that the Senate "advise and consent" to the President's nominee. No more, no less.

The Senate not holding hearing is perfectly in keeping with the letter of the law.

Here is Joe Biden on it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1erqNm9nHc

I was hoping someone would pluck this from the echo chamber.

One, Biden at no point tries to even suggest that the current sitting president (at the time Bush Major) should defer the nomination to his successor. He clearly states that the nomination is Bush's to make.

Two, this statement was made shortly after Bill Clinton won the CA primary and secured the necessary delegates to win the D nomination at the convention. At this stage, it was clearly a Bush-Clinton fight. Today, we are nowhere near having two opposing candidates.

Three, Biden's comments were made in June 1992, five months before the election. We are currently nine months from the election, and eleven months from the date at which point McConnell thinks it would be acceptable for the (next) president to do their duty.

Four, Biden's comments (as Shumer's) were made in a hypothetical vacuum. There was no actual vacancy, and no nomination to defer. As such, it means precisely dick.

[Freddy Rumsen]

The R's are saying "let the people decide"

To paraphrase Warren... the people did decide when they voted in 2012. And just as Biden suggested, when the White House and legislative branch is divided, it's necessary for compromise. Now stop acting like Kindergartners because the other group smells funny and meet with the person Obama nominates. If (s)he is not moderate enough, vote them down. Simple as that.

And the people decided in 2014 when they gave the Senate to the GOP, which is the part Warren leaves out, for obvious reasons.

[count2infinity]

Which judge was Bush replacing/nominating at the time when Schumer said that? I honestly don't know.

[count2infinity]

The R's are saying "let the people decide"

To paraphrase Warren... the people did decide when they voted in 2012. And just as Biden suggested, when the White House and legislative branch is divided, it's necessary for compromise. Now stop acting like Kindergartners because the other group smells funny and meet with the person Obama nominates. If (s)he is not moderate enough, vote them down. Simple as that.

And the people decided in 2014 when they gave the Senate to the GOP, which is the part Warren leaves out, for obvious reasons.

And just as Biden suggested, when the White House and legislative branch is divided, it's necessary for compromise.

[slappybrown]

The R's are saying "let the people decide"

To paraphrase Warren... the people did decide when they voted in 2012. And just as Biden suggested, when the White House and legislative branch is divided, it's necessary for compromise. Now stop acting like Kindergartners because the other group smells funny and meet with the person Obama nominates. If (s)he is not moderate enough, vote them down. Simple as that.

And the people decided in 2014 when they have the Senate to the GOP.

So let the POTUS nominate and the Senate vote. What's the problem? Everyone carries out the duties the public charged them with. And don't sell me the letter of the law nonsense. What if Scalia died in June 2015? Where does the made-up the President shouldn't even bother submitting a name line start?

[slappybrown]

Which judge was Bush replacing/nominating at the time when Schumer said that? I honestly don't know.

Biden, and no, it was hypothetical.

[count2infinity]

Which judge was Bush replacing/nominating at the time when Schumer said that? I honestly don't know.

Biden, and no, it was hypothetical.

I was talking younger Bush and the tweet about Schumer.

[tifosi77]

And the people decided in 2014 when they gave the Senate to the GOP, which is the part Warren leaves out, for obvious reasons.

The reasons she leaves it out is because no one is disputing that the Senate plays a role here. The controversy exists because of a failure to accept the results and consequences of the 2012 election.

McConnell is drastically overplaying his hand here, and it could be a generational catastrophe for the GOP.

[tifosi77]

Which judge was Bush replacing/nominating at the time when Schumer said that? I honestly don't know.

Biden, and no, it was hypothetical.

I was talking younger Bush and the tweet about Schumer.

Also hypothetical.

W had gotten two justices confirmed (Alito and Roberts) who spoke at great length about respecting judicial precedent (a concept called 'stare decisis'). But once on the bench, they voted rather differently. Shumer said that as a result, the Senate should hold off on hearings for any additional Bush nominees, because it seemed as though they were playing a little fast and loose with the confirmation process. But there were no further nominees, so it's just out there as kind of a silly soundbite that had already been forgotten. (Which is why we're in week two post-Scalia's death before we hear clips of Biden suggest not the same thing as McConnell)

[columbia]

If they keep this up, I will actually vote for Clinton in November (and I don't want to do that).

[Freddy Rumsen]

And the people decided in 2014 when they gave the Senate to the GOP, which is the part Warren leaves out, for obvious reasons.

The reasons she leaves it out is because no one is disputing that the Senate plays a role here. The controversy exists because of a failure to accept the results and consequences of the 2012 election.

McConnell is drastically overplaying his hand here, and it could be a generational catastrophe for the GOP.

They are going to lose in November regardless, so I am not sure what the "catastrophe" could be.

[tifosi77]

Also, if this were any other Justice but Scalia I don't think there would have been word one about deferring the nomination. Republicans are in the unfortunate position of having lost their biggest ideological ally on the Court on the other team's watch.

[grunthy]

And the people decided in 2014 when they gave the Senate to the GOP, which is the part Warren leaves out, for obvious reasons.

The reasons she leaves it out is because no one is disputing that the Senate plays a role here. The controversy exists because of a failure to accept the results and consequences of the 2012 election.

McConnell is drastically overplaying his hand here, and it could be a generational catastrophe for the GOP.

Doubtful

[Freddy Rumsen]

Also, if this were any other Justice but Scalia I don't think there would have been word one about deferring the nomination. Republicans are in the unfortunate position of having lost their biggest ideological ally on the Court on the other team's watch.

This is undoubtedly true. If Ginsberg had kicked the bucket you'd had a new justice already on the bench.

But let's not act like McConnell is under some "constitutional" requirement to hold hearings and the like.

The President is free to nominate anyone he wants.

We went through a similar (lower court) thing with Miguel Estrada in 2001. Dem Senate refused to hold hearings and then filibustered him for two years.

[tifosi77]

They are going to lose in November regardless, so I am not sure what the "catastrophe" could be.

Doubtful

Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 82 and has had cancer like 17 times. She's not likely to serve beyond another couple years, so that's already one appointment for the next POTUS. Kennedy is 79, and Breyer is 77.

Right now, the likelihood is for an Obama appointment who would more or less offset a Kennedy departure - a moderate jurist who isn't going to get loopy. That's because the GOP has control of the Senate and thus can exert influence as to what kind of nominee Obama sends.

But let's say that both Kennedy's and Breyer's seats become vacant for whatever reason in the next four years. If the GOP lose the White House (again) and the Ds pick up the 4-5 seats they need from the dozen or so competitive Senate races, they won't really have any ability to mitigate who President Clinton sends for confirmation. There's already a likelihood of one appointment from Clinton, a possibility for two others..... and McConnell wants to give her a fourth to join Sotomayor and Kagan? That's madness.

[slappybrown]

And the people decided in 2014 when they gave the Senate to the GOP, which is the part Warren leaves out, for obvious reasons.

The reasons she leaves it out is because no one is disputing that the Senate plays a role here. The controversy exists because of a failure to accept the results and consequences of the 2012 election.

McConnell is drastically overplaying his hand here, and it could be a generational catastrophe for the GOP.

They are going to lose in November regardless, so I am not sure what the "catastrophe" could be.

So if you think this, why do you think refusing to hold hearings is the way to go? The Dems are projected to take back the Senate, and you're forecasting a Hillary presidency. She can get anyone onto SCOTUS as a result. Wouldn't you prefer what is likely to be a relatively moderate choice by Obama?

[Staggy]

If they keep this up, I will actually vote for Clinton in November (and I don't want to do that).

I'm generally ambivalent when it comes to politics outside of drug reform, but the GOP's stance on this is so patently ludicrous and transparent that I'm in the same boat.

[shmenguin]

Now stop acting like Kindergartners because the other group smells funny.

#designfeature

[slappybrown]

Well, tif and I have the same question.