Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Biden in 2016: President Has 'Constitutional Duty' to Nominate Supreme Court Justice

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Biden in 2016: President Has 'Constitutional Duty' to Nominate Supreme Court Justice

    https://www.newsweek.com/biden-2016-...months-1533106

    Former Vice President Joe Biden declared in 2016 that if he were chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee he would push ahead with the nomination of a Supreme Court justice "even a few months before a presidential election."

    Biden penned a New York Times op-ed in March 2016—just weeks after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia—which accused Senate Republicans that year of neglecting their "Constitutional duty" by stonewalling President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee until after the November general election. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell cited a so-called "Biden rule" as justification for delaying Merrick Garland's nomination, pointing to a 1992 Biden speech that demanded President Bush wait until after that year's election to appoint a Supreme Court replacement.

    "I know there is an argument that no nominee should be voted on in the last year of a presidency. But there is nothing in the Constitution — or our history — to support this view," Biden wrote in March 2016, demanding Senate Republicans review Garland's nomination.
    That's what
    - She

    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
    Stephen R. Donaldson

  • #2
    Pretty much everyone is on the opposite side of where they stood 4 years ago.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #3
      I can't fault conservatives for being opportunists. But the words four years ago about "letting voters decide" can now clearly be called hot gas.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
        I can't fault conservatives for being opportunists. But the words four years ago about "letting voters decide" can now clearly be called hot gas.
        As can most every liberal. Politics 101
        That's what
        - She

        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
        Stephen R. Donaldson

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          Pretty much everyone is on the opposite side of where they stood 4 years ago.
          Not really. McConnell is acting on precedent: a supreme court justice has never been confirmed in an election year when the White House and Senate are controlled by opposing parties; however, a number of election year nominees have been confirmed when the White House and Senate are controlled by the same party. There have even been instances when a "lame duck" president and Senate confirmed a nominee after losing an election, but, again, the relevant institutions were controlled by the same party.
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            Not really. McConnell is acting on precedent: a supreme court justice has never been confirmed in an election year when the White House and Senate are controlled by opposing parties; however, a number of election year nominees have been confirmed when the White House and Senate are controlled by the same party. There have even been instances when a "lame duck" president and Senate confirmed a nominee after losing an election, but, again, the relevant institutions were controlled by the same party.
            Sounds like a whole lot of special pleading to me. I'm also sure the wind was blowing in a particular direction that day, and the stars were aligned in a certain way. You can couch it any way you want, but its balooney.

            What's happening is politics: Conservatives were able to block a nomination by Obama, which was to their benefit and they are able to ram one through now, again to their benefit. Principles have nothing to do with it.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
              Sounds like a whole lot of special pleading to me. I'm also sure the wind was blowing in a particular direction that day, and the stars were aligned in a certain way. You can couch it any way you want, but its balooney.

              What's happening is politics: Conservatives were able to block a nomination by Obama, which was to their benefit and they are able to ram one through now, again to their benefit. Principles have nothing to do with it.
              I suppose if you think historical precedent qualifies as special pleading...
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                I suppose if you think historical precedent qualifies as special pleading...
                Well you can't have it both ways. You can't both claim that what was done in 2016 follows precedence, and that what happened in 2020 did so too.

                And the answer is simple. It's not about principles, it's politics. Conservatives see an opportunity to block, they block, and now they'll ram someone through, again because they can. That's it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                  You can't both claim that what was done in 2016 follows precedence, and that what happened in 2020 did so too.
                  Why not? It is US precedent that election year nominees are not confirmed when the White House and Senate are controlled by different parties, and they are confirmed when the White House and Senate are controlled by the same party. There is no contradiction. What happened in 2016, and what's happening today are not anomalies. Of course it's political, but it has always been political.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    I can't fault conservatives for being opportunists. But the words four years ago about "letting voters decide" can now clearly be called hot gas.
                    If that's the case then Biden's proclamation that "It's a president's constitutional duty to fill a supreme court seat" was also nothing but a "Nadler" as well.

                    Political parties have long histories of rapidly switching positions based on whether or not they will immediately benefit from it. It sucks but that's Realpolitik for ya.

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                      If that's the case then Biden's proclamation that "It's a president's constitutional duty to fill a supreme court seat" was also nothing but a "Nadler" as well.

                      Political parties have long histories of rapidly switching positions based on whether or not they will immediately benefit from it. It sucks but that's Realpolitik for ya.
                      Yeah pretty much. However that’s the game. I respect the play.

                      Comment

                      Related Threads

                      Collapse

                      Topics Statistics Last Post
                      Started by Mountain Man, Yesterday, 04:57 PM
                      8 responses
                      56 views
                      1 like
                      Last Post Maranatha  
                      Started by Reepicheep, Yesterday, 10:05 AM
                      33 responses
                      203 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post oxmixmudd  
                      Started by seer, Yesterday, 06:05 AM
                      22 responses
                      120 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post LiconaFan97  
                      Started by Maranatha, 10-27-2020, 10:58 PM
                      40 responses
                      311 views
                      1 like
                      Last Post mikewhitney  
                      Started by rogue06, 10-27-2020, 03:56 PM
                      3 responses
                      34 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post Ronson
                      by Ronson
                       
                      Working...
                      X