|
Biden was on the judiciary committee in 92 iirc
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:34 |
|
|
Arkane posted:In the video, Biden says that the Senate committee should not even consider anyone nominated until after the election is over. Do you at least recognize a difference between a senator saying that at the end of June when there was no vacancy versus the Senate Majority Leader saying it in the middle of February literally several hours after a justice died?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Yes we all remember 1992, when the majority Senate Democrats, having just recently imposed multiple government shutdowns and under primary pressure from a splinter far-left party, had Senate Majority Leader Joe Biden announce a refusal to vote for new judicial appointees nearly a full year before the end of Bush's term.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Aside from the fact that Biden was wrong, I don't recall any democratic special interest groups running adds in support of what he said, and exactly zero democrats running for president that year supported that position.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Biden's saying that considering a nominee between late June and early November in a major election year would force Senate members to act on one of their most important duties while distracted by the activities of campaigning, for themselves or their colleagues. His suggestion is that the President wait until after the election, not until after the inauguration. All Biden says there is that the Senate needs to give a nominee their full attention. He also implies that it's a bad move to nominate someone when it could become a political subject in the election. And, he's speaking hypothetically. Contrast that with the partisan gamesmanship of the current Senate majority, who themselves moved to make this SCOTUS seat a political topic in the election, before a nominee was even put forward, in mid-February. They're acting directly counter to Biden's point, only doing so using the power of the Senate instead of the Presidency. e: whoops, June Squizzle fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Feb 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
A disgusting level of partisanship of both parties at equal magnitudes. Certainly contemporary Republicans have done nothing that Democrats haven't done countless times before.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Lyapunov Unstable posted:A disgusting level of partisanship of both parties at equal magnitudes. Certainly contemporary Republicans have done nothing that Democrats haven't done countless times before. Do you have a source for this claim.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Do you have a source for this claim.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Lyapunov Unstable posted:Clearly blocking all votes on judicial appointments for a full quarter of a presidential term is something that Senate Democrats have at least thought about while taking a dump at least once. A disgusting level of partisanship by both parties. He's not wrong here folks, guess it's time to pack it in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Lyapunov Unstable posted:Clearly blocking all votes on judicial appointments for a full quarter of a presidential term is something that Senate Democrats have at least thought about while taking a dump at least once. A disgusting level of partisanship by both parties. Thinking about it and doing it are clearly different. Didn't think that had to spelled out, but here we are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
I wasn't even trying to troll and thought the sarcasm was obvious, but welp here we are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
*shrug* Biden was wrong then, Republicans are wrong now. Don't see why some folks are getting all twisted up in knots over this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Lyapunov Unstable posted:I wasn't even trying to troll and thought the sarcasm was obvious, but welp here we are. The sarcasm was blindingly obvious, people are just being loving retards. I mean god drat people really?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Lyapunov Unstable posted:I wasn't even trying to troll and thought the sarcasm was obvious, but welp here we are. the sarcasm was as obvious as the jet black lump of coal the autopsy would have found
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
The problem with following Biden's 1992 suggestion to let the Senate wait until their campaigns are over before considering a nominee is that Republicans would probably not live up to their side of it if a Republican is elected and will stonewall until after the inauguration. I base this on the announcement that McConnell made in February that they will try to stonewall for 11 months if they can. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Feb 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Lyapunov Unstable posted:I wasn't even trying to troll and thought the sarcasm was obvious, but welp here we are. Sarcasm is hard to read right now, given the level of absurdist poo poo that has come out of this Congress.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Arkane posted:In the video, Biden says that the Senate committee should not even consider anyone nominated until after the election is over. Are you basing your entire argument on pretending to not know the difference between an election and an inauguration?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Are you basing your entire argument on pretending to not know the difference between an election and an inauguration? It's arkane.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Sarcasm is hard to read right now, given the level of absurdist poo poo that has come out of this Congress. Our entire legislature probably falls under Poe's Law. Trolled again...
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
So the sumbitches are actually gonna do it.quote:Key Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee emerged from a closed door meeting in Majority Leader Mitch McConnel's office Tuesday united in their determination not to consider any nominee to replace Anton Scalia until the next president takes office.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Oracle posted:American pope That's an interesting and somewhat educating typo. I know that not calling on people making outrageous lies is the new normal for our gutless media but really more people have to point out that we already had the American people decide when Obama was elected for four years and not three.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
How hard would the senate judiciary committee to scramble to get whomever Obama wanted confirmed if we are looking at a Hillary/Trump race.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Al! posted:How hard would the senate judiciary committee to scramble to get whomever Obama wanted confirmed if we are looking at a Hillary/Trump race.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Al! posted:How hard would the senate judiciary committee to scramble to get whomever Obama wanted confirmed if we are looking at a Hillary/Trump race. Bernie Sanders wins in November, then immediately after the Electoral College votes him and his Vice President, Full Communism Now, in Bernie is raptured to Heaven like Elijah. The scramble to get Obama to nominate someone that they can confirm will be delightful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
If she enjoyed reading Scalia's dissents, does that mean she preferred when he was on the losing side? Never thought I'd agree with Bachmann.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Could someone sue the Senate for not living up to their constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent, since they have outright stated that not only will they not confirm a nominee, they won't even consider having a hearing for one? Could such a case end up in front of the Supreme Court?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Could someone sue the Senate for not living up to their constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent, since they have outright stated that not only will they not confirm a nominee, they won't even consider having a hearing for one? No. No.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Could someone sue the Senate for not living up to their constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent, since they have outright stated that not only will they not confirm a nominee, they won't even consider having a hearing for one? Why would you even think that
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
euphronius posted:No. No. Yep, this is right. Really the idea that nomination confirmations should not be contentious or politicized is the actual "mere tradition" in this case. Congress has every right to reject or accept nominees as they see fit, the idea that it should not be politically based is just a thing like earmarks that mainly exist to grease the wheels of the system. Now someone could theoretically sue them, and if it did filter up somehow to the Supreme Court and get granted cert, there's no way it wouldn't be 8-0 affirming Congress's right to be assholes unless some of the Justices decide they really want to see another civil war before they die.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
foobardog posted:unless some of the Justices decide they really want to see another civil war before they die. does the south have more firepower this time around?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:03
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
foobardog posted:Yep, this is right. Really the idea that nomination confirmations should not be contentious or politicized is the actual "mere tradition" in this case. Congress has every right to reject or accept nominees as they see fit, the idea that it should not be politically based is just a thing like earmarks that mainly exist to grease the wheels of the system. Rejecting is fine. Not even holding hearings is anti democratic nihilism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
blowfish posted:does the south have more firepower this time around? Only because the south is allied with the midwest, and contains our larger military bases, so probably. euphronius posted:Rejecting is fine. Not even holding hearings is anti democratic nihilism. Yeah, I agree, but there is no system within the US Constitution for Congress to be compelled to act like there are for some state constitutions. Like Congress gets to decide when, where, and how it will decide things, but are limited in what things they can decide. Or more accurately, can have their actions struck down, not their inactions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
blowfish posted:does the south have more firepower this time around? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
foobardog posted:Only because the south is allied with the midwest, and contains our larger military bases, so probably. 200+ years of timely holding hearing means firmly holding hearings is constitutional.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
euphronius posted:200+ years of timely holding hearing means firmly holding hearings is constitutional. Yes. They are allowed to hold their hearings in a timely manner. But they are not disallowed from holding them in an untimely manner, there's no speed requirement like there is for court cases, unless I'm unaware of existing precedent on it. Either way, it's not there as a strict reading, only possibly implied as being necessary for the actual functioning of the system. I'm not saying it's right, but the Constitution has no recourse here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
blowfish posted:does the south have more firepower this time around? Texas is the only state to worry about, and the fact that CA not only equals them in bases but also produces the vast majority of military air craft means that while they have more firepower, the rest of the US that won't rebel has way more than they do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Texas is the only state to worry about, and the fact that CA not only equals them in bases but also produces the vast majority of military air craft means that while they have more firepower, the rest of the US that won't rebel has way more than they do. the California that passed prop 8 and elected ahhhnold
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
foobardog posted:Yes. They are allowed to hold their hearings in a timely manner. But they are not disallowed from holding them in an untimely manner, there's no speed requirement like there is for court cases, unless I'm unaware of existing precedent on it. Either way, it's not there as a strict reading, only possibly implied as being necessary for the actual functioning of the system. What has been done for 200 years without controversy IS the Constitution. That is constitutional law. Not only what the document says by how it is interpreted. For 200 years the senate had interpreted the constitution to mean X. Now out of the blue and for entirely base reasons they are saying -X. Unconstitutional in its more flagrant sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Like if this were January 2017 and trump was elected maybe the Gop would have a point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:34 |
|
|
Ah, so federal troops are still heavily concentrated in formerly rebellious territories. Probably overkill given what happened in Oregon, but still prudent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:24
|
|
