Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Thanks Tree22Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 11th, 2018, 08:47 AM   #41
Senior Member
 
guy39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kekistan
Posts: 4,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by leekohler2 View Post
No judicial nominees during an election year. That's your boy McConnell. What are you afraid of?
That is factually not true. At all.
guy39 is offline  
Old July 11th, 2018, 09:08 AM   #42
Senior Member
 
Clicker II's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 347
Quote:
Originally Posted by leekohler2 View Post
No judicial nominees during an election year. That's your boy McConnell. What are you afraid of?
Read slowly, it's the Biden rule. Do you think it appropriate for another rule change? All the rule changes by Dems is what got you in this hole to begin with, stop digging fools!!!

The only thing we're afraid of is that more liberal heads will explode...... well, not really. (Haven't heard that "what are you afraid of" line in a few months. Sure sign of desperation.)
Thanks from Jimgorn
Clicker II is offline  
Old July 11th, 2018, 09:20 AM   #43
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 16,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clicker II View Post
Read slowly, it's the Biden rule. Do you think it appropriate for another rule change? All the rule changes by Dems is what got you in this hole to begin with, stop digging fools!!!

The only thing we're afraid of is that more liberal heads will explode...... well, not really. (Haven't heard that "what are you afraid of" line in a few months. Sure sign of desperation.)
Actually that is not “The Biden Rule”.

The so called Biden Rule was a prohibition on HEARINGS for Judicial nominees during a CAMPAIGN. It was meant to stop Senators from using air time during such hearings as a de facto political advertisement. Biden pointed out that there would be plenty of time between the election and the swearing in of a new Congress to hold hearings and confirm any nominees.

McConnells rule was that there should be no hearing OR confirmation until AFTER any swearing of an election because the people/voters should “have a say” in the process. The problem with that reasoning is that the people GOT “a say” with the LAST election. Such a maneuver removes “the say” of the people voted in the previous election.
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old July 11th, 2018, 09:26 AM   #44
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clicker II View Post
Read slowly, it's the Biden rule. Do you think it appropriate for another rule change? All the rule changes by Dems is what got you in this hole to begin with, stop digging fools!!!

The only thing we're afraid of is that more liberal heads will explode...... well, not really. (Haven't heard that "what are you afraid of" line in a few months. Sure sign of desperation.)
See post above.

And what you're afraid of is that people are going to turn congress blue. At least be honest.
leekohler2 is offline  
Old July 11th, 2018, 09:36 AM   #45
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: US
Posts: 1
Biden allowed votes but they voted no to I think at least 6 nominees. Biden refused to allow HW to appoint a justice. There was about a year and a half remaining in HW's term as well.

Voting no to every nominee isn't any different than not voting at all.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
United76America is offline  
Old July 11th, 2018, 09:58 AM   #46
Senior Member
 
Clicker II's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
Actually that is not “The Biden Rule”.
Actually it is the Biden rule. Biden only added that tag line about not nominating until after the "political season" as an admission that Bush could do whatever he liked. As it is the entire exercise is a pre-emption ploy. He waxes eloquent and high minded while holding a metaphoric gun to the head of anyone who dares to do other than what he just "authorized". A veiled threat that ol Hairplugs is famous for using. He also mad it quite clear that it applied to Presidential elections. To change the rule to include midterms as you're squeeking is needed would cause the same uproar we're hearing now so what's the point. Gonna happen regardless.

But, keep carping, the ranks of those who think you're wrong are swelling rapidly.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...t-nominations/
Clicker II is offline  
Old July 11th, 2018, 10:17 AM   #47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clicker II View Post
Actually it is the Biden rule. Biden only added that tag line about not nominating until after the "political season" as an admission that Bush could do whatever he liked. As it is the entire exercise is a pre-emption ploy. He waxes eloquent and high minded while holding a metaphoric gun to the head of anyone who dares to do other than what he just "authorized". A veiled threat that ol Hairplugs is famous for using. He also mad it quite clear that it applied to Presidential elections. To change the rule to include midterms as you're squeeking is needed would cause the same uproar we're hearing now so what's the point. Gonna happen regardless.

But, keep carping, the ranks of those who think you're wrong are swelling rapidly.
In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year | PolitiFact
Quote where Biden made it quite clear that this was only about presidential elections.

And if you're confident it will happen regardless, then why not wait?
leekohler2 is offline  
Old July 11th, 2018, 12:54 PM   #48
Senior Member
 
guy39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kekistan
Posts: 4,321
Its not true at all. There has never been no judicial nominations during an election year. Judicial nominations are not just the Supreme court. It did not happen in 2016 either. Here is a list of all of President Obama nominations and confirmation dates. Several were in 2016. It is a false statement to say judicial nominations during election years did not happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_Barack_Obama
guy39 is offline  
Old July 11th, 2018, 03:11 PM   #49
Senior Member
 
Clicker II's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 347
Quote:
Originally Posted by leekohler2 View Post
Quote where Biden made it quite clear that this was only about presidential elections.

"Given the unusual rancor that prevailed in the (Clarence) Thomas nomination, the need for some serious reevaluation of the nomination and confirmation process, and the overall level of bitterness that sadly infects our political system and this presidential campaign already, it is my view that the prospects for anything but conflagration with respect to a Supreme Court nomination this year are remote at best."

He noted that among the previous seven nominations, two were not confirmed and two passed with strong opposition.

"In my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.

"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

Biden consistently refers to the current year, which was a Prez election year. He cemented his argument by mentioning that a nomination would interfere with the Dem Natl Convention that only happens in Prez election years. I hadn't noticed it before but he also refers to following precedent.
Clicker II is offline  
Old July 12th, 2018, 05:26 AM   #50
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Lehigh Valley Pa.,USA
Posts: 8,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by leekohler2 View Post
This is an election year, no judicial approvals. Trump is not the government.
Bullshit....Trump is the POTUS and As the POTUS has the exclusive right to nominate anyone he feels like, at any time...election year or not....

Now according to your convoluted logic....Presidents could not nominate a Supreme Court Justice on even numbered years.... That is just plain stupid and I am damned sure the Authors of the Constitution had no intention of that dumb idea...
Jimgorn is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
dubin, durbin



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sen. Durbin wants to compromise with GOP on health care username Healthcare 0 May 28th, 2017 06:11 PM
Durbin Discusses Stopgap Spending Bill npr Current Events 0 March 16th, 2011 11:00 AM
Durbin to give up key chairmanship for Specter CNN Current Events 1 May 7th, 2009 10:13 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.