Biden blasts Trump's plan to push for Supreme Court nominee before election

[MajarTheLion]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Has my position changed?  No.   I expect the Senate Majority Leader to be consistent in the application of the rules he chooses to impose on the Senate during his tenure.

Fair enough. As long as you understand McConnell is under no obligation to do so. And of course, expecting McConnell to maintain the same position while giving Biden a free pass on doing the same flip flop is not logical. It's partisan.

[Cryingdick]

5 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

I agree, expecting McConnell to live up to his words and play by consistent rules is not flip-flopping. But that is not why I am making the flip flop accusation. I am making it because Joe Biden was for seating a SCOTUS judge in year four of a presidency in 2016 but against it in 2020.

 

Biden one day says he will end fracking and miners can go learn to code if they can shovel coal. The very next day he is showing up in Pennsylvania saying some fracking is okay.

 

Anyway I digress. It seems one side of the aisle thinks they and they alone have some moral upper high ground. All politicians lie and are hypocrites it's a necessary evil to get elected. Want a friend get a dog.

Edited September 21, 2020 by Cryingdick

[wombat]

36 minutes ago, stevenl said:

A hypocritical opinion.

Oh please...like Biden's mob wouldn't do the same?

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

I agree, expecting McConnell to live up to his words and play by consistent rules is not flip-flopping. But that is not why I am making the flip flop accusation. I am making it because Joe Biden was for seating a SCOTUS judge in year four of a presidency in 2016 but against it in 2020.

As explained before, it is not flip-flopping for Joe Biden and the majority of Americans to expect the Senate Majority Leader to be consistent in the application of the rules he applies.

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

As explained before, it is not flip-flopping for Joe Biden and the majority of Americans to expect the Senate Majority Leader to be consistent in the application of the rules he applies.

The only rules that matter are the actual law. Everything else is just a suggestion.

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Biden one day says he will end fracking and miners can go learn to code if they can shovel coal. The very next day he is showing up in Pennsylvania saying some fracking is okay.

 

Anyway I digress. It seems one side of the aisle thinks they and they alone have some moral upper high ground. All politicians lie and are hypocrites it's a necessary evil to get elected. Want a friend get a dog.

You're dragging this way off-topic.  I suspect if you were to provide sources for you claims about Biden you'd find the context paints a different picture.

[stevenl]

3 minutes ago, wombat said:

Oh please...like Biden's mob wouldn't do the same?

Deflecting into something nobody knows.

[Cryingdick]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You're dragging this way off-topic.  I suspect if you were to provide sources for you claims about Biden you'd find the context paints a different picture.

 

Live right here (WV/PA border) where he was just telling those lies. Not everybody lives online and vicariously participates in civic Amrican life that way. I have no link I watch local news. Anyway sure let's get back on topic. 

Edited September 21, 2020 by Cryingdick

[heybruce]

6 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

It would be unprecedented for a sitting president not to move to confirm a SJC if the opportunity presents itself. If I mistyped it so be it but that was what I was getting at. I have never seen you in the whole time of being on TV ever concede even the smallest point. We will agree to disagree because I do not think you are  able to consider any view that isn't your own at this point. 

I never said Trump should not nominate a replacement.  I have consistently maintained that McConnell should be consistent, instead of blatantly partisan, in his application of the rules he invents.  Of course I don't expect consistency or anything but hyper-partisan behavior from McConnell.

[Cryingdick]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I never said Trump should not nominate a replacement.  I have consistently maintained that McConnell should be consistent, instead of blatantly partisan, in his application of the rules he invents.  Of course I don't expect consistency or anything but hyper-partisan behavior from McConnell.

Headline: Biden blasts Trump. Almost every post typed about Mitch is off topic. FYI Trump wasn't there when Obama's pick got shot down. So yes let's keep to the matter at hand and that imo is why is Biden blasting Trump, when Obama pushed for a SJC in his last year of office?
 

Edited September 21, 2020 by Cryingdick

[heybruce]

4 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Live right here where he was just telling those lies. Not everybody lives online and vicariously participates in civic Amrican life that way. I have no link I watch local news. Anyway sure let's get back on topic. 

"Live right here" is not a reference.  Your claim about what Biden said could reflect his opposition to approval of new fracking fields while agreeing that fracking should continue where it has already been approved.  That is why I'd like to see credible sources for your claims.  I'm also skeptical about your claim that Biden said miners "can learn code".

Edited September 21, 2020 by heybruce

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

Headline: Biden blasts Trump. Almost every post typed about Mitch is off topic.

First sentence of the topic:

 

'Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden urged Senate Republicans not to vote on any candidate nominated to the Supreme Court as the November election approaches, calling his rival Donald Trump's plan an "exercise of raw political power."'

 

Obviously what the Senate does is part of this topic.  Biden's comments on fracking are not.

[ThailandRyan]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

To jam this nomination through the Senate is just an exercise of raw political power

Sounds to me like he is throwing a temper tantrum "It is my nomination, I should get to pick, he is spoiling my presidency already".  Love people who count there chickens before they hatch.  

 

Show me somewhere, other then in common sense, where a law says a sitting president can not nominate and fill a vacancy. Normally a lame duck president in his last year of his last term would graciously do this, but Trump is not gracious or possibly in his last term.  I dislike politics, but if this was a company, the position would be filled ASAP with the most qualified.

Edited September 21, 2020 by ThailandRyan

[heybruce]

1 minute ago, ThailandRyan said:

Sounds to me like he is throwing a temper tantrum "It is my nomination, I should get to pick, he is spoiling my presidency already".  Live people who count there chickens before they hatch.  

 

Show me somewhere, other then in common sense, where a law says a sitting president can not nominate and fill a vacancy. Normally a lame duck president in his last year of his last term would graciously do this, but Trump is not gracious or possibly in his last term.  I dislike politics, but if this was a company, the position would be filled ASAP with the most qualified.

The election is six weeks away.  Since 1975 Supreme Court confirmations have taken an average of 68 days. 

 

The Senate is not currently in session, Senators are in their home districts campaigning for re-election. Plus Senate Leader Mitch McConnell has established the precedent of not considering nominations during an election year.

 

People hypothesize about an urgent need to have a full complement of justices, but all factors point to going slow being the best approach.

[heybruce]

7 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Look it up yourself. I know because I saw it first hand. Now let's get back to the topic for god's sake. Anybody that can type on an Internet forum ought to know enough to stay on topic.

 

Biden is bashing Trump for doing his moral duty to the nation and last but not less fulfill his campaign promise. to his supporters. How do you justify Biden lashing out at Trump for doing his job?

You made the off-topic claims, you provide the sources.

 

Biden is criticizing Trump for attempting to rush through a Supreme Court nomination and confirmation ridiculously close to an election.  That is legitimate.  It is also legitimate for Biden to make this an election issue, just as Trump did the last election and this one.

Edited September 21, 2020 by heybruce

[Scott]

Off-topic post and post with an unapproved source and reply have been removed.  

 

For what it is worth, I do recall that Biden said he would halt fracking and now he will allow some fracking.  

 

I think we can get back on topic now.  

 

 

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

A hypocritical opinion.

 

Do you think Biden's flip from his stance in 2016 to a complete reversal in 2020 is also hypocritical?

[Paul Henry]

Republicans are liars and cheats. Look at the Cavanagh appointment and what the Republicans said prior to his confirmation.Moscow Mitch and Gaslight Graham both made irreversible statements that NO nominations would be allowed in a year before an  election and the Republicans would HONOUR that commitment.

[Eric Loh]

Amazing USA when appointment of judges are political events. Independent, non-partisan and attaining the bench in a manner other than political appointment; so alike Thailand.   

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Do you think Biden's flip from his stance in 2016 to a complete reversal in 2020 is also hypocritical?

No, because on both occasions he is following the precedent of senate. He is simply agreeing with the rule at the time.

 

mcconnell however...

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Do you think Biden's flip from his stance in 2016 to a complete reversal in 2020 is also hypocritical?

You mean like Trump's position on abortion?   https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trumps-evolving-stance-abortion/story?id=38057176

 

And his being a Republican?   https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/16/donald-trump-changed-political-parties-at-least-fi/

 

And Trump's position on the Iraq War?  https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-iraq-war/

 

And Trump's mis-handling of the US budget deficit?   https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbes-personal-shopper/2020/09/11/best-pc-case-2020/#3d664124149a

 

And many other things.  Yes, Biden has changed positions on some topics.  But he can't hold a candle to Trump on hypocrisy. 

[Bluespunk]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

"I think it should be a woman because I actually like women much more than men."

Every day in every way the man gets dumber.

[joecoolfrog]

Its not just the staggering hypocrisy that is the problem , its the rampant partisanship that is trampling ethics and established standards.

If the Democrats get to hold the Senate and White House whats to stop them appointing 4 new ultra Liberal new supreme court judges , what would stop them , who could complain.

Throwing the rule book out of the window may bring short term gain but it creates a very slippery slope. 

[Berkshire]

7 hours ago, joecoolfrog said:

Its not just the staggering hypocrisy that is the problem , its the rampant partisanship that is trampling ethics and established standards.

If the Democrats get to hold the Senate and White House whats to stop them appointing 4 new ultra Liberal new supreme court judges , what would stop them , who could complain.

Throwing the rule book out of the window may bring short term gain but it creates a very slippery slope. 

This issue has seriously energized Democrats which may lead to record turnout in November.  If fundraising is any indication (which it always is), Trump and McConnell are toast...

 

[The Democratic response so far should terrify Trump and GOP Senate candidates up for election this year. Democrats have already begun channeling their pain at losing RBG into action, pouring a record-breaking number of donations to Democratic candidates and causes via the online fundraising platform ActBlue. The New York Times reported that from about 9 p.m. ET Friday -- about 90 minutes after RBG's death was announced -- ActBlue reported receiving $6.2 million in donations, the most ever in just one hour in the platform's 16-year history. That record was broken the following hour when $6.3 million was donated, more than $100,000 per minute.]

 

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/20/opinions/democrats-response-to-ruth-bader-ginsburg-death-should-terrify-trump-obeidallah/index.html

 

Edited September 21, 2020 by Scott
Edited for Fair Use Policy

[bluehippie]

13 hours ago, Sujo said:

No, because on both occasions he is following the precedent of senate. He is simply agreeing with the rule at the time.

 

mcconnell however...

You can disagree with the McConnell rule, which was previously known as the Biden rule, but you should understand and reference it accurately. It's no confirmations in a presidential election year when senate and presidency are divided, held by different parties. Doesn't apply this year. Correct me if I am wrong.

Edited September 21, 2020 by bluehippie

[Susco]

Of course Trump wants to appoint the new judge, as he will appear for the supreme court many times after his presidency ends in January, so he can't risk being one short

[bluehippie]

39 minutes ago, Susco said:

Of course Trump wants to appoint the new judge, as he will appear for the supreme court many times after his presidency ends in January, so he can't risk being one short

Okay, do tell why does Trump "appear for the supreme court..." in January (2025).

Edited September 21, 2020 by bluehippie

[Susco]

3 minutes ago, bluehippie said:

Okay, do tell why does Trump "appear for the supreme court..." in January (2025).

I didn't say that at all, in fact I would presume that by 2025 he will be serving time for most cases already

[bluehippie]

7 minutes ago, Susco said:

I didn't say that at all, in fact I would presume that by 2025 he will be serving time for most cases already

Do you even know the function of the Supreme Court, USA or remember what you say or write?

 

Here, I'll direct you, read this please:

https://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/history/north-america/us-courts/supreme-court-united-states/functions

Edited September 21, 2020 by bluehippie

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, bluehippie said:

You can disagree with the McConnell rule, which was previously known as the Biden rule, but you should understand and reference it accurately. It's no confirmations in a presidential election year when senate and presidency are divided, held by different parties. Doesn't apply this year. Correct me if I am wrong.

The "Biden rule" is that there should be no Supreme Court Justice confirmations once the campaigning for an election has begun.  Merrick Garland's confirmation should have begun in February 2016, well before serious campaigning.

 

In the past 100 years there have been three Supreme Court confirmations during Presidential election years, all in January or February. The most recent was Anthony Kennedy, confirmed in February 1988.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

 

Obviously there is an intense Presidential campaign going on now through November.  The Biden Rule, the McConnell rule, and historical precedent clearly state that there should be no confirmation hearings.