Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nonsense.
Biden made a speech, nothing more.
There was, and is, no "rule."
However, what we do have now is actual precedent for the nuclear option.
Are you going to feel so smug when that is used against your party?
That precisely was my point. The filibuster never worked in the GOP's favor to begin with, as far as Supreme Court nominations are concerned.
Doing away with it for SCOTUS nominations could not have worked to the GOP's disadvantage any more than having the rule in place to begin with.
One thing is for certain, however. As a result of the filibuster rule change, the Dems (and everybody else) got a new SC justice who is clearly vastly superior to the last two who were nominated and approved.
As to whether Biden's speech constituted a "rule" or not is largely immaterial, since he was clearly staking out his position that no SC nomination in the election year of 1992 would be considered by Judiciary Committee, and there is absolutely no reason to construe his statement as an idle threat.
The majority of voters did not vote for the President who nominated Gorsuch or the Senators who confirmed him.
Authoritarian followers, are, in the final analysis, much the same, their Authoritarian leaders avoid scrutiny & their lapdog followers protect & provide cover. As Mr. Scalia noted, this does not resemble the home of the brave by any stretch of the imagination:
Quote:
Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. For my part, I do not look forward to a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns anonymously . . . hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the Brave.
The democrats have become the opposition party, now that's funny, where have you been for the last 8 years. I heard some republican senators indicate we could go another 4 years without a replacement for Scalia if Clinton were elected. You will be happy to know that wasn't against the constitution either, but now we have a new rule.
Now that's funny, because the Republicans gave Barack Obama everything he wanted.
I am aware that the Constitution does not specify that there must be nine justices on the high court.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the fastidious mental masturbatory tactics & sophistry finally tired me out. I'm only human. 
Well unless Trump and the Republicans will pull an FDR like court-packing...
