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.
Ignoring the personal attack, Biden said he urged the president to consider and the Senate to consider. That is not a rule. It was a remark made almost 30 years ago, urging them to consider and it was at the end of JUNE.
There is not a way to challenge McConnell in court, it is an interpretation of the rules that McConnell, as head of the Senate majority, chose to take. And Democrats, should they take control of the Senate in 2020 and 2022, when the map heavily favors them, choose to interpret Republican remarks into a "Ted Cruz rule" and not approve any Republican presidential nominees, there will be nothing Republicans can do either.
Republicans are delusional if they think they won't pay a price. Of course Republicans are going to pay a price for Merrick Garland. Of course they are.
Asking you to honestly answer the questions in posts that you quote is not a "personal attack." Again, you twist Biden's words, even after I supplied his quote. If there is no way to challenge in court, then by definition McConnell's action was not "theft." However, I do thank you for finally answering that question.
Please, being deliberately obtuse is not going to enhance your rep as a poster or help you win arguments. We've been over and over this discussion. As you know by now, Biden didn't act on his proposal because he never got a chance. Read again my question Was this a "crooked, thieving" proposal? NOT a lying, thieving action. Then answer that question, not one you have fabricated.
And you still don't answer the other question (at least in this post) which I have now asked numerous times: why is McConnell not being challenge in court?
If you actually believe there is such a thing as the Biden rule we are definitely in crazy land. But assuming that McConnell or anyone else in the GOP agreed to that (they did not) his main point was to avoid appointments because of hyper-partisan politics in a presidential election year. I think this year just might meet the definition of hyper-partisan politics.
He also stated you should fire a shotgun into the backyard when you hear noises, is that also another Biden Rule.
Last edited by Goodnight; 09-29-2018 at 06:59 PM..
No. Politics isn't a matter of what people think is "fair", people have a warped view of that word anyway. There are rules and procedures and even the occasional "we hear by make a NEW rule" things that go on in politics. The Republicans played the hand they were dealt to their advantage, that's all. Dem's do it all the time.
In fact, sometimes when they can't win by the rules r, they cheat or kick the board over.
If you actually believe there is such a thing as the Biden rule as real we are definitely in crazy land. But assuming that McConnell or anyone else in the GOP agreed to that (they did not) his main point was to avoid appointments because of hyper-partisan politics in a presidential election year. I think this year just might meet the definition of hyper-partisan politics.
He also stated you should fire a shotgun into the backyard when you hear noises, is that also another Biden Rule.
Again, the argument over the term 'rule' is semantics. It's just a shorthand way of expressing what Biden said in 1992. If you want to post the full quote every time, that's fine.
The main point is that what McConnell did regarding Garland mirrored Biden's proposal. This year certainly would certainly meet the definition of hyper-partisan, but the difference is that in 1992, Democrats controlled the US Senate, whereas now they do not.
Asking you to honestly answer the questions in posts that you quote is not a "personal attack." Again, you twist Biden's words, even after I supplied his quote. If there is no way to challenge in court, then by definition McConnell's action was not "theft." However, I do thank you for finally answering that question.
I supplied Biden's quote too and I cited where Biden himself said no rule exists.
And if Democrat's use the Ted Cruz rule and do not give Trump (should he be re-elected) a single SCJ hearing over four years should they take the Senate (very favorable for them in 2020 and 2022), Republicans will not challenge it either. Because what we have seen is the Senate majority leader can do whatever they want. If Chuck Schumer decides to apply the Ted Cruz rule and give Trump a big fat nothing, Republicans can't do anything.
Republicans will pay a price for Merrick Garland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t
Again, the argument over the term 'rule' is semantics. It's just a shorthand way of expressing what Biden said in 1992. If you want to post the full quote every time, that's fine.
The main point is that what McConnell did regarding Garland mirrored Biden's proposal. This year certainly would certainly meet the definition of hyper-partisan, but the difference is that in 1992, Democrats controlled the US Senate, whereas now they do not.
It will be forever hyper-partisan. Will McConnell apply the "Biden rule" to himself in Trump's last year should a SCJ opening occur?
Of course the SCOTUS pick was Obamas. That is of no doubt.
But the Ends is Worth the Means. The least our GOP friends can do is admit it and say "nah nah nah nah nah" instead of trying to hide behind the will of the people. The will of the people has long been subverted.....one million people in WY have as much say as 30 million plus in another state.
Of course the SCOTUS pick was Obamas. That is of no doubt.
But the Ends is Worth the Means. The least our GOP friends can do is admit it and say "nah nah nah nah nah" instead of trying to hide behind the will of the people. The will of the people has long been subverted.....one million people in WY have as much say as 30 million plus in another state.
Truly, that would be more honest. Admit that moving forward, the president will only get a SCJ if they also control the Senate.
"'Deserves' is an impossible thing to decide. No one deserves anything. Thank God we don't get what we deserve." - Milton Friedman
I don't think Obama deserved a Supreme Court appointment. I don't think Merritt Garland deserved to be given a hearing. Because why should they? Precedent?
Deserve usually refers to something you've earned. So why did Obama earn an appointment? Did Merritt Garlard deserve a hearing? Why was he even selected?
For that matter, Trump doesn't deserve an appointment either. You can say that he has a right to it. Or make some kind of constitutional claim. But none of these people in Washington D.C. deserve anything.
When the Senate refused to give Merritt Garland a hearing, it was dereliction of duty. They are required by the Constitution to give "advice and consent." They should have had the hearing and vote him down if they wanted to. That would have been respectable and they would have fulfilled their constitutional duty.
What McConnell did was unconstitutional and disrespectful to America's traditions. McConnell should have had his paycheck docked for non-performance.
Democrats had done enough to anger their constituents, that those constituents voted them out of the majority in the Senate. So they no longer had the votes in the committees they needed.
Yet we keep hearing, in regard to confirmation hearings for Garland, that the Republicans should have given them "what is rightfully theirs" and held hearings.
"What is rightfully theirs" is what the voters decided they should have. You got a problem with that?
Basically, the Democrats blew it.
Elections have consequences. One of them is that, if you lose, you can't dictate what the Senate does any more.
I'm no Democrat, but I don't think that the GOP set a good precedent by denying Merrick Garland a hearing. From then on, if the president and a majority of senators aren't in the same party, there will be a Supreme Court vacancy until they are.
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.
