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.
We can call it what we wish--'Biden rule' seems to be the common expression. If you google 'Biden mention' you get nothing. It was never acted upon because there was no SCOTUS vacancy to fill. It was a hypothetical. Going 4 years is a horse of a different color.
Biden rule was a term coined by McConnell when he needed an excuse. Biden said it in 1992. And if Republicans like Democratic suggestions like that so much, who's to say they wouldn't like a four year Schumer Rule? It's worth testing out.
Here is what then-Sen. Biden said in June 1992, about 5 months before Bill Clinton was elected.
Quote:
The senate too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until ever — until after the political campaign season is over.
And you know what, he was exactly right. That's why I did not kick so much when McConnell blocked Garland in March, 2016, about 8 months before Trump was elected. To focus on this kind of back-and-forth partisan bickering is anyway a non-productive use of time. I would rather see us focus on fighting pollution, homelessness, racism, etc.
After what we have seen with Merrick Garland, Gorsuch and now the laughable Kavanaugh hearing where Republican Senator Mike Lee had such lame questions as what kind of pen Kavanaugh uses, it seems the vote for future SCJs has changed forever.
Unless the Senate and the president are of the same party, the president's nominee will not be voted for and may not even get hearings.
If the GOP can do it for the last year, there's no reason why Democrats can't do it for the president's entire term.
Democrats will never be satisfied until they take any least one, if not two or more SCJ nominees against a future Republican president and if that takes two decades, they will do it. Since Republicans started this war (Biden suggesting it is meaningless, Democrats never did it), they have to know this is inevitable.
We will now have the unwritten rule that unless the president and Senate are the same party, no new Supreme Court Justices.
Does anyone see the future playing out any differently?
In some circumstances it wouldn't be advantageous to oppose a nomination. Suppose Trump loses in 2020, Republicans hold onto the Senate, and Breyer retires in 2021. The possibility of a true swing vote replacing a moderate liberal.
Probably what will end up happening is a consistent 5-4 conservative court unless Democrats sustain power for 20 years or so. They'll be a lot of rejoicing if a justice of the opposite persuasion dies when the party that opposes them controls the presidency and the senate.
Apparently you missed the Robert Bork confirmation process?
Republicans tried to return to the normal process after Bork and Thomas by confirming Ginsburg 96-3 and Breyer 89-7, but it was Democrats who made the judiciary political by their treatment of Alito (58-42) and Roberts (78-22) and especially on the lower courts by blocking highly qualified jurists who were black, Hispanic and female, but happened to be more reserved in their judicial temperament.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
(Biden suggesting it is meaningless, Democrats never did it), they have to know this is inevitable.
Democrats didn't do it only because the opportunity didn't present itself. Biden was very clean in his intentions. Biden in fact blocked Roberts nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DCC. Despite Bush nominating Roberts in January of 1992, Biden refused to schedule a hearing for Roberts, who was highly qualified for the job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
We will now have the unwritten rule that unless the president and Senate are the same party, no new Supreme Court Justices.
We have had that rule from the Democrats since 1969 at least.
Schumer Demands Congress Use 'Biden Rule' in Choosing Kennedy Replacement
...
The so-called Biden rule referred to a presidential election year, which was consistent with McConnell's action. But if we think about it, the US Senate is equal partner in the selection of justices, so there is an argument to be made that the rule should apply to midterms too, as Schumer requests.
In this case it is probably moot, since nobody expects Democrats to take the Senate. But still, rules are rules. The problem for Democrats here, and I am one, is that we poisoned the well by screaming over Garland.
Ah well, it is both sides that do it. Politics, thy name is hypocrisy.
I fully understand the importance of the Supreme Court, it is the highest court in the land, at the very minimum it should be in balance, 3 liberal justices, 3 moderate justices, and 3 conservative justices. I think the Supreme Court should be made up of strict constitutionalists, that if something is not in the constitution it should then be kick back to a lower court.
But that is just me.
And Seacove you are the original poster, and I was indicating regardless of what ever political maneuvering is going on, the Supreme Court will still function.
Problem is that you're not going to get strict constructionists with 3 liberal justices and 3 moderate justices.
not quite true my friend. the vote by the senate is to confirm the justice, or not. it not like justices run for office at the federal level you know.
If it makes one feel better to have that distinction, feel free. However, the Republican Senate is counting votes for Kavanaugh and trying to keep Susan Collins in line. That is a vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t
Here is what then-Sen. Biden said in June 1992, about 5 months before Bill Clinton was elected.
And you know what, he was exactly right. That's why I did not kick so much when McConnell blocked Garland in March, 2016, about 8 months before Trump was elected. To focus on this kind of back-and-forth partisan bickering is anyway a non-productive use of time. I would rather see us focus on fighting pollution, homelessness, racism, etc.
And five months becomes eight months and eight months becomes twelve and twelve months becomes 18. Where is the line? Wherever McConnell says it is? Sorry, taking a president's Supreme Court Justice nomination eight months before the end of his term is ridiculous.
I'm sure McConnell will apply the same rule to himself should an opening occur in Trump's last year. No where does it say that a president only nominates judges in the first three years of his term but since Republicans have made this the rule, it would seem equally appropriate for Democrats to make rule adjustments of their own should they hold the Senate with a Republican president.
Last edited by Seacove; 09-11-2018 at 11:51 PM..
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.
