Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112
Results 331 to 341 of 341

Thread: The Impeachment of President Trump

  1. #331
    The irony of course is that every move Republicans made was done by Democrats first. Harry Reid was the first to use the nuclear option. Biden was the first to call for a delay in nominating someone to the court due to it being an election year.

  2. #332
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    The irony of course is that every move Republicans made was done by Democrats first. Harry Reid was the first to use the nuclear option. Biden was the first to call for a delay in nominating someone to the court due to it being an election year.
    Who was nominated for a position on SCOTUS when Biden allegedly set this precedent?
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  3. #333
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Who was nominated for a position on SCOTUS when Biden allegedly set this precedent?
    He didn't set the precedent, he did however make the case.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...t-nominations/

    "And if such a retirement came to pass, he said, President George H. W. Bush should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed” and, if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

    “Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself,” Biden said. “Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue."

  4. #334
    Biden talked about a couple of months, just a part of one term, as a hypothetical along with a number of other reforms. The GOP acted for a full YEAR, covering two sessions of the Court with no intention or desire for general reform, just naked political advantage. They were, in fact, being pressured to hold up nominations for a full four years if Hillary had won.

    Further, as Biden pointed out then, he DID allow nominations to go forward during an election cycle. There weren't any that year but he'd let them through in other election years.
    Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 05-12-2020 at 06:04 PM.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  5. #335
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    He didn't set the precedent, he did however make the case.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...t-nominations/

    "And if such a retirement came to pass, he said, President George H. W. Bush should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed” and, if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

    “Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself,” Biden said. “Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue."
    In other words, your claim was stupid. It was one senator, talking about a hypothetical scenario, with no debate.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  6. #336
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Biden talked about a couple of months, just a part of one term, as a hypothetical along with a number of other reforms. The GOP acted for a full YEAR, covering two sessions of the Court with no intention or desire for general reform, just naked political advantage. They were, in fact, being pressured to hold up nominations for a full four years if Hillary had won.

    Further, as Biden pointed out then, he DID allow nominations to go forward during an election cycle. There weren't any that year but he'd let them through in other election years.
    Fuzzy what was the essential difference between not having a hearing and voting it down?

  7. #337
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Fuzzy what was the essential difference between not having a hearing and voting it down?
    Kennedy, the election-year nomination, was confirmed. And Clarence Thomas made it through too. That's 2 out of 3. Nominees DO get rejected. Sometimes when nominees are rejected they get renominated and confirmed. Neither Bork nor Thomas were able to actually pass the hearings of the Judicial Committee, in fact, but Biden reported them out to be voted on by the Senate as a whole anyway. Bork couldn't get confirmed because he knowingly undertook unconstitutional action to support obstruction of a President's illegal activities. While I personally feel one shouldn't blame Bork TOO much for that since Nixon was committed to the course of action and at some point you need to let it go through so someone who actually has the authority to stop him could step in, the position was understandable. Which is why it was not a straight party-line vote. 2 Democrats voted to confirm, and 6 Republicans voted to reject him. That's almost 20% of the Republicans in the Senate at the time, BTW.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  8. #338
    My point is that holding the hearing would change nothing except waste the senate's time. Obama's nominee was dead on arrival. Why have the political circus if the vote would not have changed?

  9. #339
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    My point is that holding the hearing would change nothing except waste the senate's time. Obama's nominee was dead on arrival. Why have the political circus if the vote would not have changed?
    To nominate someone else. To provide the qualifications acceptable for a nominee to that committee and to the Senate as a whole. To see if the Senate actually WOULD accept a nominee. They didn't hold allow hearings to be held at all because they were afraid there just might be enough defections for a majority to actually approve the nominee and if not that one then the next one.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  10. #340

  11. #341
    Yeah, obsession with a conspiracy theory is as valid as obsession with borderline treason. Way to make the libs look bad.
    Hope is the denial of reality

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •