Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
your childish retort aside, you obviously CANNOT LOGICALLY OR FACTUALLY justify this preemptive stance by the GOP, which flies in the face of the letter and spirit of the law by Constitution.
the Scalia situation.
- Thread starter Taichiliberal
- Start date
your childish retort aside, you obviously CANNOT LOGICALLY OR FACTUALLY justify this preemptive stance by the GOP, which flies in the face of the letter and spirit of the law by Constitution.
I know he did. Let Obama submit whomever he wants and when Republican form a solid phalanx against someone they consider an ideological extremist, are you going to defend their actions like you defend what the Democrats did to Bork?
Can't do it based on whose application of what is and isn't logical? Are you saying you get to determine what is and isn't factual? If so, sorry dickhead, you don't get to decide then tell the rest of us how it is to be done. We'll tell you and you can STFU.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
really? Where's your proof beyond this oft repeated fiction of yours. And remember, BORK WAS A SUBMITTED NOMINEE WHO WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS AND FAILED. DEAL WITH IT. http://crooksandliars.com/paul-rosenberg/borking-myth-self-inoculating-conse
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
First off, grow up and admit you were wrong in asserting that the Dem party leadership DID THE EXACT SAME THING AS McConnell HAS DONE. If you won't, that makes you just an insipidly stubborn right wing hack. And if you'd bother to have read the entire content of the link, you'd see exactly why Bork got the shaft. Here, for your further education:
Wendy Long claimed Bork was "smeared" in 1987; conservatives then and now disagree
http://mediamatters.org/research/2005/07/06/wendy-long-claimed-bork-was-smeared-in-1987-con/133455
www.nytimes.com/1987/06/30/us/byrd-says-bork-nomination-would-face-senate-trouble.html
Democrats had already determined they would turn down a particular person before he was nominated.
www.nytimes.com/1987/07/05/opinion/washington-kennedy-and-bork.html
While you may want to call it recollection, I call it fact and my recollector seems to be working quite well.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
do you really and truly think that babble you just typed passes for a logical, fact based retort? As the old saying goes, son....you are entitled to your opinion, but NOT to your own facts. When I produce links that VERIFY AND DOCUMENT their sources, that is a FACT that I did not "create". If you can logically and factually disprove them, do it. But please remember, your personal supposition, conjecture and opinion are NOT substitutes for facts and the logic derived from them.
Now, to further divorce you from this right wing mythology: Wendy Long claimed Bork was "smeared" in 1987; conservatives then and now disagree http://mediamatters.org/research/2005/07/06/wendy-long-claimed-bork-was-smeared-in-1987-con/133455
I provided the proof that you requested and you still won't accept what I claimed was true. That makes you the typical, arrogant, worthless, good for nothing, Liberal piece of shit.
Democrats had already determined they would oppose Bork BEFORE he was nominated. Why don't you admit you're nothing more than an Obama ass licking moron. If you don't, it won't matter. It's that obvious.
Do you really think you get to make the determination?
Remember, because you claim it isn't logical doesn't mean it isn't logical. It means you provided an opinion that you arrogantly consider fact. It doesn't become fact because you claim it to be so. That's your damn problem. You call it illogical and demand everyone agree with you. Not a chance. That you're a Liberal makes you illogical.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Actually, the second article is called an OPINION piece, which ignored what Sen. Byrd said at the time. See junior, your "recollection" is essentially unable to fully comprehend what transpired, much less exact precisely what differences are apparent. Let's hope my dissections here bring you up to speed.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Sorry junior, but I've deconstructed your myopic viewpoints below. What you're doing here is just IGNORING what you don't like....a typical tactic for right wing ideologues, pundits and sycophants. I mean really, you've got Republicans who voted against the man telling you why.....that means he went THROUGH THE PROCESS, not summarily rejected out of hand like McConnell states. But you'll just stamp your widdle feet, cover your ears and bray your mantras ad nausea. Carry on.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Let me dumb it down for you, junior. THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES! YOU PROVIDED ONE ASPECT OF THE SITUATION, I MERELY PROVIDED THE FACTS THAT WHEN TAKEN INTO CONTEXT DISPROVE YOUR PERSONAL ASSERTIONS.
I didn't create the FACTS that are verified and documented in the links, junior. TFB if you don't like it, but you can't logically or factually or magically make them go away. Now stop this foolishness. If you don't have the intellectual honesty or courage to admit error, fine. I'll leave you to bray your stupidity for those willfully ignorant enough to believe it.
christiefan915
Catalyst
There's a difference between saying "if" something happens, as was the case with bush, and flat out saying "we're going to obstruct anybody Obama nominates", after the vacancy opened up.
Now the goalposts will start moving all over the field, instead of TCclown admitting he is wrong.....he re-writes the claim.....how lame...
Poor TCAsshole
http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/22...d-block-election-year-supreme-court-nominees/ Joe Biden In 1992: Senate Should Block Election Year Supreme Court Nominees....even in the lower courts....
During a speech he delivered on the Senate floor on June 25, 1992, then-Sen. Joe Biden urged his Democratic colleagues to block until after the presidential election any potential Supreme Court nominations President George H.W. Bush might name.
At the time, there were no ongoing nominations, nor were there any vacancies on the Supreme Court bench.
Biden, who was serving as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee
1. Sen Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in 2007 that President George W. Bush shouldn’t get to pick any more Supreme Court justices because Schumer was afraid the bench leaned too far Right. Schumer made this remark a whole 19 months before the next president was inaugurated.
“We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances,” Schumer said in a speech to the liberal American Constitution Society. “They must prove by actions, not words, that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not.”
2. His remarks in 2007 weren’t the only time Schumer vowed to stop a Republican nominee. In 2004, he said he would do everything in his power to stop Bush from elevating Charles Pickering to a federal appeals court in 2004.
“I’m prepared to do everything I can to stop the nomination of Justice Pickering,” Schumer said. “We can do a lot better.”
3. Schumer again promised to make the nomination process difficult for President Bush amid a confirmation battle over Carolyn Kuhl, who was nominated as a judge to the Ninth Circuit Court.
In 2004, his office released a statement saying Senate Democrats planned to “hold nominations until the White House commits to stop abusing the advise and consent process.”
Now lets see what they say if Obama tries to use his recess appointing powers....
The statement was part of Democratic coalition to stop Bush from using his recess appointing powers. The president eventually conceded and promised he would stop appointing judges while Congress was on vacation in exchange for them stopping filibustering.
4. Then-Senator Barack Obama said in 2006 that he supported the Democratic-led filibuster to stop Justice Samuel Alito from making it to the Supreme Court.
There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee…that once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view.- Obama
Obama wasn’t the only Democratic senator to oppose Alito’s nomination. The late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) led an opposition coalition, which attempted to filibuster to block the confirmation process. Kennedy was joined by Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who publicly stated they opposed Alito’s confirmation.
“The record demonstrates that we cannot count on Judge Alito to blow the whistle when the president is out of bounds,” Kennedy said.
5. In 1960, the Democratic-controlled Senate passed a resolution to block President Eisenhower from being able to make any more recess appointments to the Supreme Court. The resolution stated:
Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.
6. Kennedy led a gang of eight senators in 2003 to block Bush nominee Miguel Estrada from rising to the Court of Appeals.
“Instead of looking for candidates who are extreme ideologues, the president should work with the Senate in nominating individuals who have the highest qualifications,” Kennedy said, while taking a victory lap after the Bush administration withdrew Estrada’s nomination.
7. The AFL-CIO union vowed to block then-President Ronald Reagan’s nominee Robert Bork by soiling his public reputation so badly that any Democratic senator who voted in favor of confirming him would have to explain it to his constituents. Kennedy continued this line of rhetoric in a well-known floor speech. He infamously said:
Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government.
8. Joe Biden wrote the playbook for how to “bork” a Supreme Court nominee, a descriptive verb that now means to publicly pillory a nominee’s reputation to make it politically difficult for senators to vote for them. It’s named, of course, after what Democrats did to Robert Bork.
Then-Senator Biden was the chair of the judiciary committee, and he put together what’s now been deemed a “Biden report,” a document detailing Bork’s judicial history and personal background. The judiciary committee voted against Bork’s confirmation by a vote of 9-5.
9. Democratic groups vowed to “bork” Justice Clarence Thomas, George H.W. Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court. They failed, but the personal attacks on Thomas were brutal.
“We’re going to bork him,” said National Organization for Women’s Flo Kennedy. “We need to kill him politically.”
10. In 2008, Democrats banded together to filibuster Bush’s decision to nominate Priscilla Owen to a federal circuit court.
BLOCKING REPUBLICAN NOMINEES IS THE BLOOD SPORT OF DEMOCRATS....EVEN IN LOWER COURT APPOINTMENTS....
NOTICE HOW THEY WHINED ABOUT RECESS APPOINTMENTS, LETS SEE WHAT OBAMA DOES AND IF THEY COMPLAIN, I THINK NOT...
During a speech he delivered on the Senate floor on June 25, 1992, then-Sen. Joe Biden urged his Democratic colleagues to block until after the presidential election any potential Supreme Court nominations President George H.W. Bush might name.
At the time, there were no ongoing nominations, nor were there any vacancies on the Supreme Court bench.
Biden, who was serving as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee
1. Sen Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in 2007 that President George W. Bush shouldn’t get to pick any more Supreme Court justices because Schumer was afraid the bench leaned too far Right. Schumer made this remark a whole 19 months before the next president was inaugurated.
“We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances,” Schumer said in a speech to the liberal American Constitution Society. “They must prove by actions, not words, that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not.”
2. His remarks in 2007 weren’t the only time Schumer vowed to stop a Republican nominee. In 2004, he said he would do everything in his power to stop Bush from elevating Charles Pickering to a federal appeals court in 2004.
“I’m prepared to do everything I can to stop the nomination of Justice Pickering,” Schumer said. “We can do a lot better.”
3. Schumer again promised to make the nomination process difficult for President Bush amid a confirmation battle over Carolyn Kuhl, who was nominated as a judge to the Ninth Circuit Court.
In 2004, his office released a statement saying Senate Democrats planned to “hold nominations until the White House commits to stop abusing the advise and consent process.”
Now lets see what they say if Obama tries to use his recess appointing powers....
The statement was part of Democratic coalition to stop Bush from using his recess appointing powers. The president eventually conceded and promised he would stop appointing judges while Congress was on vacation in exchange for them stopping filibustering.
4. Then-Senator Barack Obama said in 2006 that he supported the Democratic-led filibuster to stop Justice Samuel Alito from making it to the Supreme Court.
There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee…that once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view.- Obama
Obama wasn’t the only Democratic senator to oppose Alito’s nomination. The late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) led an opposition coalition, which attempted to filibuster to block the confirmation process. Kennedy was joined by Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who publicly stated they opposed Alito’s confirmation.
“The record demonstrates that we cannot count on Judge Alito to blow the whistle when the president is out of bounds,” Kennedy said.
5. In 1960, the Democratic-controlled Senate passed a resolution to block President Eisenhower from being able to make any more recess appointments to the Supreme Court. The resolution stated:
Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.
6. Kennedy led a gang of eight senators in 2003 to block Bush nominee Miguel Estrada from rising to the Court of Appeals.
“Instead of looking for candidates who are extreme ideologues, the president should work with the Senate in nominating individuals who have the highest qualifications,” Kennedy said, while taking a victory lap after the Bush administration withdrew Estrada’s nomination.
7. The AFL-CIO union vowed to block then-President Ronald Reagan’s nominee Robert Bork by soiling his public reputation so badly that any Democratic senator who voted in favor of confirming him would have to explain it to his constituents. Kennedy continued this line of rhetoric in a well-known floor speech. He infamously said:
Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government.
8. Joe Biden wrote the playbook for how to “bork” a Supreme Court nominee, a descriptive verb that now means to publicly pillory a nominee’s reputation to make it politically difficult for senators to vote for them. It’s named, of course, after what Democrats did to Robert Bork.
Then-Senator Biden was the chair of the judiciary committee, and he put together what’s now been deemed a “Biden report,” a document detailing Bork’s judicial history and personal background. The judiciary committee voted against Bork’s confirmation by a vote of 9-5.
9. Democratic groups vowed to “bork” Justice Clarence Thomas, George H.W. Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court. They failed, but the personal attacks on Thomas were brutal.
“We’re going to bork him,” said National Organization for Women’s Flo Kennedy. “We need to kill him politically.”
10. In 2008, Democrats banded together to filibuster Bush’s decision to nominate Priscilla Owen to a federal circuit court.
BLOCKING REPUBLICAN NOMINEES IS THE BLOOD SPORT OF DEMOCRATS....EVEN IN LOWER COURT APPOINTMENTS....
NOTICE HOW THEY WHINED ABOUT RECESS APPOINTMENTS, LETS SEE WHAT OBAMA DOES AND IF THEY COMPLAIN, I THINK NOT...
Last edited:
Hi Sweetie....
If????....Thats just accurate English....there was no openings at the time....so it was appropriate to say "IF"....."IF there is an opening, WE WILL"
Now there is a vacancy, so there is no IF.....so the appropriate language is 'WE WILL"
Thats a pretty lame stretch coming from you....
Biden made one of the best arguments in this case, and he was right. There is no "must vote" clause on SCOTUS nominees.
Shoot, the political environment in 1992 was kindergarten to the mess Obama has made of it. We are right in the middle of this presidential campaign, let's see what Biden has to say about it...
Shoot, the political environment in 1992 was kindergarten to the mess Obama has made of it. We are right in the middle of this presidential campaign, let's see what Biden has to say about it...
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
How did I "move the goalpost" when the chronology of the posts shows that I answered you point for point? Once again, you prove to be one of the dumbest neocon/teabagger/fibbertarian bastards on these boards!
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
And just to pull the rug out from under this dummy's straw grasping...again....neither Biden or Schumer were the Dem Party minority/majority leader or whip.....they can say whatever they feel....the LEADERSHIP DETERMINES THE SETTING FOR PARTY ACTION in the Senate and House, NOT individual senators and congressmen or outside individuals or groups. To date
I've already provided the FACTS regarding Bork that Nova just wants to ignore. Evidently, the little dummy NOVA has trouble with the definitions and concepts of "threatened slowing down" review process to outright preemptive rejection of any nominee.
Poor Nova, the dumbest neocon/teabagger/fibbertarian on these boards. Here's how I explained it to the equally stubborn CFM http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?64833-the-Scalia-situation&p=1553335#post1553335
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?64833-the-Scalia-situation&p=1553345#post1553345
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
I love it when your bogus "objective" mask slips off and the real neocon/teabagger rhetoric comes spewing out. I mean, McConnell states for all the world to hear that his party's major goal was to make Obama a one term President....and YOU BLAME OBAMA FOR REPUBLICAN OBSTRUCTIONISM!
GMAFB, will ya please?For the record....two wrongs don't make a right. Biden was NOT the Minority or Majority leader or whip of the Dems throughout his career....he's more than entitled to his opinion, which doesn't make him automatically right.
To date, what Presidents want to do and what they are legally entitled to do are two different things. Bottom line: there has NOT been a declaration by DEM leadership in the last 60 years to preemptively reject any nomination of the GOP for senator under any circumstances. Period. If you can find otherwise, then please produce it.