PDA

View Full Version : Biden suggests postponing nominee due to danger of 'radical right'.



UK2K
02-22-2016, 07:10 PM
I've already provided numerous examples of Democrats who, suddenly now, care about the Constitution but previously, did whatever suited them.

Welp, here's ya another one. Here's Biden telling the country he is blocking a judicial nomination... just because the guy doesn't vote for the same party.

Irony.


Today CSPAN dropped a bombshell on the Democrat party when they posted an old video of Joe Biden in 1992.

Ever since the passing of Justice Scalia's there's been a debate between Democrats and the GOP over whether or not Obama should apoint a new member of SCOTUS. Obama insists that he will, because we need a new Justice.

However, Obama's right hand man, Joe Biden, was singing a different tune back in 1992.

Biden, evading any responsibility for the confirmation of Robert H. Bork (who was rejected) and Clarence Thomas (who was approved), explained that it was necessary to postpone any new potential appointments to the Court because of the danger of the “radical right”

Here's audio of Joe Biden in 1992 contradicting the Obama administration's stance on electing a replacement for Scalia.

Biden-1992 actually goes a little further than Republicans-2016 have gone in opposing an election-year replacement for Scalia. Not only doesn’t he want a vacancy filled, not only doesn’t he want the Judiciary Committee to even hold hearings on a nomination, he wants the president to decline making a nomination altogether.

The current GOP line is that Obama has every right as president to offer a nomination, just as the Senate has every right to withhold its advice and consent.

https://youtu.be/N1SUn0zTGUQ

Dresta
02-22-2016, 07:16 PM
It's funny because both sides engage in constant partisan party politics, but somehow the Dems manage to convey this impression that they don't, that they're just being sensible and logical in the face of "obstruction" and so on.

That people believe this shit is just :facepalm

NumberSix
02-22-2016, 08:42 PM
There's nothing unconstitutional about rejecting the president's nomination.

Nick Young
02-22-2016, 08:58 PM
The Dems are pure totalitarian. It's hilarious their shill supporters cannot see through it.

bladefd
02-23-2016, 02:58 AM
If I were a Democrat (which I'm not), I would want Obama to nominate some moderate to the Supreme Court and I would want the Republicans to block him. Then Obama can go public saying that GOP turned down a moderate nominee. That would be the end of moderates voting for GOP.. Liberals and moderates would all turn away from voting Republican. That would truly cripple the GOPs.

Nick Young
02-23-2016, 03:05 AM
If I were a Democrat (which I'm not), I would want Obama to nominate some moderate to the Supreme Court and I would want the Republicans to block him. Then Obama can go public saying that GOP turned down a moderate nominee. That would be the end of moderates voting for GOP.. Liberals and moderates would all turn away from voting Republican. That would truly cripple the GOPs.
You are too naive bro:facepalm

9erempiree
02-23-2016, 03:22 AM
If I were a Democrat (which I'm not), I would want Obama to nominate some moderate to the Supreme Court and I would want the Republicans to block him. Then Obama can go public saying that GOP turned down a moderate nominee. That would be the end of moderates voting for GOP.. Liberals and moderates would all turn away from voting Republican. That would truly cripple the GOPs.

I was thinking about you when I watched this....you want to know about Trump's policies and what he wants to do?

He has said it many times and has become more and more specific...from tonight at Caesar's Palace.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aePXHnqE8gY

Sarcastic
02-23-2016, 03:34 AM
Why are your jimmies so rustled over this? McConnell already said they will block anyone Obama nominates.