Flashback: Biden Said Senate Should Not Confirm SCOTUS Pick During Election Season

by IAN HANCHETT 22 Feb 2016


Vice President Joe Biden argued that the president should not name a Supreme Court nominee to fill any vacancy during an election year until after the election is completed and that if the president did name a pick during an election year, the Judiciary Committee should “seriously consider” not having hearings until after the campaign is over and that this was “fair to the nominee and essential to the process” in a speech on the Senate floor on June 25, 1992 that was flagged by C-SPAN user jeremyart and tweeted by C-SPAN.

Biden said, “t is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of the majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until the November election is completed.”

He added that if the president did push 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.”

He further stated that delaying action on a Supreme Court nomination until after the election was “fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise…we will be in deep trouble as an institution.”

Biden further dismissed the consequences of leaving the court with only 8 justices “for some time” as “quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the president, the Senate, and the nation would have to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the president, if that nomination were to take place in the next several weeks.”

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4581759/sen-joe-biden-supreme-court-confirmation-process

but thats different because..... RACIST!

There's no hypocrite like a democrat politician.

So in June 25th he said that if there was an opening in July/Aug, 4 months from the elections, Bush should wait till Nov to appoint. Please note he did not say the Senate should Never accept a nominee from the President just he should wait.

Current GOP is saying, with 9 months before the election, they will Never approve a nominee from President Obama, never-ever. As in Never. Biden said Bush should wait, this GOP is saying the President's duty to nominate a Justice a year out is forfeit, null. He is no longer the President with the duties of office because there is only 25% of his term left.

Apples and Oranges. Anyway who cares Hillary or Trump will pick - so what.

"Apples and Oranges. Anyway who cares Hillary or Trump will pick - so what."


that's the point. even hillary would make a better choice than obama.

Apples and Oranges. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So in June 25th he said that if there was an
> opening in July/Aug, 4 months from the elections,
> Bush should wait till Nov to appoint. Please note
> he did not say the Senate should Never accept a
> nominee from the President just he should wait.
>
> Current GOP is saying, with 9 months before the
> election, they will Never approve a nominee from
> President Obama, never-ever. As in Never. Biden
> said Bush should wait, this GOP is saying the
> President's duty to nominate a Justice a year out
> is forfeit, null. He is no longer the President
> with the duties of office because there is only
> 25% of his term left.
>
> Apples and Oranges. Anyway who cares Hillary or
> Trump will pick - so what.

The GOP is doing the job their constituents elected them to do. Get used to it.

Remember2012 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Apples and Oranges. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So in June 25th he said that if there was an
> > opening in July/Aug, 4 months from the
> elections,
> > Bush should wait till Nov to appoint. Please
> note
> > he did not say the Senate should Never accept a
> > nominee from the President just he should wait.
> >
> > Current GOP is saying, with 9 months before the
> > election, they will Never approve a nominee
> from
> > President Obama, never-ever. As in Never.
> Biden
> > said Bush should wait, this GOP is saying the
> > President's duty to nominate a Justice a year
> out
> > is forfeit, null. He is no longer the
> President
> > with the duties of office because there is only
> > 25% of his term left.
> >
> > Apples and Oranges. Anyway who cares Hillary or
> > Trump will pick - so what.
>
> The GOP is doing the job their constituents
> elected them to do. Get used to it.

No, they're not, you moron. Their job is spelled out in the Constitution - not in the so-called minds of the brainless idiots that elected these obstructionists. Their job is to evaluate the Supreme Court candidate that the President puts forward, not to declare up front that they won't consider ANYONE, no matter how qualified. That behavior is treasonous.

You Fool Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Remember2012 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Apples and Oranges. Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > So in June 25th he said that if there was an
> > > opening in July/Aug, 4 months from the
> > elections,
> > > Bush should wait till Nov to appoint. Please
> > note
> > > he did not say the Senate should Never accept
> a
> > > nominee from the President just he should
> wait.
> > >
> > > Current GOP is saying, with 9 months before
> the
> > > election, they will Never approve a nominee
> > from
> > > President Obama, never-ever. As in Never.
> > Biden
> > > said Bush should wait, this GOP is saying the
> > > President's duty to nominate a Justice a year
> > out
> > > is forfeit, null. He is no longer the
> > President
> > > with the duties of office because there is
> only
> > > 25% of his term left.
> > >
> > > Apples and Oranges. Anyway who cares Hillary
> or
> > > Trump will pick - so what.
> >
> > The GOP is doing the job their constituents
> > elected them to do. Get used to it.
>
> No, they're not, you moron. Their job is spelled
> out in the Constitution - not in the so-called
> minds of the brainless idiots that elected these
> obstructionists. Their job is to evaluate the
> Supreme Court candidate that the President puts
> forward, not to declare up front that they won't
> consider ANYONE, no matter how qualified. That
> behavior is treasonous.

"No, they're not, you moron. Their job is spelled out in the Constitution - not in the so-called minds of the brainless idiots that elected these obstructionists. Their job is to evaluate the Supreme Court candidate that the President puts forward, not to declare up front that they won't consider ANYONE, no matter how qualified. That behavior is treasonous."


You must of been super pissed about Biden saying that the president should not name a Supreme Court nominee to fill any vacancy during an election year. I mean judging by how pissed you are now. Should we charge him with treason?

Kudos to whoever found this video. Fucking hypocritical POS dems.

HPvWC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "No, they're not, you moron. Their job is spelled
> out in the Constitution - not in the so-called
> minds of the brainless idiots that elected these
> obstructionists. Their job is to evaluate the
> Supreme Court candidate that the President puts
> forward, not to declare up front that they won't
> consider ANYONE, no matter how qualified. That
> behavior is treasonous."
>
>
> You must of been super pissed about Biden saying
> that the president should not name a Supreme Court
> nominee to fill any vacancy during an election
> year. I mean judging by how pissed you are now.
> Should we charge him with treason?

You're still a moron. First, Biden was not Vice President back then (over two decades ago); he was simply stating his opinion and was one voice among many. Second, Biden was talking about a hypothetical opening when he suggested that Bush "should consider" delaying a nomination until after the election should an opening occur. Third, Biden was talking about nomination by the President, not confirmation by Congress.

Now, you have the Senate majority leader preemptively saying (about 20 minutes after Scalia's death) that the President should not do his job - but if he does do his job, then Republicans as a whole will do everything they can do thwart him - mostly by not doing their job. Same as it's been for the past seven years.

These are two different scenarios. If you can't understand the difference (as expected), then there's nothing I can do to help you.

You Fool Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HPvWC Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "No, they're not, you moron. Their job is
> spelled
> > out in the Constitution - not in the so-called
> > minds of the brainless idiots that elected
> these
> > obstructionists. Their job is to evaluate the
> > Supreme Court candidate that the President puts
> > forward, not to declare up front that they
> won't
> > consider ANYONE, no matter how qualified. That
> > behavior is treasonous."
> >
> >
> > You must of been super pissed about Biden
> saying
> > that the president should not name a Supreme
> Court
> > nominee to fill any vacancy during an election
> > year. I mean judging by how pissed you are now.
>
> > Should we charge him with treason?
>
> You're still a moron. First, Biden was not Vice
> President back then (over two decades ago); he was
> simply stating his opinion and was one voice among
> many. Second, Biden was talking about a
> hypothetical opening when he suggested that Bush
> "should consider" delaying a nomination until
> after the election should an opening occur. Third,
> Biden was talking about nomination by the
> President, not confirmation by Congress.
>
> Now, you have the Senate majority leader
> preemptively saying (about 20 minutes after
> Scalia's death) that the President should not do
> his job - but if he does do his job, then
> Republicans as a whole will do everything they can
> do thwart him - mostly by not doing their job.
> Same as it's been for the past seven years.
>
> These are two different scenarios. If you can't
> understand the difference (as expected), then
> there's nothing I can do to help you.

You Fool Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HPvWC Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "No, they're not, you moron. Their job is
> spelled
> > out in the Constitution - not in the so-called
> > minds of the brainless idiots that elected
> these
> > obstructionists. Their job is to evaluate the
> > Supreme Court candidate that the President puts
> > forward, not to declare up front that they
> won't
> > consider ANYONE, no matter how qualified. That
> > behavior is treasonous."
> >
> >
> > You must of been super pissed about Biden
> saying
> > that the president should not name a Supreme
> Court
> > nominee to fill any vacancy during an election
> > year. I mean judging by how pissed you are now.
>
> > Should we charge him with treason?
>
> You're still a moron. First, Biden was not Vice
> President back then (over two decades ago); he was
> simply stating his opinion and was one voice among
> many. Second, Biden was talking about a
> hypothetical opening when he suggested that Bush
> "should consider" delaying a nomination until
> after the election should an opening occur. Third,
> Biden was talking about nomination by the
> President, not confirmation by Congress.
>
> Now, you have the Senate majority leader
> preemptively saying (about 20 minutes after
> Scalia's death) that the President should not do
> his job - but if he does do his job, then
> Republicans as a whole will do everything they can
> do thwart him - mostly by not doing their job.
> Same as it's been for the past seven years.
>
> These are two different scenarios. If you can't
> understand the difference (as expected), then
> there's nothing I can do to help you.


Do libs even comprehend the hate they have for the USA? By the anti constitutional responses in this thread, I say they do not. No wonder they love Hitler.

So............previous opinions become null and void once you've been elected president or vice president.

Is that a selective thing where you get to pick and choose what you meant and what you didn't or does it just come with the party that backs you?