about the kind people who would shut down government and leave a Supreme Court seat empty.

was to keep the nomination from being distorted THAT close to an election - June, 1992. To say it's the same as GOP's insistence in February to leave it to the next president is completely bogus.

But, the corpmedia counts on the American people to not understand or even hear the whole story.

That Biden was wanting Bush to appoint a supreme court justice? I seriously doubt that.

say NO NOMINEE TILL NEXT PRESIDENT WAS IN OFFICE, did he? That was a warning shot to NOT nominate another fascist to please the increasingly rabid RW base.

Assuming that Biden wanted Bush to appoint a new judge at anytime borders on willful blindness.

Let me explain how this works... Democrat politicians want democrat presidents to appoint judges. The presence of an election doesn't change that.

Your reading into Biden's words something you want to hear, but isn't really there.

saying the exact same thing when they are clearly not. So….WHY is it so important to you pretend that there is no difference between the words being used and the outcomes expected?

GOP is saying NO RIGHT FOR OBAMA TO NOMINATE, AT ALL in Feb,2016, while we are at the beginning of the primaries and without general election candidates.

Biden said CLEARLY in June/1992, right before party conventions, that, given the HYPOTHETICAL circumstance of a vacancy, Bush should make the nomination AFTER election day. That's a BIG FVCKING DIFFERENCE that you want to pretend is equal to Obama has no right to nominate and has to defer to the next president.

You see what you want, because………..'no difference' crowd is always looking to protect the GOP in election years.

Biden had no intention of suggesting that he wanted Bush to appoint a new judge... its very simple. A child can understand that.

Also, I haven't heard anyone suggest that either didn't have a right to nominate anyone... your making that part up.

Either way, its very clear in both cases. Bush and Obama have a right to nominate and the senate can choose to confirm or not. Frothing and stomping your feet wont change that.

The GOP is absolutely saying Obama should not nominate, at all - their ACTUAL WORDS that you are saying are no different than Biden's. Interesting that you are also pretending that the Republicans haven't said NO NOMINEE to Obama.

The No Difference agenda being displayed is apparent.

Or…perhaps, you just recovered from a coma earlier this month?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scalia-obama-replacement_us_56bfabe4e4b08ffac1258cf5


McConnell throws down the gauntlet: No Scalia replacement under Obama
The Senate majority leader's challenge to the president's nominating authority appears to be unprecedented.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/mitch-mcconnell-antonin-scalia-supreme-court-nomination-219248#ixzz410oUCr3b

I've seen tea party types that cant see past their own desires and beliefs, but to see a democrat suggesting that Biden wanted Bush to nominate a supreme court judge is beyond the pale. Good luck with those blinders.

I've seen tea party types and the 'no difference' crowd that can't see past their own desires and beliefs….and you are making sure that shoe fits your foot, arentcha?

Your suggesting that Biden supported Bush making the decision after the election... your own words. You can try all the verbal gymnastics you want now, but you backed yourself into a corner. Just admit you were wrong. Biden never wanted Bush to make any appointments.

You're acting very foolish because you've been caught playing your 'no difference' game and you chose the wrong post to play with.

"Go away - you have no power here."

"Biden said till after election DAY, not till next prez".

It's glaringing clear to anyone over 5 that your suggesting Biden supported Bush making the appointment after the election, as opposed to waiting until the next president.

That troublesome internet...storing all the words you type. I understand repugs avoiding reality, but its so sad to see democrats do it as well.

Agenda guy. I am not suggesting you are a 'no difference' agenda guy - you're making it quite clear that you are.

Lookie there - some of us can read while others remain invested in their 'no difference, at all' position.

So we agree. You suggested Biden wanted Bush to appoint a supreme court judge. I think its sad myself.

that you can't let go and will continue to tell people that what they said is not what they said till the cows come home, because that is what people without conscience or self-awareness do.

You are not a truthful person in this exchange - you have no truth and that means you have no power. Of course, you are welcome to claim I 'suggested' otherwise, but, you'd be dishonest about that, too.

Powerless sort you are, arentcha?

It looks more like your powerless to change what you said after the fact. I just held you accountable to your statement that Biden wanted Bush to choose a judge when it was obvious he most certainly wouldn't have.

Now, if you want to keep trying to rewrite reality, we can do that. Please continue.

when they did NOT and I clearly said there is a big difference to their statements and in their intent.

You're a 'no difference' agenda guy and your work is done here with me - you need fools to convert and I don't play fool for anyone. Move on PropagandaBoy.

Roll out statements and then try to pretend you didn't when its painfully obvious there in the history.

Normally I could attribute that to some GOP or tea party troll, but in your case it simply looks like a case of basic denial of reality.

I'll repeat this again... Your wrong. Biden never wanted Bush to pick a judge at any time, before or after the election. His statements were obviously taken to push the decision until the next president got into office.

You can't have it both ways... either Biden wanted Bush to make the appointment or he didn't. Any self respecting democrat should know the answer to that one.

YOU are the one who dragged it into territory that did not exist in his statement or my post = it was never whether a Democrat WANTED a Republican to make the appointment - YOU made that the point.

Because YOU are not a person whose 'points' or 'conclusions' should be trusted when they are made deceptively and to further the false idea that there was no difference to the statements or the intent of Biden and McConnell. That's a huge LIE in my opinion.

You're only exposing yourself here.

And you're 'you know we see your type all the time here' is LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!

Did you do surveillance here since 2001 before you were assigned to this place in 2013? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!

He obviously had no intention of wanting a republican to appoint a judge, so either your point that he wanted Bush to make the appointment after the election is simply wrong (which in my view it is), or your just a GOP or tea party troll looking to argue,

Talk about exposing oneself by lying? This entire thread is about the single lie you've been trying to avoid since it started.

You have an astounding ability to creatively infer that which does not exist-- which could also be validly called "a hermetically sealed reality" with the same amount of petulance you yourself used.

; )

i remember a few go-rounds he had with BainsBane and Magistrate.

PutinPropagandaBoy.

Biden's office has released the following statement: "Nearly a quarter century ago, in June 1992, I gave a lengthy speech on the Senate floor about a hypothetical vacancy on the Supreme Court. Some critics say that one excerpt of my speech is evidence that I oppose filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year. This is not an accurate description of my views on the subject. Indeed, as I conclude in the same statement critics are pointing to today, urged the Senate and White House to work together to overcome partisan differences to ensure the Court functions as the Founding Fathers intended. That remains my position today."

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/22/3752298/no-joe-biden-didnt-say-that-the-senate-should-block-supreme-court-nominees-during-an-election-year/

It also doesn't help when Democrats fall for it. Glad you posted this here.

Look above.

Grazie, again.

Big difference in an election year, hence the "full throes" comment.

If Romney was in office right now with a Democratic-controlled Senate we would all be opposing him nominating someone.

It's simple, Democrat in office, be in favor of a nomination going through. Republican in office, oppose the nomination going through.

Hypocrites in both parties.

Think of a head football coach. They advocate for pass interference calls when their offense is on the field and against pass interference calls when their defense is on the field. Politics is the same, you advocate for your side and against your opponent within the same rule book, it's how the game is played.

I recognize the President has every right to nominate a justice in any year, I also recognize that the same rule book allows the Senate to reject a nominee. It makes complete sense that what we advocate and/or oppose depends which side we are on at the time.

when either party complains about the other side doing it when they know full well they would, or have, done or said the exact same thing.

He leaned close and said 'run THAT off mutha f'er'!



And I agree that the President has every right to nominate a justice in any year. But the GOPers damn well better let it, as they used to love to chant, come to an up or down vote!

Actually, it's not a right, it's required. The Constitution uses the word "shall". It's not even an option. That's how I see it, though, admittedly, I'm not Antonin Scalia...

to either confirm it, deny it, or let it sit until after the election. They have that power, unfortunately the Republicans control it at the moment.

hypothetically stating that a president should make a nomination THAT close to election day only AFTER the election, not the GOP's demand of NO NOMINATION that the vacancy is to be filled only by the NEXT president.

Why are some of you so insistent on seeing equal positions here?

They can demand anything they want but the President can do whatever he wants to of course.

He can make a nomination and they can just let it sit there, they essentially have equal power in this scenario.

Biden specifically states that then-President Bush should wait until AFTER the November elections. He did NOT say that Bush should let the new president select a new justice. That is very much different than saying that Obama can't nominate someone & "must" defer a nomination until January 20, 2017.

They just told him that he shouldn't. Big difference.

no, it's not.

No, it's not.

Words have meaning, and "can't" and "shouldn't" aren't at all the same.

McConnell throws down the gauntlet: No Scalia replacement under Obama
The Senate majority leader's challenge to the president's nominating authority appears to be unprecedented.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/mitch-mcconnell-antonin-scalia-supreme-court-nomination-219248#ixzz410oUCr3b

not to nominate anyone.

Big difference between "You shouldn't" and "You can't".

between what Biden was saying and what McConnell IS saying.

BTW - If it is the way you claim, then why are a few Republicans now saying that they will go against McConnell and at least acknowledge that Obama's duty is to nominate?

Or did you miss those headlines?

Seems to me that some of you are exposing yourselves in your eagerness to shore up McConnell as being no different than Biden.

between what Biden said then and what McConnell is saying now.

It isn't shoring up McConnell to state that both parties are full of hypocrites.

Yep - You're the NO DIFFERENCE crowd and that's why you are here.


I support Sanders because he KNOWS there absolutely is a difference. What Biden said and what McConnell said have stark differences that you DON'T want to see because it doesn't fit your NO DIFFERENCE agenda.

How about yours?


"Were there a vacancy, Biden argued, 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.” "

"“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” McConnell said"

What's the difference between the two statements? Both are saying that the sitting President shouldn't put up a SCOTUS nominee in the year of a Presidential election.

And both are wrong, IMO.

I don't think Biden would have been rolling out the welcome mat to a defeated lame-duck Bush nominee, with President-elect Clinton just a few months from taking office..

*****m ,(if you want to limit Biden's statement to mean only the winner of the election could nominate, which I don't) Bush theoretically would have had a chance to nominate someone had he won.

Because of term limits, Obama doesn't have that chance. The GOP is trying yet again from letting Obama accomplish something.

YMMV

Who really cares what nonsense he said - there was no vacancy!!!

Committee service.

He played a horrible role in the smearing of Anita Hill and the elevation of Silent Clarence Thomas to the bench.

So really--it's not like he's got any great moral authority behind his opinion. He --and Scooter Libby's wife--screwed over Anita Hill and favored Thomas, the least deserving justice on the bench.

Biden controlled the Judiciary committee.

I suppose it wold be relevant if the office of VP was the office entrusted with making the nomination.

This 'no difference' act of his has been pretty consistent and it seems he prefers to take the GOP's side……..alot.

Democratic or Republican.

How about you?

and one doesn't NEED to be kissass to NOT LIE, they just have to be honest. How about you?

BTW - there is only ONE party that benefits from the lie that there is 'no difference'. So for those playing along with the GOP operatives also spreading that lie on Dem sites, then they WOULD be kissing GOP ass, wouldn't they?

as I am to mine.

Of course Democrats would do the exact same thing if they were in the Republicans position, and everyone on this board would be demanding they do. I don't need old quotes from Biden and Schumer to tell me the obvious. I get that the politicians are actors that think they need to play this game instead of tell the truth, but I don't get the average people that degrade themselves by joining in. Their outrage just exposes them as ignorant or stupid.

off the court and their mask has slipped off completely. Well sorry to burst their bubble, a progressive will sit on that bench seat...deal with it right?

I think Biden voted no there, but he does bear responsibility somewhat for Thomas's confirmation.

something the article fails to mention. So there was no precedent set for the Senate to just refuse to do its job as required by the constitution.

What constitutional requirement would that be?

I agree with the above posters who realize reality for what it is. There is no "principle" being played out here, just partisan politics. "x is good when it favors my team. But x is bad if it favors the other team." Call it hypocrisy or just the SOP of partisan politics, it's all the same.

Read my sig line quote from George Orwell to get an idea of how ridiculous the "Oh, but it's different this time" crowd sound.

No action by Senate = no supreme court.

Hope it helps.