• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dems Would Be 'Justified' in Blocking Supreme Court Nominee of GOP President

Dittohead not! said:
By refusing to hold a hearing for any Obama nominee regardless of who it may be?
Click to expand...

As a senator more than two decades ago, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. argued that President George Bush should delay filling a Supreme Court vacancy, should one arise, until the presidential election was over, and that it was “essential” that the Senate refuse to confirm a nominee to the court until then.

...But in a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.
Click to expand...

New York Times

Of course, Biden has been trying to walk this back.
 
Citizen.Seven said:
No, but with a four trillion dollar budget and several million workers, the USFG has FAR more resources than even the wealthiest of individuals or largest of corporations. Thus, by sheer size alone, it poses the biggest threat if it is unified and cooperative within its several parts.
Click to expand...


Corporations and individuals do not have an oath to uphold the rights of others. The United States federal government does.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Corporations and individuals do not have an oath to uphold the rights of others. The United States federal government does.
Click to expand...

And when the government violates civil rights it is extremely difficult to hold it accountable. Corporations can be sued.
 
yankintx said:
Both parties are at fault, there is enough blame to go around. Term limits for Congress is long overdue!!
Click to expand...

We have term limits - they are called elections. But we do need to get rid of gerrymandered House districts.
 
LowDown said:
And when the government violates civil rights it is extremely difficult to hold it accountable. Corporations can be sued.
Click to expand...

We have a chance to hold it accountable every two years. It's known as an "election."

And yes, it's high time we did hold it accountable.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Corporations and individuals do not have an oath to uphold the rights of others. The United States federal government does.
Click to expand...
LMAO. Riiiiight, that makes all the difference.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk
 
danarhea said:
However, the part you omit is that the Democrats overruled Biden, and it didn't happen.
Click to expand...
But the current VPOTUS has endorsed the very action the Senate pubs are taking. As the president of the Senate, his position was more germane than rank and file dems or even the POTUS.
 
Citizen.Seven said:
But the current VPOTUS has endorsed the very action the Senate pubs are taking. As the president of the Senate, his position was more germane than rank and file dems or even the POTUS.
Click to expand...

Not if it didn't happen.
 
Carjosse said:
Except this is for petty political reasons, not an actual legitimate reason. They are rejecting the justices solely because they can.
Click to expand...


Everything they do is motivated by politics. They decide what will lose the fewest votes and go in that direction. The common good be damned. Politics is humanity at its worst.
 
Citizen.Seven said:
He did propose it, hence the "Biden rule". The dems may not have implemented it, but that doesn't erase the fact that he advocated for it.
Click to expand...

That's the difference.

1) A Democrat loudmouth proposes BS.

2) Democrats shut it down.

3) Republicans embrace it because their play book is right out of Machiavelli.
 
haymarket said:
We have term limits - they are called elections. But we do need to get rid of gerrymandered House districts.
Click to expand...

That is an oversimplification, no Congress does not have term limits, they have terms which expire, a big difference.
 
There is no justification for a Democrat.
 
Citizen.Seven said:
He did propose it, hence the "Biden rule". The dems may not have implemented it, but that doesn't erase the fact that he advocated for it.
Click to expand...

Two wrongs do not make it right, then again with the GOP shooting its self in the foot with this election, there is not much chance of the Republicans taking the WH. There only chance is an indictment against Clinton and they win by default, not going to happen, the only place Clinton is going is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, courtesy of the Donald.
 
Last edited:
yankintx said:
Two wrongs do not make it right, then again with the GOP shooting its self in the foot with this election, there is not much chance of the Republicans taking the WH. There only chance is an indictment against Clinton and they win by default, not going to happen, the only place Clinton is going is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, courtesy of the Donald.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with the Senate using its power, in this case by advising the POTUS that they won't consent to his nominations. Part of the reason we have run-away government is people are too quick to advocate that they "do something". Oftentimes, inaction is the better alternative, and conforms to the principle that the government that governs least governs best.
 
Dittohead not! said:
[h=1]Dems Would Be 'Justified' in Blocking Supreme Court Nominee of GOP President, White House Says[/h]

So, childish partisanship could keep any new judges from being seated for the next four years as well?

And, should another couple of them retire, resign, or die, how far might the court dwindle before Congress actually does its job?
Click to expand...

You make it sound unique that the Democrats would block a Republican President's nominee to the Supreme Court - the Democrats have made a cottage industry of investigating and destroying such nominees over the years.
 
CanadaJohn said:
You make it sound unique that the Democrats would block a Republican President's nominee to the Supreme Court - the Democrats have made a cottage industry of investigating and destroying such nominees over the years.
Click to expand...

Maybe we'll just have to do without a SC judge until both the Congress and the White House are led by the same party.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Maybe we'll just have to do without a SC judge until both the Congress and the White House are led by the same party.
Click to expand...
That would be good, as then SCOTUS would only act when there are conflicting rulings by lower courts.
 
Citizen.Seven said:
That would be good, as then SCOTUS would only act when there are conflicting rulings by lower courts.
Click to expand...

and Congress won't act at all. They'll spend their time dialing for dollars and playing partisan political ga... Oh, right. That's what they're doing now.
 
Dittohead not! said:
[h=1]Dems Would Be 'Justified' in Blocking Supreme Court Nominee of GOP President, White House Says[/h]

So, childish partisanship could keep any new judges from being seated for the next four years as well?

And, should another couple of them retire, resign, or die, how far might the court dwindle before Congress actually does its job?
Click to expand...

no that would just be hypocritical.

also there would be nothing stopping the republican congress from using the nuclear option
either. they could force a vote and get their person in office if they win the white house.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom