Idiot, Stinking Liberals Wouldn't Know Hypocrisy If It Bit Them On The Ass

This story really speaks for itself after all the yelling and screaming the Democrats demonstrated after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. There really isn't much more I can add, except to say, "SHUT UP YOU STUPID, SICKENING, BOOT-LICKING, HYPOCRITICAL LIBERALS".



Biden argued against weighing Supreme Court nomination during 1992 campaign

February 23, 2016

Senate Republican leaders Monday seized on comments made by Vice President Joe Biden 24 years ago, when the then-senator from Delaware said the Senate should not consider a Supreme Court nominee during an election year.

"Once the political season is underway and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over," Biden said in June 1992 on the Senate floor, according to a C-SPAN recording of his remarks.

Biden was referring to a hypothetical situation, since the Senate was not considering a nominee at the time of his remarks. But the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia earlier this month has left a precarious 4-4 ideological balance between right- and left-leaning justices as they consider cases on abortion, voting rights, Obama's health care law and other polarizing issues.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., reiterated the stance he took hours after Scalia's death that the next president should select a court nominee. He said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, whose statements have wavered, agreed with him.

But separately, McConnell's press office and Grassley in a floor speech went further and cited the 1992 Biden remarks. Grassley called the comments "The Biden Rules" and said the vice president "knows what the Senate should do."

Biden defended himself in a written statement, saying that in his 1992 speech he said the Senate and White House should cooperate "to ensure the court functions as the founding fathers intended." He said under his long-time leadership of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the chamber considered nine Supreme Court nominees "and the current Senate has a constitutional duty to do the same."

Both sides have spent days unearthing comments members of the other party made about court nominations years ago under presidents of different parties when the political circumstances were reversed.

McConnell's assertion that the president elected this November should nominate the replacement has drawn support from nearly all Republicans and irate, solid opposition from Democrats. Yet as the two parties girded for what promises to be a months-long battle, some cracks have appeared on the GOP side.

Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill. — who faces a difficult re-election race this year in a Democratic-leaning state — distributed an opinion column he'd written for theChicago Sun-Times saying he looks forward to Obama selecting a nominee.

"I also recognize my duty as a senator to either vote in support or opposition to that nominee following a fair and thorough hearing along with a complete and transparent release of all requested information," Kirk wrote.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she favored Judiciary Committee hearings "so that there can be an in-depth vetting of the nominee and his or her views." Several other GOP senators said they'd defer to a decision by Grassley about holding hearings, including Sens. Richard Burr, R-N.C., Rob Portman, R-Ohio and Ron Johnson, R-Wis., who face re-election contests in November.

Obama is expected to announce his nomination in coming weeks. GOP senators will gather on Tuesday for the first time since Scalia's death to discuss their path forward.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...me-court-nomination-during-1992-campaign.html

 

For those of you who would rather not read the entire story and/or are repulsed by the sound of Joe Biden's voice, I'll repeat here what he said so you don't have to go any further:

"Once the political season is underway and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."
- Joe Biden, June 1992

Very well, we should listen to our Vice President... end of story. Period. Thank you, Joe Biden, we will wait until the election campaign is over which will be, ohhhhh let's see... ah, yes, January 19, 2017. Thank you, Joe Biden for setting this straight.

 

Just think, he may still be the dims nominee.
If the rich, old, white, career politician goes down this rich, old, white, career politician may have to replace her.

 

Rush Limbaugh played this old clip from Joe Biden this morning. Charles Schumer also whined against George Bush appointing judges to the supreme court during 2007, but once again, these characters are so egocentric, they can't fault them self. We might as well talk to turtles.

 

Sorry Fox...

Why Joe Biden’s 1992 Supreme Court comments aren’t a silver bullet for Republicans
Amber Phillips February 23 at 10:41 AM
Biden in 1992: Wait until after election to nominate a Supreme Court justice


On the Senate floor on June 25, 1992, then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) urged President George H. W. Bush not to name a nominee to the Supreme Court until after the November election. (C-SPAN)
Republicans think they've found the silver bullet when it comes to rejecting an Obama Supreme Court nominee out of hand.

The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler on Monday unearthed a 1992 speech from then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), when he was head of the Senate panel in charge of considering Supreme Court nominees, in which he advocated against considering a President George H.W. Bush Supreme Court pick in an election year.

Here's the passage from Biden's June 1992 speech that has everyone in a tizzy, as written up by The Washington Post's Mike DeBonis:

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.”

“Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself,” he continued. “Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.”

Biden echoed this sentiment in an interview with The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne shortly before the speech:

"If someone steps down, I would highly recommend the president not name someone, not send a name up," Biden said. "If he [Bush] did send someone up, I would ask the Senate to seriously consider not having a hearing on that nominee."

"Can you imagine dropping a nominee, after the three or four or five decisions that are about to made by the Supreme Court, into that fight, into that cauldron in the middle of a presidential year?" Biden went on. "I believe there would be no bounds of propriety that would be honored by either side. . . . The environment within which such a hearing would be held would be so supercharged and so prone to be able to be distorted."

"Whomever the nominee was, good, bad or indifferent," he added, "would become a victim."

If you're a Republican under pressure — or concerned about vulnerable blue-state GOP incumbents being under pressure — for considering holding up Obama's to-be-determined pick, what Biden said would seem to be pretty damning stuff.

But in the end, the vice president's past words probably don't fundamentally shift the high-stakes debate.

Here's how Biden defends it: He says he was speaking about a hypothetical (there was no court vacancy at the time). He was also speaking in June of an election year — not February — which is around the time something called Thurmond Rule has traditionally kicked in. (Though congressional experts say the Thurmond Rule is less an actual rule and more of a guideline on when the Senate can shut down the judicial confirmation process that both parties call on when politically expedient.)

But the real reason Biden's comments probably won't give Republicans the edge is that there was likely never going to be a consensus among the American people on this anyway. And there's too much gray area in his comments for this to be seen as a game-changer.

A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that Americans are split evenly on whether the Senate should vote on Obama's pick or wait until next year. Dig deeper into the results and you'll see there's little room for that number to change. A full 81 percent of Democrats polled say the Senate should consider Obama's pick — the same percentage of Republicans polled who say the Senate should wait to consider the next president's pick.

In other words, Americans view this Supreme Court battle through the same lens they view most events in Washington these days — through their politics.

What Biden's 1992 comments show more than anything is that politicians do the same, especially when it comes to the forever that is approving a president's Supreme Court nomination.

There are a handful of examples of major players in the Senate appearing to flip-flop — depending on the president doing the nominating — on whether the Senate can and should block Supreme Court nominations in an election year, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). As we noted, though, not all of the examples are so clearly self-contradictory. As in Biden's case, questions are raised of when this no-nominees period should begin and whether the Senate shouldn't confirm any justices or simply should be extra-selective in doing so.

Still, what today's players said yesterday doesn't seem to have changed a significant number of people's minds, if any at all.

"You can have all the competing quotes you want," Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on the Senate floor Tuesday morning. "They amount to nothing."

Schumer was making the case, according to polls from Pew Research Centerand Fox News, that a majority of Americans (between 56 and 62 percent) Americans think the Senate should vote on Obama's pick. But Schumer's broader point about Biden stands: When there's so much discrepancy on both sides, it's difficult for one in particular to stand out.

That's why Biden's 1992 comments are less of a watershed moment in today's Supreme Court drama and just one more example of politicians saying things that make political sense at the time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...mments-arent-a-silver-bullet-for-republicans/

 

Would you care to translate that into something that says he isn't a complete lying political hypocrite? Good luck!

BTW, when you are done with that, you can start doing the same for Schumer, Obama, Reid, etc.

 

Yeah, typical commie. Like I say, you phonies are in total denial of your faults. That is why you guys are chronically defective.

 

I laugh everytime i see the black professor carrying the water bucket.
Maybe I'll start calling him The Waterboy.

 

The next time a republican is elected to Congress, maybe they shouldn't do anything until the next election.

Oh wait, that's basically what they do now.