DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... GOP prepares to fight Obama nominee, no matter whom he picks

They weren't doing their jobs long before today.

You are wrong, they are doing their job.
First order of business is to completely examine and review the "Biden Rule".

You wouldn't want us to break the rules now would you?

ahhh the "they did it first, mom!!" argument.

thats an argument an 5th grader makes.

they aren't doing their jobs at all. waiting 8 months isn't doing your jobs.

but you know what? it doesn't matter.

the GOP is gonna screw themselves. they have a chance to get a moderate judge in there, but instead, they just put their eggs in one basket, and are essentially praying that they win the general election.

that won't be happening, and Clinton will end up either nominating the same guy, which will be an embarrassment to the GOP, or she's gonna nominate a straight up liberal judge. and if that happens, whatever broken pieces of the GOP remaining after the election will get swept up in the dust.

the GOP does such a marvelous job of hanging themselves constantly.

Aint that the truth...

LOL...diligently review and obstruct.... for what? Hillary's nomination? The right wingnuts crack me up.

Ah, it would be such a Blessing if just one time, before I die, I could see a Liberal without his eyes full of tears.

For the past 7 years that has been the democrat response to any criticism of Obama "but Bush did it too"

Suddenly you have a problem with it.

It would be such a blessing if I could see a fanatic quit stomping their feet and acting like an arse every time things didn't go their way.

false.

the defense of obama and criticism comes from the fact that before the guy even took office, the GOP already declared they were gonna make him a 1 term president, and vowed to block anything he tried to pass.

the party of no.

and obama still got stuff accomplished.


so complain all you want, the people voted for obama twice. the people already made their decision on who should pick the next SC.

That's never been my thinking. But what has been my thinking is look at the mess that Bush left for Obama to clean up.

What do you guys think of his nominee? Merrick Garland. I know nothing about him.

Obama can pick, the senate can choose to approve it or not.


Why do you think everything Obama decides should go through without opposition? This isn't a dictatorship.

The problem is that the last time I heard, they were refusing to even have hearings on a nominee. That's not how the process works.

Now if they have the hearing process and give just cause as to why the nominee is not qualified, I have no problem with that.

This candidate is a moderate with great experience.

If the GOP plans to run Trump, or disenfranchise a lot of their voters by refusing to run Trump at the convention, they may be far better off accepting a moderate now than a Clinton appointee later.

They may just be shooting themselves in the foot.

Hard as he has tried.

You really need to read the Threads before you post.

As has been mentioned numerous times, The "Biden Rule" states there are to be no considerations of nominations for SC during the final year of a Presidents term.

Stop telling my people to break the rules!

that's not what i think at all. thats how YOU feel with your own personal spin on things.

of course some stuff is gonna be met with opposition.

but when you have a GOP declaring to block ANYTHING a guy does before he steps foot in office, that doesn't seem odd to you?

can you point to that rule in the constitution?

After you show me in the Constitution where you must stop at a stop sign.

there's a law in the books for that.

so can you point to the biden rule in the constitution, or hell, ANY sort of official bill?

or are you and squires gonna continue the "they did it first!!!" argument.

Please child, you're not seeing the tears of laughter, really?

What Biden rule? I didn't know any such "rule" existed or had been used. Ever.

In a 1992 speech from Joseph Biden, where then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Biden said the Senate should not hold Supreme Court confirmation hearings during a presidential election year.

The Biden Rule

Now we're just rehashing old info thats already been posted here before, along with the video from youtube.

Well we have those in the family who refuse to read the Threads before they comment and it is our duty to bring them up to date.

Ah, so it was a statement made and not a real rule in any way, shape or form. Not the action of a party but a statement by a single person.

That's exactly what I thought. Thanks for proving you have no point at all.

Sorry but we love America and refuse to break the Rules.

Especially when those Rules are handed down by the Judiciary Committee Chairman. Who just happened to be Biden.

What kind of moron would it actually take to believe a statement by one man equates to a rule? Never mind. I guess that's obvious.

Judiciary Committee Chairman, who just happened to be Biden took his job very seriously when he made the Rule.

What kind of Moron thinks the Judiciary Committee Chairman was only kidding?

What rule did he make? Is every statement a person makes suddenly become a rule? No, it doesn't. There is no rule. You just make up stupid crap.

It's a label for an action much like the Bush doctrine is not an actual doctrine.

The Biden Rule

Oh I understand. It's not a rule at all. Just like you can label a hog as a cow, but it will still be bacon and ham.

And in this case, there was no "action". It was nothing more than a statement. Not a policy nor an action.

That's why the damned thing is so funny.

Correct ... it was actually a lie.

When someone as important as The Judiciary Committee Chairman says it and future Judiciary Committee Chairmen accept and choose to honor it, it becomes a Rule.

When the President insists no one in his administration is to speak to the Press but him, that also becomes a Rule.

Just because you don't like it means absolutely nothing.

All this fighting is severely holding up the process. This will only take longer now.

And now we are already finding problems with this Judge.
He votes in favor of Government Agencies almost all the time.
Someone less bias would serve the Nation better, don't you think?

WATCH: Hatch, Grassley Said Merrick Garland Was Qualified In 1997


When Merrick Garland was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 1997, both Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said in speeches on the Senate floor that Garland was a qualified nominee.

Hatch in particular had a lot of praise for Garland.

"I do not believe that there is anything in Mr. Garland’s record to indicate that if confirmed, he could amount to an activist judge or might only be an activist judge. Accordingly, I believe Mr. Garland is a fine nominee," Hatch said at the time, according to video from C-SPAN. "I know him personally. I know of his integrity. I know of his legal ability. I know of his honesty. I know of his acumen. And he belongs on the court. And I believe he is not only a fine nominee, but as good as Republicans can expect from this administration. In fact, I would place him at the top of the list."


Hatch called for Garland to be confirmed, saying, "Opposition to this nomination will only serve to undermine the credibility of our legitimate goal of keeping proven activists off the bench."

Grassley did not vote to confirm Garland at the time, arguing that it was unnecessary to fill another seat on the DC circuit, but he said Garland was qualified to be a judge.

"We have nothing against this nominee, Mr. Garland," Grassley said in 1997. "He seems to be well-qualified and would probably make a good judge in some other court where the seat needs to be filled."

Video showing statements at link

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hatch-grassley-merrick-garland-1997

So it's not a rule at all. You just take it seriously because of who said it. There's no legislation or bill where you can show this is any type of rule. It's nothing more than political rhetoric which you use on a daily basis as if people think it really means anything. It doesn't and the only one you're fooling is yourself. If you even believe half of the crap you post.

In The Senate of The United States of America it is known as "The Biden Rule". Has nothing to do with me.

Try to get over it now and try to remember, in life, Payback can be a real _______!

I've seen your posts and I've heard Donald Trump. There's no ammunition to pay back with.

You seem to forget, I'm not someone who fears BS!

Of this I have no doubt for you speak it so well.

I remember how hard you fought when the Democrats did exactly the same thing to Bush in his last year.

So the Democrats boycotted any and all SC nominees in Bush last year as president? I didn't think so.

And yes, unlike you I understand both sides spread BS. I'm not a blind follower of either party no matter what they do.

But Republicans have already said that there will be no action on any Supreme Court nominee until after the election. In a statement Wednesday morning, McConnell cited Biden’s now-infamous 1992 position against Supreme Court nominations in President George H.W. Bush’s final year in office, as well as similar positions taken by outgoing Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and his likely successor, Sen. Charles Schumer

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/16/mitch-mcconnell-merrick-garland-biden-rule/