But Of Course: Joe Biden Was Against Filling A Supreme Court Vacancy Before He Was For It
[guest post by Dana]
But that was different! Isn’t that the way of Democrats??
On the heels of Justice Scalia’s passing, Joe Biden was rather melodramatic in his objection to any delay in naming a successor to the vacancy:
“To leave the seat vacant at this critical moment in American history is a little bit like saying, ‘God forbid something happen to the president and the vice president, we’re not going to fill the presidency for another year and a half,'” Biden said.
Which is funny, because that’s not what he said when there was a Republican in the White House:
It 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 a majority of his predecessors and not–and not–name a nominee until after the November election is completed. The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over…
It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over…Others may fret that this approach would leave the Court with only eight members for some time, but as I see it, Mr. President, the cost of such a result, the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the Justices four to four are 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. In the end, this may be the only course of action that historical practice and practical realism can sustain.
So while the Democrats continue to be exposed as hypocrites, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, while on the Senate floor, first emphasized Biden’s honesty and sincerity and then proceeded to feed Biden’s words back to him:
“The Biden Rules recognize ‘the framers intended the Senate to take the broadest view of its constitutional responsibility.
The Biden Rules recognize the wisdom of those presidents – including another lawyer and former state lawmaker from Illinois — who exercised restraint by not submitting a Supreme Court nomination before The People had spoken.
The Biden Rules recognize the court can operate smoothly with eight members for some time, and ‘the cost of such a result, the need to re-argue three or four cases that will divide the Justices four to four, are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the President, the Senate, and the Nation would have to pay for what assuredly would be a bitter fight.’
The Biden Rules recognize that under these circumstances, ‘[the President] should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.’
The Biden Rules recognize that under these circumstances, ‘[It does not] matter how good a person is nominated by the President.’
The Biden Rules recognize that ‘once the political season is under way … action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process.’
The Biden Rules recognize that ‘Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the President, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.’
The Biden Rules recognize that under these circumstances, ‘the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.’”
Not all Republicans are on board however: Sen. Mark Kirk, who is facing re-election, wrote in an op-ed today that he believes it is his duty to give President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee a hearing and a vote.
–Dana
Hello.
Dana (86e864) — 2/22/2016 @ 5:35 pmHis hair plugs were fresh then, weren’t they?
Beldar (fa637a) — 2/22/2016 @ 5:45 pmBeldar,
Eew.
Dana (86e864) — 2/22/2016 @ 5:48 pmThanks, Kirk, I needed that. I was wondering whether to vote for your opponent(s) or simply not vote for either you or your opponent(s). Now James Marter has my vote in the primary, and whichever Democrat is running against you in the general should you survive the primary.
nk (dbc370) — 2/22/2016 @ 5:58 pmNot all Republicans are on board however: Sen. Mark Kirk, who is facing re-election, wrote in an op-ed today that he believes it is his duty to give President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee a hearing and a vote.
Yup, I agree. A nice, long, drawn-out hearing and a nice, long, drawn-out debate before the vote. Which of course should result in a resounding “no” from the GOP senators (not that they’ll have the backbone, but I can dream).
At least then said Senators can say “what obstruction?? We’re listening, we’re voting!!”
qdpsteve (b06fb2) — 2/22/2016 @ 5:58 pmPolitics is not about what you “believe,” or what you “want,” rather it’s about what you “can get.” It’s a chess game. It’s also a football game…do you call an aggressive safety blitz, and thereby expose space and opportunity in the secondary? Or do you play a prevent defense? It all depends upon who the opposition is. One strategy may work in one state (or against one team) which may not work in another state (or against another team).
Mark Kirk is representing Illinois—not Wyoming. He has to make calculations based on what he feels is his best chance to win re-election. This is an election year for him. Can we all admit that Ted Cruz or Mike Lee would probably NOT win the Senate seat in Illinois? And likewise, can all admit that Mark Kirk may not even win the GOP primary in Wyoming?
He has cover from Mitch McConnell because they’re probably not going to enable a hearing and a vote. But to the more moderate type voters in Chicagoland who are going to decide Kirk’s fate in November, they’re going to react to Kirk’s statement like, “Okay, cool, he’s calling for a nomination—he’s not in Rush Limbaugh’s pocket. He seems alright, I think I can vote for him.”
This kind of stuff happens in the House and Senate ALL THE TIME. They take a behind-the-scenes straw poll to see where people stand if a vote were to be taken, and then vulnerable Senators in purple states go out and make a statement—knowing that they already have cover.
Saying that Obama should be “allowed” to meet his Constitutional authority and merely nominate someone—or even take it so far as to have a hearing—is totally different than saying, “I’m gonna vote for that nominee.”
Obama can nominate somebody tomorrow. But that doesn’t mean the nominee will get a hearing and a vote. Sheesh.
The GOP shouldn’t lose a Senate seat in Wyoming or Utah. If they did, that would be a travesty. But they have to do what they have to do to hold on to a “stolen” Senate seat in a BLUE state like Illinois.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/22/2016 @ 6:23 pmCruz Supporter,
Which makes it all the more interesting that the left is parroting the Republicans as obstructionists, they even say the president doesn’t have the right to put forth a name line. Name the name of the Republican who said that.
Dana (86e864) — 2/22/2016 @ 6:27 pmBeldar: Thanks for the laugh. That was my first thought too!
Elena Ives (701c6f) — 2/22/2016 @ 6:27 pmDana,
Of course, the Democrats always go over the top and all scorched earth. As the party of government, they always have to assert the urgency of now! If we don’t authorize funding for the re-wallpapering and and re-furnishing of the executive office of the manager of the local Senior Center, then we’re going to have to shut it down on Tuesday! No more Bingo Night! No more Thursday afternoon classic movie screenings! (LOL)
The Supreme Court is “so vital” to the country, that Barack couldn’t bother to show up to Justice Scalia’s funeral at the Cathedral, which is what—less than a mile away from the White House? (LOL)
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/22/2016 @ 6:42 pmTrump today, on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show:
Some advisor fed Trump two names, but he’s already forgotten one. I’ll bet he remembers the names of the judges from each of his four bankruptcies, though.
Beldar (fa637a) — 2/22/2016 @ 8:03 pmThe judge whose name Trump had been fed but whom he had already forgotten, by the way, is Bill Pryor on the Eleventh Circuit. He and Sykes are both George W. Bush nominees, both are solid, and neither surely was ever known to Trump before Scalia died.
Beldar (fa637a) — 2/22/2016 @ 8:13 pmSykes is the former/ex wife of MILWAUKEE CONSERVATIVE TALK SHOW HOST and AUTHOR “Charlie Sykes”.
Gus (a084f0) — 2/22/2016 @ 8:24 pmShe is CONSERVATIVE and she is LEARNED. In complete honesty. she is Charles Sykes 2nd of 3 wives.
Diane Sykes is an intelligent Constitutional Conservative.
Joe Biden is a clown. Joe Biden has LEARNED how to pander to GROUPS that would and HAVE kept him in power and in the Senate, since Joe Biden was 30 years old. Joe Biden has ZERO ZERO ZERO accomplishments of note, in nearly 4o years of POLITICAL OFFICE HOLDING.
Gus (a084f0) — 2/22/2016 @ 8:28 pmWhat is wrong with US, as a SOCIETY, when a JOKE, A CLOWN, A FOOL and a DISHONEST HACK and PLAGARIST such as Slow Joe Biden continues to be VIEWED as a LEGITIMATE……American Political LEADER of any note??
Joe Biden? Who cares about a Joe Biden? College students don’t even know what a Joe Biden is!!
Leviticus (a8efb0) — 2/22/2016 @ 9:33 pm56% of Americans favor a nominee go thruogh the full Senate process, with a vote. 35% say “No hearings. No vote.”
And we think Cruz has a chance in hell against the lying Rubio, da Donald, and the witch HRC?
Government schools have done their jobs. We are about to have the Republic we deserve.
Ed from SFV (3400a5) — 2/22/2016 @ 9:33 pmI am astounded that Grassley stuck it in the Democrat’s ear (or wherever) so forthrightly. I love the closing quote:
“If the President of the United States insists on submitting a nominee under these circumstances, Senator Biden, my friend from Delaware, the man who sat at a desk across the aisle and at the back of this Chamber for more than 35 years, knows what the Senate should do.”
mark johnson (6f6939) — 2/23/2016 @ 6:09 am#6 Cruz Supporter very nice work. Its rare to read something that makes as much sense as what you wrote in this or any other comment section.
mark johnson (6f6939) — 2/23/2016 @ 6:14 amClassic weird Biden with the “at the end OF the Summer” line at 2:24.
mark johnson (968b80) — 2/23/2016 @ 6:39 amfloor wax dessert topping,
http://www.weaselzippers.us/258199-reid-gop-wants-to-hold-hostage-entire-judicial-branch/
narciso (732bc0) — 2/23/2016 @ 9:01 amIs McConnell starting to cave? He is if you think he cares more about power than ideology.
DRJ (15874d) — 2/23/2016 @ 6:23 pm