SpokenTruth said:
That's not what Biden said. He said in June of 1992 that if a SC position needed to be filled that it should wait until after the election so that it doesn't interfere with the RNC, DNC, etc... "In my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down. "Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself. "Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, 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." Mitch McConnell just twisted the hell out of what he said to make it look like Biden said no to a nominee in an election year. In other words, Biden was fine with Bush getting to nominate his choice, he just didn't want that process creating further problems before the elections took place.
|
I have no idea what Mitch McConnell said. I only read what Biden said when I heard that he said it in the past, so my statement was based off of my interpretation of what he said. Let's go over what he said then.
"In my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.
In my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Trump nominations to date. One can imagine the role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down. (How does that sound? Sounds like today's climate perfectly. Dems would be screaming about waiting to nominate until after Nov 6th, if anyone would have died/resigned earlier this year)
"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.
So what he is saying here is what exactly? Sounds like he is saying that a president should not nominate a successor before the next group of senators are voted on and cemented into place. Otherwise what?
"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, 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."
How does this not sound like something that perfectly illustrates today again. Partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties.
