It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Joe Biden - No Supreme Court Pick Until After Election (1992)

page: 2
20
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Whatever VP Biden believes today, he'll change in mind.. After he changes his mind, Joe will emotionally explain how agonizing the change-of-mind was for him, and how he now regrets it.




posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 02:03 AM
link   
A politician practicing double speak? Say it aint so!

Just like Biden flipped on his position in the early 90's so are the current conservatives.
Pot meet kettle.

Was Clarence Thomas, the Bush nominee, confirmed or not?



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 03:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: GD21D
A politician practicing double speak? Say it aint so!

Just like Biden flipped on his position in the early 90's so are the current conservatives.
Pot meet kettle.

Was Clarence Thomas, the Bush nominee, confirmed or not?


Biden was talking about Bork, not Thomas.



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: xuenchen

So does this mean you think 1992 Joe Biden had the right idea?

I believe the point is that both sides will say whatever is convenient in the moment, and Democrats have no conviction. They claim one side is simply playing politics ... when the truth is BOTH sides are.



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 11:50 PM
link   


All members of the Republican majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee vowed on Tuesday to take no action, including a refusal to hold any hearings, on any Supreme Court nominee proposed by President Obama. In a letter to the Senate’s majority leader, the panel’s eleven Republicans said they would only consider a nominee after a new president is in office next January 20.

If that position does result in thwarting any Obama selection, the Court probably would not get a ninth Justice until March or April of next year — the longest period in modern history that it would have gone without a full bench — perhaps seriously compromising its work not only for the rest of the current Term, but for much of the following Term. It is unclear whether any part of the Senate would have the power to overrule the committee’s majority, or to move forward with a nominee without a hearing unless such a move had unanimous consent of the Senate.

www.scotusblog.com...-238712



I am beginning to hope that clinton gets the presidency and this comes back to bite the republicans big time!!!
still wishing the supreme court would speak up about this bullcrap!! I realize it isn't their place to do so, but they should have the right to defend the integrity of their court.

what's next republicans? are you gonna whine when the little sisters lose their case because a tie vote causes it to default to the lower court? are we gonna have to waste time next year rehearing a bunch of cases because they couldn't get a majority vote one way or the other? heck, maybe we should just postpone all these cases till next june or so! give all the supremes a much needed paid vacation!

as much as I am not fond of the democrats, I dislike the republican party even more. there is no boundary to the length they will go to get a political win.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
as much as I am not fond of the democrats, I dislike the republican party even more. there is no boundary to the length they will go to get a political win.




So here we have the Democrats doing the EXACT same thing ... but somehow Republicans are worse.

... er huh?



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

first it appears that Biden said this in later June of that year, not Feb. , so we aren't talking about going close to year waiting to see who gets elected, and then sworn into office before we even begin the process...

second, one lone voice who has a history of severe foot in mouth disease is a far cry from an agreement among the republican majority members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

third, biden says his statement is taken out of context, so I wouldn't be surprised if there was more information that would serve to differentiate between the situation then and now.

forth, you show me in the constitution where it says that we, the voters have a say over the supreme court appointments? it says that the president that is in office at the time of an opening, who was chosen by the people, has the responsibility to select a possible candidate, and it says that the congress has the responsibility to advise and consent on that candidate. we had our say when we voted the president and congress we have into office. that was our say, the only question now is weather or not that president will be responsible to listen to the advice of congress and select the best supreme court justice he can find, and if the congress will be responsible enough to hold hearings and make an honest attempt at filling the vacancy.

they need to stop acting like our country and it's gov't is just a game board for them to play their games on, it's not. There are real consequences that are paid by real people that they seem to sacrifice like pawns in a chess game. And, politics just isn't worth the price that is being paid.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 01:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: xuenchen

So does this mean you think 1992 Joe Biden had the right idea?

I believe the point is that both sides will say whatever is convenient in the moment, and Democrats have no conviction. They claim one side is simply playing politics ... when the truth is BOTH sides are.


Of course they are. Nominating new Supreme Court Justices however is one of the few things Obama was specifically elected to do. Until the next President is sworn in, it's his responsibility to do. Regardless of what others say on the matter.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1   >>

log in

join