Joe Biden Said in 1992 that a President Should Not Name a SCOTUS Nominee “Once the Political Campaign Season is Underway”
EVEN BARACK OBAMA’S VP SAYS THAT OBAMA SHOULD NOT APPOINT A SCOTUS NOMINEE ONCE THE POLITICAL SEASON HAS STARTED …
Check out the VIDEO below where in 1992 Sen. Joe Biden says that a president should not nominate a SCOTUS once the political season is underway. Hmm, just how hypocritical is this White House? Barack Obama has previously filibustered previous SCOTUS nominees, but now talks a different game when the shoe is on the other foot. So did Senate Democrats. So does his VP. Biden literally stated that he not only did not want the Supreme Court Justice vacancy filled, but he also did not want the Judiciary Committee to even hold hearings on a nomination. Well how do you like that? Biden wanted President Bush to decline from making a nomination altogether. Boy aren’t the two hypocrites in the White House singing a different tune these days.
Game, Set and Match … Obama gets no say in who the next SCOTUS will be. According to Biden’s own words, if allowed, “we will be in deep trouble as a an institution.”
But when he was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in June 1992, Biden suggested Democrats should “seriously consider” not holding confirmation hearings for a Supreme Court nominee put forward by President George H.W. Bush if a justice were to retire in the final months of the presidential election year.
“The Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling hearings on the nomination, until after the political campaign season is over,” Biden said in a floor address on June 25, 1992, about reforming the Supreme Court confirmation process.
We all knew that one day Joe Biden would put his foot in his mouth with all of his crazy comments. Who knew that it would be one regarding the appointment of SCOTUS nominees and would knee cap Barack Obama. As Hot Air opines, thanks Joe!
How do you spin this if you’re the White House? I guess by focusing on the calendar. Biden said this in late June, several weeks after Bill Clinton had effectively clinched the Democratic nomination. The claim here will be that when Biden said “once the political season is underway,” he meant the general election, not the primary. But there’s no reason to draw that kind of line. The possibility that the next president will fill Scalia’s vacancy is already affecting votes in the process of choosing that president. All we can do now is let the process play out. Thanks, Joe!
“Historically, this has not been viewed as a question,” Mr. Obama said last week. “There’s no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off years — that’s not in the constitutional text.”
But in a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.
“Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention,” Mr. Biden said at the time. “It would be our pragmatic conclusion that 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.
“That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me,” he added, “we will be in deep trouble as an institution.”
Mr. Biden’s speech came to light on Monday as the White House said Mr. Obama was poring through a thick binder of potential nominees, with an eye toward deciding on his pick within weeks. It quickly became fodder for Republicans who have suggested that the president should wait to name a successor to Justice Scalia, or that the Senate should delay considering one.
Two Faces of Democrat Chucky Schumer … FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations (VIDEO)
The lying, duplicitous, double-talking Democrat Chucky Schumer was against lame duck presidential SCOTUS appointments, before he was for it …
So Schumer was all for the status quo of the balance of power of the SCOTUS in 2007, why not now? Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer took to the Sunday talk shows to state that the Republicans had no right to block Barack Obama from appointing a new SCOTUS following the sudden death Justice Antonin Scalia over the weekend. Scumer was appalled that the GOP would do such a thing. REALLY? It was just in 2007 while GWB was in his final 18 months of his presidency that Schumer stated the exactly same thing. The hypocritical Schumer vowed not to confirm any justices for the remainder of Bush’s term in office. But of course this is different, because an Obama nominee would be a liberal ideologue.
“We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances … Considering the Constitutional harm and dramatic departures that are in store if those few are joined by one more ideological ally … I will do everything in my power to prevent one more ideological ally from joining Roberts and Alito on the court.”
Now all of a sudden Schumer is whining and crying a river of obstruction when they , namely he, stated to do the same. Schumer stated in his ABC interview, we Democrats didn’t do it. REALLY?
During a Sunday morning appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer decried the intent of many Senate Republicans to prevent President Barack Obama from appointing the successor to deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
But less than a decade ago, Schumer advocated doing the same exact thing if any additional Supreme Court vacancies opened under former President George W. Bush.
Almost immediately after Scalia’s death was announced Saturday evening, Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates began arguing the appointment of his successor should be left to the next president. Schumer lamented this outlook as pure obstructionism.
Hmm … Schumer claims the Democrats have never done this before … can you say BORK?
HYPOCRISY ALERT: Hillary Clinton Boarding Private Jet Just Hours After Launching Her Global-Warming Push and Stating It is One of the Most Urgent Threats of our Time
More from the liberal Democrat Hillary Clinton playbook of do what I say, not as I do, I am more important than you …
Hypocrisy Alert from the never transparent and untrustworthy Democrat presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton. Not less than one hour after Hillary Clinton lectured Americans and put forth her vision to solve global warming through an aggressive carbon cutting plan in Iowa, she got on a private jet, with a carbon footprint the size of Iowa and flew off. You see, after Hillary told us what she was going to inflict upon all of us, her heiress got a an aircraft, a Dassault model Falcon 900B, burns 347 gallons of fuel per hour. Hmm, isn’t that exactly the thing that she just got through lecturing us that shouldn’t be done? But of course Hillary Clinton and her spin doctor minions would have you believe, she is just one of us little people and wants to represent you.
What Difference Does It Make that I Continually Lie Through My Teeth?
Clinton said during her speech, that global warming is one of the most urgent threats of our time, and we have no choice but to rise and meet it.” REALLY? Just curious Hillary, if its such an urgent threat of our time, what the hell are going doing boarding a private, jet fuel guzzling plane? Oh, there are different rules for you? One would think that if they are going to be so brazen and put forth such a myth as global warming is an urgent threat, they would at least walk the walk.
Just hours after Hillary Clinton unveiled her presidential campaign’s push to solve global warming through an aggressive carbon-cutting plan, she sauntered up the steps of a 19-seat private jet in Des Moines, Iowa.
The aircraft, a Dassault model Falcon 900B, burns 347 gallons of fuel per hour. And like all Dassault business jets, Hillary’s ride was made in France.
The Trump-esque transportation costs $5,850 per hour to rent, according to the website of Executive Fliteways, the company that owns it.
And she has used the same plane before, including on at least one trip for speeches that brought her $500,000 in fees.
On Monday the Democratic presidential front-runner announced the details of her initiative to tackle climate change, calling it ‘one of the most urgent threats of our time.’
But shortly afterward, a videographer working with the conservative America Rising PAC spotted her at the private air terminal in Des Moines.
Mark Levin Radio Show: Hillary Clinton & Harry Reid Were Not Always for Open Borders for Illegals … “Adamently Against Illegal Immigrants” … “No Sane Country Would” Reward Illegals
NO ONE POINTS OUT THE HYPOCRISY OF THE LEFT LIKE MARK LEVINE …
During yesterdays Mark Levine Radio Show (July 7), conservative talk show host Mark Levine not only spoke the truth about illegal immigration, self-deportation and how illegals are responsible for breaking up their own family. The below VIDEO is a must listen. Levine brings up some hot button topics that of course today’s Republican politicians try and avoid like the plague.
Harry Reed used to be one of the most aggressive, anti-immigration, anti-illegal immigration Senator. Levine used some past Harry Reed comments where Reed says, “no sane country would offer rewards for illegals.” Imagine that. I guess the United States today has become an insane country with Reed’s premise. So what happened to change Reed’s mind, power? The comments from 1993 Harry Reed sounds like, well, it sounds like Donald Trump.
Listen at your own risk, Can you handle the truth?
IT TURNS OUT THAT HILLARY CLINTON WAS DONALD TRUMP ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION BEFORE DONALD TRUMP …
Everybody is piling on Donald Trump these days for what he said about illegal immigration, but why is it that no one is questioning Hillary Clinton’s hypocrisy and stance on illegals? From a February 2003 interview on the John Gambling show comes the following anti-illegal immigration comments courtesy of your Democrat front-runner candidate for US President. Hillary said, “I am adamantly against illegal immigrants.” Hold the phone. I thought Hillary for for illegals? Hillary Clinton went on to say, “Certainly we’ve got to do more at our borders” and “people have to stop employing illegal immigrants.” Really? This from the presidential candidate who know has never met an illegal she didn’t like. CAN YOU SAY FLIP-FLOP and HYPOCRISY.
So what’s different now Hillary, could it possibly be that we now exist in a world of ethnic politics? Think about what she said above, Hillary is not only against illegal immigration, she is against the illegal immigrant. And Hillary is not just against illegal immigrants, she is “ADAMANTLY” against them! She also stated that we need to do more at our borders and the inference is to building a wall to keep illegals out. But now Hillary is for open borders and let all the illegals in. And she wonders why no one trusts her. This woman has never said an honest thing in her life. Every word, every phrase and eery sentence is contrived to see how it would help her politically.