The Senate Should End Nomination Hearings for Current Session

Hmm, seems I recall that there’s some elections coming up. Did Trump cancel them?

No such rule exists. Even so, Biden was talking about an extremely political nomination. He said in his speech that if the POTUS was willing to work with the Senate in a bipartisan manner, then there was no issue. Obama nominated a judge that was recommended by some of the GOP and was not a highly partisan pick.

I don’t even know why I’m engaging a troll.

The hypocrisy that a midterm election doesn’t count in terms of holding off on confirming a nominee as if it isn’t the Senate that has the duty to advise and consent is absolutely astounding. Let the people decide, they say. Except when it might hurt our own nominee. Bull ■■■■ partisan hypocrisy.

And if anyone were to actually watch the video of Biden he called for:

#1 No confirmation hearing during the limited time of the party conventions (June IIRC) and the election the first week of November - NOT not hearings for over a year.

#2 He also said the nomination should be taken up following the election in the fall, NOT leave the seat vacant for over a year.

I get so tired about people lying about what Biden said and then claiming what McConnell did was the same as the “Biden Rule”. Horse ■■■■■

.>>>>

2 Likes

This. The “Biden Rule” (which isn’t even a rule) was basically made up as a justification for the Republicans to not confirm an Obama appointee. As said, Biden said that if a vacancy arose in the summer (Scalia died in the winter before), confirmation hearings should not occur until after the election season (hearings did not occur after the elections, but after the new President was in office months later). What the Republicans did is purely a construct of their own.

1 Like

Don’t add facts. OhKnow’s extreme hatred for Obama has clouded his/her sense of reality.

Nomination hearings are important

  1. They give the American people a chance to see if the nominee meets a hoped for standard of quality, even if some partisans don’t care.
  2. It gives the American people a chance to see how the different sides handle themselves and apply the democratic process.

Shall we review the Clarence Thomas hearings?

1 Like

So it was a summer law… not winter?

  1. Not a law
  2. Literally not a single criteria Biden provides applies to the Garland situation

Exactly
10

I think this went well for the cooler heads.

The D display was too much carnival, not enough show.

If those that supported the GOPs move re: Garland just admitted they were supportive of this purely partisan tribal move instead of trying to pretend that there was “prior precedent” or invoking “the Biden Rule”, I wouldn’t have a problem with it.

Just admit it…your guys had the power to block Garland and they did it, and it was a win for the GOP…and that’s what you support

Stop trying to seize some non-existent"moral high ground". Is that really too difficult to do?

No, it was a call to not have hearing between the conventions and the election, that the nomination would proceed immediately after the election.

.>>>>

Can one admit to supporting a purely partisan tribal move while claiming to apply some prior precedent?

I learned that from Democrats. But I like it now. Count me in.

Was that rationale documented at the time that Biden stated the precedent?

You’ll have to give an example of what you’re talking about

'Cause Biden ain’t in charge.

How did the protesters get in the chamber yesterday?

I simply responded to your post. Tribal moves are not below me. Elections have consequences. I’m ok admitting that.

But if I can reference some precedent, I’m gonna try that too.

You said “Democrats taught you that”