Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Joe Biden Argued for Delaying Supreme Court Picks in 1992 [Reference Section]
new york times ^ | Feb. 22, 2016 | By Julie Hirschfeld Davis

Posted on 06/28/2018 3:49:03 PM PDT by Eddie01

WASHINGTON — As a senator more than two decades ago, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. argued that President George Bush should delay filling a Supreme Court vacancy, should one arise, until the presidential election was over, and that it was “essential” that the Senate refuse to confirm a nominee to the court until then.

Mr. Biden’s words, though uttered long ago, are a direct contradiction to President Obama’s position in the battle over naming a successor to Justice Antonin Scalia.

Mr. Obama has said it is his constitutional responsibility to name a successor to Justice Scalia, who died Feb. 13 at the age of 79. The president has reacted with incredulity to the suggestion by several Republican presidential candidates and senators, including Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, that the decision should wait until after Mr. Obama has left office.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Education; History
KEYWORDS: bidenrule; nominations; rule
The lefts argument for the "rule" is a lie!

The Biden "rule" was related to lame duck presidents, having no relation whatsoever to mid term elections.

1 posted on 06/28/2018 3:49:03 PM PDT by Eddie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Eddie01

What’s joe “hands on” biden’s take on shotguns today?


2 posted on 06/28/2018 3:52:19 PM PDT by rktman (Enlisted in the Navy in '67 to protect folks rights to strip my rights. WTH?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eddie01
Biden on the floor in 2002
3 posted on 06/28/2018 3:52:40 PM PDT by Eddie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eddie01

It’s not a “rule”, more like a suggestion.

Sort of like “Stand up Chuck! .... Oh what am I saying!?” (Said by Biden to paraplegic)


4 posted on 06/28/2018 3:53:24 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eddie01

The new rule should be that no more appointments will be made until they all quit or die. In fact, I’m for attrition of all federal employees until the debt is paid off!


5 posted on 06/28/2018 3:54:36 PM PDT by outofsalt (If history teaches us anything, it's that history rarely teaches us anything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eddie01

“””until the presidential election was over””””

This is mid terms ya frickin morons(lib/left)


6 posted on 06/28/2018 3:56:07 PM PDT by Pollard (If you don't understand what I typed, you haven't read the classics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman
Biden tells America, "Buy a Shotgun, Buy a Shotgun"

Suppose your referring to this beauty in light of the Capitol paper incident...

What a tool.

7 posted on 06/28/2018 3:56:29 PM PDT by Eddie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Eddie01

An un-sharpend tool at that.


8 posted on 06/28/2018 3:58:06 PM PDT by rktman (Enlisted in the Navy in '67 to protect folks rights to strip my rights. WTH?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: outofsalt

How about a rule that says you can’t confirm SC nominations in any year the Democrat party assassinates a conservative Justice.


9 posted on 06/28/2018 3:58:11 PM PDT by Eddie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Eddie01

Doah!!

I meant “1992”.


10 posted on 06/28/2018 4:00:38 PM PDT by Eddie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN


11 posted on 06/28/2018 4:12:26 PM PDT by Chode ( WeÂ’re America, Bitch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Eddie01

Doesn’t matter. Kagan was nominated to SCOTUS in an off year election and received 99 votes.


12 posted on 06/28/2018 4:24:08 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Proud member of the DWN party. (Deplorable Wing Nut))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

They really need to be reminded that it is up to who is running the Senate at the time, regardless of the “rule”.


13 posted on 06/28/2018 4:27:55 PM PDT by dgbrown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Eddie01

The Democrats always demand in the present what they want in the present.

They care not one whit about law, rules, or precedents. All that matters to them is power.


14 posted on 06/28/2018 4:37:10 PM PDT by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eddie01

Too bad Sen. Reid blew that all to hell, isn’t it?


15 posted on 06/28/2018 5:02:17 PM PDT by kaehurowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eddie01
Mr. Obama has said it is his constitutional responsibility to name a successor ...

Let's go with the "Obama Rule."

16 posted on 06/29/2018 1:38:46 AM PDT by nonsporting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson