Mere fact. Biden wasn't even a member of the leadership, just one more Senator. He didn't have the power to do more than suggest.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/102nd_United_States_Congress
Actually, no, dumb ass. That was the Republicans. Reid ended the filibuster but only for lower court appointments because of Republican obstruction. The Republicans removed the filibuster entirely when they gained power.
Lol, the one time you could have gone, "both sides".
They made you pay attention, didn't they? And, uhh, what do you think about the real issue of the GOP stuffing the court with obvious ideologues? Is that right?
I say it's not. We don't need ideologues on the SCOTUS.
Again, you stupid fuck, I'm asking what those rights are you keep referring to. Is this too hard for you?
If you think discussing things with other people on this forum is like talking to 3rd graders, its because they are trying to get down to your level to get through your thick ass skull.
If you are asking someone to recall a particular conversation, it helps to specify who the conversation was with. It was a BS question lined with innuendo.It was her question. She's the Senator. She didn't need to clarify.
He's there to answer and not dance and dodge.
So much hiding information.
Biden was chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 92.
Reputable news sources disagree in your assessment of the Biden rule.
It is an inconvenient truth given the increasing partisanship around who gets to control the “balance” of the Supreme Court.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/...delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.amp.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...-court-nominees-considered-in-election-years/
Spin all you want, you are wrong on this one.
They aren't stuffing the court anymore than the Democrats were.
LOL.
Because they’re hypocrites, the same as those “outraged” over the chain of events that got us here.So why won't the GOP put off confirmation hearings until after the election, as Biden suggested?
They aren't stuffing the court anymore than the Democrats were.
If you are asking someone to recall a particular conversation, it helps to specify who the conversation was with. It was a BS question lined with innuendo.
She’s the Senator. If she has a specific concern besides her Presidential aspirations, she should speak them in no uncertain terms.
Just wanted you to know that back in the old days when I lived in Los Angeles County and was driving to Vegas we'd stop and........ well i have good memories of Zzyzx Rd.Is he as stupid as you? He finally gave a no answer to the question instead of ducking it. Please don't respond because I give 0 shits for anything you have to say.
You're still smarting from making such a goddamned fool of yourself over that hand sign bullshit. Get over it already.Imported Asshole still spreading bullshit and lies. Your kids need to take your flip phone and car keys gramps. You're a braindead smench....
But, Biden!
lol.
You're still smarting from making such a goddamned fool of yourself over that hand sign bullshit. Get over it already.
Absolutely, instead she was trying to play a cute little Gotcha game and she lost.If you are asking someone to recall a particular conversation, it helps to specify who the conversation was with. It was a BS question lined with innuendo.
She’s the Senator. If she has a specific concern beyond her Presidential aspirations, she should speak them in no uncertain terms.
No, I read it all and understand it thoroughly. I know you were discussing the protestors at this particular hearing when the conservation started. But you then proceeded to make what appears to be a straw man generalization about the person you were debating. The straw man wasn't qualified by context. You didn't say, "you agree with what these protestors are doing and I do not." You said, "you think it's OK to break the law and I don't." Not very different than a situation where someone says "I think it's OK to smack your wife in self-defense when she's coming at you with a baseball bat" and the reply is "you think it's OK to beat your wife and I do not."
Because they’re hypocrites, the same as those “outraged” over the chain of events that got us here.
Pandora’s box
civil disobedience:
"Civil disobedience, also called passive resistance, refusal to obey the demands or commands of a government or occupying power, without resorting to violence or active measures of opposition; its usual purpose is to force concessions from the government or occupying power. Civil disobedience has been a major tactic and philosophy of nationalist movements in Africa and India, in the American civil rights movement, and of labour, anti-war, and other social movements in many countries.
Civil disobedience is a symbolic or ritualistic violation of the law rather than a rejection of the system as a whole. The civil disobedient, finding legitimate avenues of change blocked or nonexistent, feels obligated by a higher, extralegal principle to break some specific law. It is because acts associated with civil disobedience are considered crimes, however, and known by actor and public alike to be punishable, that such acts serve as a protest. By submitting to punishment, the civil disobedient hopes to set a moral example that will provoke the majority or the government into effecting meaningful political, social, or economic change. Under the imperative of setting a moral example, leaders of civil disobedience insist that the illegal actions be nonviolent."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/civil-disobedience
Again, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
Indeed. Now run away with your tail between your legs like the little bitch you are.
Only one SCOTUS nominee in the last 100 years failed the 60 vote threshold, Neil Gorsuch. We'll likely have another in Kavanaugh.
The GOP changed to rules to stuff the court, plain & simple.
Nope you guys would have Borked them both, so we did what Harry Reid did and changed the rules.The true outrage was the GOP changing the rules & stuffing ideologues down the country's throat. You've defended & obfuscated that throughout this discussion. Had they not, neither Gorsuch nor Kavanaugh would likely have met the 60 vote threshold & we both know it.
Borked him?