This is why politicians have lost the public trust. You can bet that if the positions were reversed, Joe Biden and Harry Reid would be doing exactly the same thing. Indeed, it was the Democrats who blew up Senate tradition with their nuclear option.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says that the Senate has to hold hearings or votes on any nominee. If the Republicans intend to exercise their power not to approve any nominee, I think it's best that they have done what they have done. That is, advise the President of that and let him save his nominee from the embarrassment of being a lamb put up for sacrifice.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says that the Senate has to hold hearings or votes on any nominee. If the Republicans intend to exercise their power not to approve any nominee, I think it's best that they have done what they have done. That is, advise the President of that and let him save his nominee from the embarrassment of being a lamb put up for sacrifice.
16
The American people will see to it that President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee is confirmed.
15
Maybe Anita Hill's co-witnesses could have used a hearing, Joe.
14
Nice try to walk back your earlier statements, but it won't work. Same with Schumer's earlier statements about obstruction
15
In the past 50 years Republican appointed SCOTUS justices outnumber Democratic appointed ones by a 2-to-1 ratio, 12 vs 6. In obstructing the nomination process, Congressional Republicans are trying to keep the court tilted in favor of conservatism, which flies in the face of the balance envisioned by the nation's founders. The best thing they can do for all interested parties - except maybe the extremists - is allow President Obama to move the process forward by nominating a presumably moderate, center right candidate. Given the current split on the court this would instill the aforementioned balance, while re-injecting the Institution with the faith it deserves by depoliticizing it.
3
The Republican Senators' behavior--indeed the whole Republican Party's behavior--towards Barack Obama has been and is pure racism.
26
From my reading of the Constitution it would seem the path is clear for the President to make an appointment. The President has stated his intention to nominate a justice. The Senate has indicated they are disinclined to hear the proposed appointee or to hold confirmation hearings. That is their prerogative, but it is only by tradition, not any specific constitutional language that the President is required to follow the Senate's advice and consent. Since the Senate leadership has predetermined a course of action precluding their advice and consent it would seem the President can now choose whom ever he likes and appoint that person. The President has not broken with tradition and the President is not abrogating his sworn duty. I don't see how the Senate's misguided decision stops him from appointing a justice and that justice being sworn in.
10
I like Joe. He sounds like me. Like lots of people we inexpertly try to explain our POV. So let me see if I can't be the Joe Whisperer: "The speech I made in 1992 was politically motivated, I was hoping Bush wouldn't try to sneak in another reactionary judge. But I would never have refused to even talk to the guy. This is what Senators Grassley, McConnell and Hatch have done. It might be embarrassing now, but they should take back what they said and in true poliitician-speak, say that what they MEANT was it would stick in their collective craws, but they would at least talk to the nominees, just like what I did in 1992 "
7
Vice President Biden has given us an easy to understand description of the process ALWAYS used in the past whereby the president nominates a candidate for the Supreme Court, the Senate judiciary committee considers and votes yes or no on the nominee, and finally, the full Senate votes yes or no on the nominee. While it's true that there have been rocky roads during this process, there has NEVER been a complete denial to follow the Constitution. The nomination will be replacing Justice Scalia who supposedly believed in the Constitution. Maybe he did, but his fellow Republicans sure DON'T. They like following the Constitution only when it benefits them.
The Republicans sure seem DEDICATED to taking America down while President Obama is in office, e.g., saying "no" to most everything he has proposed and then turning around now and speaking President Obama's exact proposals and words in all of their speeches. On C-SPAN this morning I found the words coming out of Paul Ryan's mouth to be the exact words that have been coming out of President Obama's mouth for 7+ years.
I think that the Republicans and the media bear a significant responsibility for the nasty, mean-spirited, hateful atmosphere that is prevalent in an awful lot of America today. I feel so much sadness.
The Republicans sure seem DEDICATED to taking America down while President Obama is in office, e.g., saying "no" to most everything he has proposed and then turning around now and speaking President Obama's exact proposals and words in all of their speeches. On C-SPAN this morning I found the words coming out of Paul Ryan's mouth to be the exact words that have been coming out of President Obama's mouth for 7+ years.
I think that the Republicans and the media bear a significant responsibility for the nasty, mean-spirited, hateful atmosphere that is prevalent in an awful lot of America today. I feel so much sadness.
22
Just look at the recent obstruction by Mitch McConnell to block a Supreme Court nomination. Why on earth can he claim that the people who elected President Obama have no right to have their President nominate a justice? This is just another example of a new GOP dog-whistle-frequency and its use.
The next time you hear a GOP stump speech see how many of them you can spot.
The next time you hear a GOP stump speech see how many of them you can spot.
12
Hear, hear Vice-President Biden. You care completely right, of course, but your argument falls on the deaf ears of McConnell and his gang of reckless and irresponsible cohorts. You would think that they would have learned something from the current state of their primary, but no. That would be asking too much of them. And so, their careless "handling" of the legislative branch will continue, and shows no signs of letting up - even in the face of disaster (for them) when HIllary Clinton goes up against Donald Trump. There will be blood, and President Clinton will have the honor of filling the vacancy herself.
8
Biden is a hypocrite, dancing around the fact that his position was and remains dictated by politics rather than principle.
14
The Republicans have said that they must wait until after the election so that the people may speak. I wonder what they mean? The people spoke when they elected Barrack Obama twice, not once, but twice and I believe polls show that a clear majority of Americans want the nominating process to proceed. Seems like the voice of the American people is clear. I'd like to hear this question asked point blank, simply and clearly, for their response to make it clear to all that this reason is specious.
4
I hope the Republicans refuse to approve a nomination. This way Hilary can appoint Pres Obama to the court.
1
One can disagree with then Senator Biden's remarks in 1992 and argue that a President's nominee for a Supreme Court appointment should be considered promptly whenever it is made, but note carefully what Biden did not say in 1992.
Biden did not say that the sitting President should not be allowed to appoint a Supreme Court Justice at all.
Biden did not say that the Senate Judiciary Committee would not meet a nominee and did not say the Committee would not hold a hearing.
What he say in June of 1992 was that he thought it would be better to wait until after the election to hold confirmation hearings, if in fact a sitting Justice stepped down. That is, he proposed that a nominee from the sitting President (if there was to be a vacancy) wait until November to be reviewed by the Senate. He did not command it. He did not refuse to hold a hearing or meet a nominee.
The present day attempt by the Republican Senate to deny to a sitting President the right and power to even try to get a Justice confirmed to fill an actually open seat on the Court is absolutely unprecedented and unconstitutional.
Yes, there has always been politics in the review and confirmation of Justices, but up until now confirmation hearings were always held and, if one nominee got rejected another was accepted.
Blanket refusal to perform the duty of advice and consent is unconstitutional
Biden did not say that the sitting President should not be allowed to appoint a Supreme Court Justice at all.
Biden did not say that the Senate Judiciary Committee would not meet a nominee and did not say the Committee would not hold a hearing.
What he say in June of 1992 was that he thought it would be better to wait until after the election to hold confirmation hearings, if in fact a sitting Justice stepped down. That is, he proposed that a nominee from the sitting President (if there was to be a vacancy) wait until November to be reviewed by the Senate. He did not command it. He did not refuse to hold a hearing or meet a nominee.
The present day attempt by the Republican Senate to deny to a sitting President the right and power to even try to get a Justice confirmed to fill an actually open seat on the Court is absolutely unprecedented and unconstitutional.
Yes, there has always been politics in the review and confirmation of Justices, but up until now confirmation hearings were always held and, if one nominee got rejected another was accepted.
Blanket refusal to perform the duty of advice and consent is unconstitutional
7
Would that e the same kind of obstructionist behavior Biden practiced when it was in his party's interest to do so?
4
Biden, as President of the Senate, should step in and force a vote when a nominee is identified!
2
If the Democrats win in November and the Republicans block the newly elected President's nominee, THEN the Democrats will have a legitimate complaint. For the time being, though, the Republicans are playing this exactly as the Democrats would play it if the tables were turned – and as the Democrats in fact DID play it in the past. Valiant effort by Biden, but there's really no "explaining away" his 1992 speech, nor Schumer's similar remarks in 2007.
There's a snowball's chance in hell that either party would allow the other party to get a swing-vote Justice seated on the Court in an election year. That's just the way it is. The Democrats can complain all they want, but everyone understands (1) that's the way it is; and (2) that's the way it would be if the tables were turned.
There's a snowball's chance in hell that either party would allow the other party to get a swing-vote Justice seated on the Court in an election year. That's just the way it is. The Democrats can complain all they want, but everyone understands (1) that's the way it is; and (2) that's the way it would be if the tables were turned.
6
What a dishonest article by Biden. What Biden meant when he said "wait until after the election to make a nomination" was in fact "let the next president make the nomination". He is now trying to rehabilitate his comments but that can only happen if people are intellectually lazy. First, it would be impossible to confirm a nominee that was made following the election. There simply is not time. Following a presidential election the Senate does not reconvene until after the Thanksgiving recess. Then it comes back only for two weeks before leaving again for the Christmas recess. When they back the first week of January the new Senators are sworn in and assigned offices. At the earliest, Senators could begin pre-hearing interviewing of a nominee two weeks before the new president was sworn in. There is not enough time to hold confirmation hearings and Biden knows that better than any person alive. Secondly, there has never been a lame duck appointment to the Supreme Court in over 227 years. This is because of time but was also true when the Presidents were sworn in March. It bad form to ignore the people's choice for a new president by allowing such huge decisions by an outgoing one. Finally, the party of the in-coming president wont allow themselves to be denied an opportunity at an appointment. Biden is dishonest here....which is a shame because he is usually more forthright...but in 1992 he was playing politics with the scotus and looks for redemption now.
9
"Astonishing" to Biden but perhaps there are some others who do not find it so astonishing.
However, I believe that Republicans are better off negotiating with Obama and saying that they will accept a moderate conservative, someone to the left of Scalia and someone to the right of Obama.
Moreover, since Obama has already nominated two women, it is time for him to be fair to the other gender.
However, I believe that Republicans are better off negotiating with Obama and saying that they will accept a moderate conservative, someone to the left of Scalia and someone to the right of Obama.
Moreover, since Obama has already nominated two women, it is time for him to be fair to the other gender.
4
Any disinterested third party would agree that a twice-elected President has infinitely more legitimacy to select a Supreme Court justice, than an as-yet-identified successor. I'm guessing McConnell is just saying whatever obscene thing he needs to, to maintain his right-wing cred. We'll see as to whether he has the stones to follow through though...I'm not counting on it.
I wish I could pull the lever for Obama/Biden again. I know you guys did your time, and you both deserve a good rest and the eternal gratitude of the nation for being rocks of integrity while the political process self-immolates.
So grateful we have people of character willing to go through all that for the greater good, because my life's too short to sit in a room with Mitch McConnell for a single second.
I wish I could pull the lever for Obama/Biden again. I know you guys did your time, and you both deserve a good rest and the eternal gratitude of the nation for being rocks of integrity while the political process self-immolates.
So grateful we have people of character willing to go through all that for the greater good, because my life's too short to sit in a room with Mitch McConnell for a single second.
15
It is the responsibility of the President to find candidates and pitch them to the Senate. If the Senate does nothing, then it is also his responsibility to sue the Senate, or senators. This trial should be fast-tracked to decide the case before the election. If the judges hearing the case, presumably the Supreme Court, fail to their duty then we have proof of their activism. They will live in infamy for that decision. Judge Marshall, one of my ancestors, will roll in his grave in shame.
9
Joe, the reason why you so graciously approved Judge Kennedy in Reagan's last year (February of '88) was because after slandering the brilliant Robert Bork and forcing Ginsberg to withdraw, Reagan had to nominate an intellectually weak judge to get past your Judicial committee.
Judge Scalia's weight on the court and the divisions in country suggest that waiting for the next president is the long term prudent path. Let the next President, Dem or GOP, make this choice.
Judge Scalia's weight on the court and the divisions in country suggest that waiting for the next president is the long term prudent path. Let the next President, Dem or GOP, make this choice.
10
It could well be considered an act of obstructionism for the Senate to extend its right to refuse the nomination of an individual Supreme Court justice to a blanket refusal to accept any nomination. It could also be considered an act of obstructionism for the President to extend his prosecutorial discretion to take up individual cases of immigration law to a general refusal to prosecute an entire class of violations.
Why does the NYT support one case of obstruction and not the other?
Why does the NYT support one case of obstruction and not the other?
5
You can refuse to post my comment but that does not change the fact that your party blocked 32 Bush appellate appointees from June 2001 to Jan 2003. That's not a fact?
Your party didn't block John Roberts from being considered for Associate Supreme Court Justice? Didn't Bush have to withdraw and resubmit for Chief Justice?
Was Harriet Meiers given a fair vetting process? Why did you vote, along with Clinton, Obama, Reid, Leahy. Schumer (among the 25) to filibuster Samuel Alito in 2005? Does a filibuster reflect a proper vetting process, the same type you put Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork through?
Your sudden application of the duties of the Senate is curious if not obvious. You want the Senate to do it's job when you have skin in the game. For example Reid changed the rules for appointments so Obama appointees could be appointed to the DC Court of Appeals and the NLRB did he not? Did you object?
You refuse to acknowledge Harry Reid's 2005 comments about appointments. It's a matter of public record and refusing to post my comment in no way changes the fact that Reid said that a presidential appointee has to receive a vote. He clearly stated the Senate did not have to give a vote. Given what you have stated why didn't you sp eak out about this? Or do the rules change sinc you see an opportunity to over turn Citizen's United and Hobby Lobby? This isn't about principle. It is strictly about politics and changing the law to suit your progressive policies.
Your party didn't block John Roberts from being considered for Associate Supreme Court Justice? Didn't Bush have to withdraw and resubmit for Chief Justice?
Was Harriet Meiers given a fair vetting process? Why did you vote, along with Clinton, Obama, Reid, Leahy. Schumer (among the 25) to filibuster Samuel Alito in 2005? Does a filibuster reflect a proper vetting process, the same type you put Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork through?
Your sudden application of the duties of the Senate is curious if not obvious. You want the Senate to do it's job when you have skin in the game. For example Reid changed the rules for appointments so Obama appointees could be appointed to the DC Court of Appeals and the NLRB did he not? Did you object?
You refuse to acknowledge Harry Reid's 2005 comments about appointments. It's a matter of public record and refusing to post my comment in no way changes the fact that Reid said that a presidential appointee has to receive a vote. He clearly stated the Senate did not have to give a vote. Given what you have stated why didn't you sp eak out about this? Or do the rules change sinc you see an opportunity to over turn Citizen's United and Hobby Lobby? This isn't about principle. It is strictly about politics and changing the law to suit your progressive policies.
4
The GOP should follow Bidens advice and Bidens legacy in the Senate. In the 2008 vp debate he said he was proud of how he conducted the hearings for Robert Bork.
So the GOP should Bork anything left of a center right jurist.
So the GOP should Bork anything left of a center right jurist.
1
While many Americans are aware of the fight against our country by ISIS, how many are willing to acknowledge that the Republican party is destroying the very foundations of our democracy from the inside. The rest of the world looks on with horror at the seditious actions of the GOP--Europeans and others are at least aware of the ravaging effect of refusing to engage in the appointment of a replacement for Judge Scalia to the Supreme Court. The vitriol spewed against our President and the hatred of him is unparalleled in this extreme, destructive form.
Democrats must work hard to rid our country of the septic, poisonous party that will bring all of us down if we don't fight it.
Democrats must work hard to rid our country of the septic, poisonous party that will bring all of us down if we don't fight it.
5
It strikes me that we should judge then Senator Biden's words by his subsequent actions. If you want to know what he meant by what he said, watch what he did, and Senator Biden's actions speak clearly. He followed the Constitution and fulfilled the Senates duties to advise and consent and ratify the President's nominees regardless of the timing of the election cycle.
4
These days, Mr. Vice President, one fears that asking a bunch of craven political obstructionists to do their jobs is nothing more than “recherché du temps perdu.”
If you read the Constitution you will see it is left up to the Congress to
establish the Supreme Court. Nothing in the Constitution says there must
be 9 justices on the Supreme Court.
As noble as the thoughts and sentiments of Vice President Biden - is it too
late for you to run for President ? - are and those of the somewhat self-righteous commentators - the Senate is free to do as it see's fit and that
freedom is given to it by the Constitution.
Perhaps the Constitution needs some re-writing, perhaps the Supreme
Court needs come curtailing.
After all there is nothing in the Constitution, not one single word about:
Contraception/Abortion/Right to Privacy/Same Gender Marriages...
all of those "Constitutional Rights" were read into the Constitution by
Liberal Justices who would not allow the Democratic Process to work out
these issues in due time.
So now the Democratic process is taking its revenge on the "Progressive
Elites" who seek to force their ethics/morals upon the vast majority of
Americans who were willing to let the 'People of these United States'
decide those issues instead of 5 Justices who have so little in common
with the rest of America.
Perhaps the Senate should refuse to admit anyone new to the Supreme Court
until the Justices understand that theirs is to adjudicate and not to create
new Laws and novel Constitutional Rights and if it cannot or will not, then
let the Supreme Court empty out over time. { Supreme Court terms limits
anyone ? }
establish the Supreme Court. Nothing in the Constitution says there must
be 9 justices on the Supreme Court.
As noble as the thoughts and sentiments of Vice President Biden - is it too
late for you to run for President ? - are and those of the somewhat self-righteous commentators - the Senate is free to do as it see's fit and that
freedom is given to it by the Constitution.
Perhaps the Constitution needs some re-writing, perhaps the Supreme
Court needs come curtailing.
After all there is nothing in the Constitution, not one single word about:
Contraception/Abortion/Right to Privacy/Same Gender Marriages...
all of those "Constitutional Rights" were read into the Constitution by
Liberal Justices who would not allow the Democratic Process to work out
these issues in due time.
So now the Democratic process is taking its revenge on the "Progressive
Elites" who seek to force their ethics/morals upon the vast majority of
Americans who were willing to let the 'People of these United States'
decide those issues instead of 5 Justices who have so little in common
with the rest of America.
Perhaps the Senate should refuse to admit anyone new to the Supreme Court
until the Justices understand that theirs is to adjudicate and not to create
new Laws and novel Constitutional Rights and if it cannot or will not, then
let the Supreme Court empty out over time. { Supreme Court terms limits
anyone ? }
1
Great spin! And, of course, it depends on what the definition of "political season" is.
2
Hogwash!
2
I remember Biden's handling of the Thomas confirmation and his failure to give Anita Hill a fair hearing. Taking advice from Biden on the confirmation process for the Supreme court is like taking advice from Clinton on foreign affairs after her support of Bush's invasion of Iraq ... pathetic.
4
It would be one thing for the Republican senators to suggest to Mr. Obama that waiting would be better; it's another to attempt to force him to wait.
The first amounts to political maneuvering. The second is an abrogation of constitutional duty.
Biden's stance in 1992 is not the same as McConnell's and Grassley's of this year for that reason.
The first amounts to political maneuvering. The second is an abrogation of constitutional duty.
Biden's stance in 1992 is not the same as McConnell's and Grassley's of this year for that reason.
2
Nice job Joe but with the SCOTUS so evenly devided if Obama nominates a constitutional conservative you would be doing the same thing. But you on the left see it as a chance to change the courts direction and only that. With Drumpf winning the GOP Hilary is going to be POTUS why not let her appoint your hero Obama to the court. That would teach the GOP and its hillbilly followers of Drumpf a lesson about how the game is played.
2
GOP by the GOP Congress is exactly what may bring us President Trump.
He keeps saying it -- he makes deals. He gets things done. In the debate last night, he even used the word "gridlock" to describe government and what's wrong with it.
So if leaders in the Republican Party want to understand why they've lost control of their own nominating process, they should consider their failure to do their job with advising and consenting the President's nominations; not just to the Supreme Court, but to the Federal Courts across the nation where nominations still, seven years on, languish.
He keeps saying it -- he makes deals. He gets things done. In the debate last night, he even used the word "gridlock" to describe government and what's wrong with it.
So if leaders in the Republican Party want to understand why they've lost control of their own nominating process, they should consider their failure to do their job with advising and consenting the President's nominations; not just to the Supreme Court, but to the Federal Courts across the nation where nominations still, seven years on, languish.
1
Sorry Joe - you said what you said. Things were only different then because the President was a Republican and the Senate was controlled by the Democrats.
Your only consistent principle is expediency and your only guiding value is partisanship.
So please stop insulting the public's intelligence.
Your only consistent principle is expediency and your only guiding value is partisanship.
So please stop insulting the public's intelligence.
4
Mr. Vice President, with all due respect, this was a column better written by someone else.
2
Kudos to the Times for including a link to Biden's actual speech in 1992. Now readers can easily read both that speech and Biden's current explanation of what he meant, and decide for themselves whether he meant what he now says he meant.
2
Astonishing act of obstruction? Normally the answer would be yes. But this Republican controlled senate is a mean-spirited lot, so I would be more astonished if they actually confirmed any Obama nominee.
1
This is why people despise politicians . What a hypocrite.
5
Harry Reid was told when he arbitrary changed a hundred and fifty year old rule and excised the "nuclear option," there would be consequences.
Well, there you have it, but it's not like the Democrats haven't done the same thing.
Well, there you have it, but it's not like the Democrats haven't done the same thing.
3
There are so many examples (video, audio, newspaper accounts) of prominent Democrats and liberal media from the past, in which they had the same sentiment as the GOP, that this chapter in American politics only serves to make the Democrats look like hypocrites.
4
Sen Grassley is facing rejection in the next election, for his categorical rejection of that Constitutional mandate.
And R's will risk losing their majority in the Senate by also being derelict.
Thank you, VP Biden for your very cogent and convincing piece.
And R's will risk losing their majority in the Senate by also being derelict.
Thank you, VP Biden for your very cogent and convincing piece.
1
WoW...just WoW. How rich coming from a man who is directly responsible as the chairman of the judiciary committee for the contentious and acrimonious process we have today. He presided over the two hearings is recent history that were the absolute worst both the Bork and Thomas hearings. He took it as his duty to make sure nobody with conservative views made it to the court (and to his credit succeeded we got Kennedy, Thomas' reputation was permanently damaged and Bush was so afraid he gave us Souter). I am pretty sure the country would rather not have hearings than repeat the fiascoes that Biden presided over. Biden said he wants to work with senate...well the constitution say advise and consent. The the senate has given there ADVISE don't send us a nominee because we won't CONSENT the constitution does not say anything about having to hold hearings and going through any kind of process.
2
Don't do as I do, do as I say.
Ta-may-toe, tah-mah-tah, Joe. But go ahead and split those fine hairs.
Ta-may-toe, tah-mah-tah, Joe. But go ahead and split those fine hairs.
2
What a hypocrite!
Biden took the same position the GOP is taking now in Bush's last year in in office.
That's politics!
Biden took the same position the GOP is taking now in Bush's last year in in office.
That's politics!
3
Obama has nominated hard left ideologues as evidenced by most of the votes on major issues. Biden is trying to revise his stance now that he is in power and the support of the NYT by printing this shows the hard left bias on the newspaper. Let the people decide in the voting booth where this country is going to go. The issues are clear to the average Joe. The elites who have destroyed this country with getting us in multiple wars, bailing out corrupt banks, passing laws that they don't read and attacking the religious belief incessantly in the schools have had their chance and failed.
3
A nice letter, but I find it rather humorous that Biden is taking the Republican stance seriously and trying to change their minds with a well formed argument. Clearly their stance is nothing more than a scramble for every scrap of political power conceivably available to them. Logic, argument and law have nothing to do with their stance, so they will not be convinced.
You would think that the Trump candidacy would have Republicans finally realizing that they are traveling down dangerous roads. They courted Tea-party, Fox News and Rush Limbaugh style fervent and fearful, hateful and logic-free politics. Now they are surprised when a candidate comes along and takes advantage of the sheep that have been created.
Now I ask what road they are setting of down by picking and choosing which words of the constitution are worth following?
You would think that the Trump candidacy would have Republicans finally realizing that they are traveling down dangerous roads. They courted Tea-party, Fox News and Rush Limbaugh style fervent and fearful, hateful and logic-free politics. Now they are surprised when a candidate comes along and takes advantage of the sheep that have been created.
Now I ask what road they are setting of down by picking and choosing which words of the constitution are worth following?
1
As usual, you are so right, Joe. Problem is, the Senate and America are not the same institutions they have been for over 200 years. America's demise can be seen in Trump's rise to power. Simple, but sad.
If the GOP retains its Senate majority, and Trump wins the White House, who do you think he would nominate to fill the vacancy? Chris Christie, perhaps?
How about Rubio? Norm Braman, the Miami car dealer? One of the Koch brothers?
And Cruz. His wife? She may be the only person who really likes Ted.
The current President, Barack Obama, is an adult who has been seasoned by more than seven tough challenging years in the Oval Office. He will undoubtedly nominate a credible, experienced and high qualified person to replace Justice Scalia. Wouldn't it be wiser for the Senate to act now to perform its Constitutional obligation and each Senator's oath of office? Wouldn't it?
How about Rubio? Norm Braman, the Miami car dealer? One of the Koch brothers?
And Cruz. His wife? She may be the only person who really likes Ted.
The current President, Barack Obama, is an adult who has been seasoned by more than seven tough challenging years in the Oval Office. He will undoubtedly nominate a credible, experienced and high qualified person to replace Justice Scalia. Wouldn't it be wiser for the Senate to act now to perform its Constitutional obligation and each Senator's oath of office? Wouldn't it?
Dear people of the United States,
Let's get President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee confirmed.
Let's get President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee confirmed.
2
The 'rational' that McConnell and the GOP leadership have given for not fulfilling their Constitutional duty are flimsy and a sham. They claim that they don't want President Obama to politicize the nomination and that the 'people' should be allowed to speak on the subject so we will leave it to the highly charged and down and dirty political contest to make it less political? Has McConnell seen the GOP debates and does anybody want a "liar", who is "unhinged", and "unfit for office", and "dangerous", and a "con man", and a "phony and a fraud" making the current appointment to the Supreme Court? These assertions are not the DNC talking points, but rather, the Republicans' own words about their eventual nominee.
2
I applaud Mr. Biden for his commitment to our government, all of it. It seems Mr. McConnell feels he is the leader of a fourth branch of our government "The Conservative Branch" which is separate from all others and not subject to the Constitution or at least how they see it. The Republicans were elected to the US Congress not the Conservative Branch so shouldn't they abide by the rules set forth over 200 years ago?
Shame on them for denying the will of our entire country to provide good government for all.
Shame on them for denying the will of our entire country to provide good government for all.
2
After the 2002 mid-term elections in which the Republicans regained control of the Senate by a 51-49 margin, the Senate Democrats started to filibuster judicial nominees.
On February 12, 2003, Miguel Estrada, a Hispanic nominee for the D.C. Circuit, became the first court of appeals nominee ever to be filibustered. EVER.
On February 12, 2003, Miguel Estrada, a Hispanic nominee for the D.C. Circuit, became the first court of appeals nominee ever to be filibustered. EVER.
1
Biden is better served to let sleeping dogs lie and not try to wiggle and squirm his way around his own position albeit it 24 years ago. It's a bad day for Joe.
3
I think the Repubs are actually in a better position than they realize - Obama knows he's got to put out a nominee who's going to get Republican votes so the names already rumored sound like people they would find acceptable - maybe better than the ones Hillary might nominate and when they may not have a majority? I'd play tough but hold hearings - they might just come out ahead.
Perhaps nothing enunciates as loudly and clearly about this false argument regarding governmental responsibilities as Mr. Biden’s opening line…”In my 36-year tenure in the United States Senate”…. That, in itself, is the problem and speaks to a government and career politicians who remain disconnected from the electorate, whose lives they continue to negatively impact and run roughshod over. Mr. Biden’s sharp tongue, blame shifting and utter lack of humility throughout his political life invite little other than complete dismissal.
4
In all my working years, the understanding was that if you refused to do the job you were hired to do for no better reason than "I don't want to, because I don't like you", you could be fired on the spot. Why should senators be any different? To the Republican senators: Do your job, or clean out your desk.
1
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. I cordially dissent Mr. Vice president.
10
This is another parting shot from the racist Republicans, denying the President his Constitutional responsibility to nominate a candidate for the Court. These right wing Representatives want to slam Obama one more time, even if it means they are failing to do their duty as Congress.
3
Thank you, Vice President Biden.
2
Well, thank God Joe Biden got back from his gratuitous appearance at the Academy Awards on behalf of battered women and the like (an appearance totally unsupported by any pressing need for his immediate involvement in it, especially since the Issue of the Night was perceived racism and not perceived battery) to write up this nonsense that only a paper like the New York Times would print alongside his decades' old speeches in favor of delaying presidential Supreme Court nominations until after the current presidential election has been held. You can write what you want, Joe, but your excuse back then, that the country was so divided that a nominee could not get a fair and balanced hearing, would seem to be even more so today - has Washington ever been more divided than right now? - except that now the president making the nomination is a Democrat and not a Republican. But, of course, Mr. Obama is so much greater a president than was Mr. Reagan or G.W.H. Bush, and certainly non-partisan, isn't he? Mr. Biden has a long history of putting his foot in his mouth (or, in this case, his keyboard), but it is surprising to see him aided and abetted by a New York Times that can't seem to note the preposterous difference in the position he took back then and the one he takes now.
3
This man, Biden, has some kind of nerve! He should lecture us? The REAL Joe Biden is hateful, vindictive and arrogant - it was he along w Kennedy and Leahy - mercilessly attacked Justices Bork and Clark in the 1980's during televised confirmation hearings. He openly mocked these fine men, he insulted them, he demeaned them, he dehumanized them, he sneered and preened. Robert Bork and William Clark were brilliant jurists, outstandingly decent and humble men - their families sat in those hearings and never forgot Biden and his hate squad. Biden was out to not only quash the nomination but to crush the man. History has and will continue to judge, and Joe Biden will find fewer places to hide from his shameful past and his lowly character.
4
The senate. Most are incompetent humans who worship the dollar and complete failures as leaders.
1
Give me a break,please!Biden is on video years ago proclaiming Bush should not nominate a SCOTUS Justice during his last year.And now Biden wants the Repubs to allow it from Obama.What a double standard.This Biden reversal is a prime example why Trump is so popular with voters.You just cannot trust any career politician regardless of party affiliation.
5
Please, the nomination is to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, not Scalia's seat!!! Banish that line of thought from everything you publish.
1
Biden, although a very likable guy, is a politician though-and-through and, as such, also a complete hypocrite. He and Obama know a thing or two about obstructing this process.
Nice try, though. Only those who want to close their eyes to the democrats' hypocrisy and believe this is "unprecedented" will be buying it.
If anything, this is pure politics. Obama gives as good as he gets. Payback is exactly what they say it is.
Nice try, though. Only those who want to close their eyes to the democrats' hypocrisy and believe this is "unprecedented" will be buying it.
If anything, this is pure politics. Obama gives as good as he gets. Payback is exactly what they say it is.
3
Please -- we do not need a supreme court justice to "succeed" Antonin Scalia. We need one to replace him.
Both political parties have turned the Supreme Court justice nomination and confirmation process into a partisan charade. Since law is gender, race, color, ethnic, sectarian, socioeconomic political history that is inevitable. The law is not logical nor objective nor just nor moral nor fair nor humane nor empathetic nor scientific. be very wary of what has been and still legal in America. The English language common law tradition as refined and defined by American political, cultural and language history.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's all."
From "Through the Looking Glass" Lewis Carroll
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's all."
From "Through the Looking Glass" Lewis Carroll
1
The Senate doesn't have to do anything until President Trump
wants to make an appointment.
That's what the US Constitution says....
wants to make an appointment.
That's what the US Constitution says....
3
This article is emblematic of why people are so angry at politics and politicians. Mr. Biden is scrambling to renounce his own clearly worded position, or, worse, have us believe that what we believe his previous position to be - what he actually said, of course - is not what he meant. If you changed your mind, Mr. Biden, fine, just say that. But please don't condescend to us and pretend that what you said is not actually what you meant. Prevarication, beguilement, and obfuscation are agitating to voters and embarrassing to you. It does no service to democracy or the Obama administration.
3
Mr. Vice President, you've been said to relish haggling with your colleagues, unlike your boss who doesn't care for that aspect of the job. But with you it was always just politics, never personal. The climate now has clearly gone to an entirely far more toxic level.
1
The parsing of meaning here is excruciating -- sort of like debating what the meaning of "is" is. Still, the President should exactly follow his Vice President's advice: "I [call] on the president to wait until after the election to submit a nomination."
3
Perhaps we need to impeach these senators that refuse to carry out the constitution.
3
Thank you Mr. Biden for reminding GOP Senators of their sworn duty to serve the country and to earn their not-so minimum wage.
But Mr. Biden, The GOP Senators don’t care one iota about doing their job, the Constitution, the country, or the real issues that need to be adjudicated to avoid wrecking havoc on the lives of some many of their fellow citizens. You see, they believe they were elected to serve the indecent and self-serving PACS who placed them in office. Your eloquent and persuasive call to duty will be lost on them.
What's more, way too many of the GOP Senators constituents do not even know what the Supreme really does anyway. So they don’t care either. And for those who may have a slight inkling, they are too distracted and enthralled right now by the 24/7 Reality TV show that is bringing authoritarianism to the US for the first time in its history.
But Mr. Biden, The GOP Senators don’t care one iota about doing their job, the Constitution, the country, or the real issues that need to be adjudicated to avoid wrecking havoc on the lives of some many of their fellow citizens. You see, they believe they were elected to serve the indecent and self-serving PACS who placed them in office. Your eloquent and persuasive call to duty will be lost on them.
What's more, way too many of the GOP Senators constituents do not even know what the Supreme really does anyway. So they don’t care either. And for those who may have a slight inkling, they are too distracted and enthralled right now by the 24/7 Reality TV show that is bringing authoritarianism to the US for the first time in its history.
3
With an ignoramus like Trump running for the presidency, nothing astonishes me anymore. From Day One, Mitch McConnell declared that Republicans in Congress would not work with President Obama. That was astonishing at the time, but McConnell kept his word. Now, he refuses to allow his fellow Republicans in Congress to consider a nominee to the Supreme Court. That's not astonishing; it's par for the course for a stuffed-shirt do-nothing like McConnell.
3
Do as I say now, not what I said then...because it works for us now.
3
It is a very sad reflection on the state of governance in the USA that such an editorial should even be necessary.
36
What Joe Biden doesn't tell you is how he shamelessly blocked Appellate nominees as detailed in the Washington Post. There is nothing in the Constitution that dictates how nominees are to be handled, on that the Senate can advise and consent. How the Senate handles that process is entirely up to the Senate and can include not acting on a nominee.
3
Too late, Mr. Vice President. You said what you said. And it sticks. Your re-do today is exactly what voters despise - saying what is expedient at the time and then if it doesn't fit the scenario later, taking it back.
3
It would make no sense for the GOP to consider a liberal nominee to the Court when there is a chance small as it may be that they may be in the White House next January.
The Court can function with eight Justices and on very contentious issues where one vote counts it likely would be better to await the judgement of the people in November.
The Court can function with eight Justices and on very contentious issues where one vote counts it likely would be better to await the judgement of the people in November.
3
If and when Obama steps away from ESPN and actually nominates someone, then, and only then, can the Senate schedule hearings to fulfil their advise and consent obligations.
Until Obama does something, there is nothing to blame the Senate for and all other discussions are moot.
Until Obama does something, there is nothing to blame the Senate for and all other discussions are moot.
2
As well meaning as the Vice President's comments are, there is only one person who might make a difference: Chief Justice John Roberts. Might his respect for the Court exceed his political interest in the matter, leading him to come out to say just what Mr. Biden has said here?
1
not good enough, vp biden's "fear of acrimony"...the same could be said today, he was wrong then and the republicants are wrong now.
2
Joe, they are just following your lead.
2
Is it any coincident that the Republican Party has gone full-bore bonkers since Scalia's death?
Why has his death thrown them into shrieking, hair-ripping chaos?
I don't think it's a coincidence, Joe.
Was Scalia truly the only thing that the Republicans utterly and absolutely needed to further their ends of turning this country over to the 1%ers and, now that he's gone, they fear that all their carefully structured framework will go down the tube? No more ALEC, no more voter impediments, no more think tanks, no Citizens United, no more war on women, no more slave wages, no more Hobby Lobbys....?
I'm seeing true panic on the right and the only thing that has really changed is that Scalia died.
Coincidence?
I don't think so.
Why has his death thrown them into shrieking, hair-ripping chaos?
I don't think it's a coincidence, Joe.
Was Scalia truly the only thing that the Republicans utterly and absolutely needed to further their ends of turning this country over to the 1%ers and, now that he's gone, they fear that all their carefully structured framework will go down the tube? No more ALEC, no more voter impediments, no more think tanks, no Citizens United, no more war on women, no more slave wages, no more Hobby Lobbys....?
I'm seeing true panic on the right and the only thing that has really changed is that Scalia died.
Coincidence?
I don't think so.
2
The senate must consider the Presidents court nomine, give the nomine a hearing and then Bok the nomine.
2
Folks take advantage of weakness.
If we had in the White House someone with ANY skills of persuasion and leadership, the story would be very different.
We chose to ignore the fact that BO has neither of these capabilities, hence the stalemate.
If we had in the White House someone with ANY skills of persuasion and leadership, the story would be very different.
We chose to ignore the fact that BO has neither of these capabilities, hence the stalemate.
2
Joe is polishing his post politics stand up routine?
1
Thank you, Joe.
Even though Breitbart and Rush Limbaugh tell you those things happened, in fact none of them did. You would be able to see that for yourself were you to grasp the significance of the fact that you don't know the answer to any of the following three questions: 1) WHEN exactly are the "years" in which Reid did not move forward "any legislation"? 2) How does one "boycott" a Supreme Court nomination? 3) When did Schumer make this vow? What were his exact words? You don't know, because you only know what your preferred propaganda sites told you, duly reproduced in your comment.
Will all of you legal experts out there please figure out a way to withhold the pay of Senators who are refusing to carry out their sworn duties? They are clearly committed to their cause. A few missed paychecks would be a small price to pay for standing by their "principles."
3
I wish Joe Biden would have run for President. He's the level-headed person who would capture the lower and middle classes with his long experience in the Senate. I would vote for him in a minute ahead of all the current crowd of wannabe's.
1
If the party affiliations were reversed, a Democrat controlled Senate would never confirm a Republican President's Supreme Court nominee at this stage in the election cycle.
The hypocrisy of those who claim different is monumental.
The hypocrisy of those who claim different is monumental.
4
Oh Joe, do you take us for fools? Now that the circumstances have changed, you want to tell us we didn't hear what we plainly heard? Are we supposed to believe you, or our lying eyes and ears? The tape doesn't lie, you clearly threatened to stall the nomination process, based on politics. Just because you didn't have the opportunity, doesn't mean the petty intention was lacking. Now you're parsing your very direct statement, by telling us it was a matter of timing? The only thing that's changed is that the political parties in charge have swapped. Fools might buy your revisionism, but we regular Americans already know your penchant for prevarication.
3
Good luck with getting the congress to do anything but obstruct president Obama.
21
So, should Mrs. Clinton win the election, are the Republican elites in the Senate going to demand that they will not even consider a Supreme Court nominee for four years? No meetings? No hearings? No votes?
Americans are getting sick of the Republican elites imperial attitude, it is why Mr. Trump is going to replace them,
Americans are getting sick of the Republican elites imperial attitude, it is why Mr. Trump is going to replace them,
I'm quite sure that duty to his country does not factor into any of Mitch McConnell's calculations.
2
It would be an astonishing act of obstructionism, and yet it would be no surprise at all.
My dream scenario is for Obama to nominate a moderate to the bench, McConnell and his cronies follow through on their pledge not to give the President's nominee a hearing, Clinton beats Trump in the general election, Trump's obscene campaign causes enough down ticket unrest that the Rs to lose control of the Senate, and Clinton nominates and seats the most fire breathing liberal jurist that the country has ever seen.
Reap the whirlwind, Mitch!
My dream scenario is for Obama to nominate a moderate to the bench, McConnell and his cronies follow through on their pledge not to give the President's nominee a hearing, Clinton beats Trump in the general election, Trump's obscene campaign causes enough down ticket unrest that the Rs to lose control of the Senate, and Clinton nominates and seats the most fire breathing liberal jurist that the country has ever seen.
Reap the whirlwind, Mitch!
1
Oh, Joe.
You of a heart so big - a heart acknowledged by both sides of the aisle even in these days of unprecedented rancor - a love of the Senate and the Constitution and America which rivals the love for your son which kept you from seeking the personal gain which was yours for the taking in the hearts and minds of many Americans.
Thank you for speaking out.
The problem is you are speaking in terms and words of the dreaded nuance, the upper grades in thought and ideas and logic when your opponents are stuck - literally - in the 3rd grade.
I'm with ya. So are so many others. You are the salt of the earth, a man with not a whisper of scandal in life of service and family well lived - could that we pack the Senate and the Court with men and women of your caliber we could actually -
"Make America Great Again"
Joe Biden and Donald Trump in the same breath? On the same stage?
Which is the measure of a man?
You of a heart so big - a heart acknowledged by both sides of the aisle even in these days of unprecedented rancor - a love of the Senate and the Constitution and America which rivals the love for your son which kept you from seeking the personal gain which was yours for the taking in the hearts and minds of many Americans.
Thank you for speaking out.
The problem is you are speaking in terms and words of the dreaded nuance, the upper grades in thought and ideas and logic when your opponents are stuck - literally - in the 3rd grade.
I'm with ya. So are so many others. You are the salt of the earth, a man with not a whisper of scandal in life of service and family well lived - could that we pack the Senate and the Court with men and women of your caliber we could actually -
"Make America Great Again"
Joe Biden and Donald Trump in the same breath? On the same stage?
Which is the measure of a man?
2
On one side, we have reasonable adults like VP Biden trying to fulfill their obligations to the American people.
On the other side, we have hate-filled obstructionism from a endless array of rivh cranky old white guys....McConnell, Boehner, Cantor, Rubio, Cruz, ......Trump.
Time to close down the Republican Party. It's utterly useless and unrecognizable as the party of Lincoln.
On the other side, we have hate-filled obstructionism from a endless array of rivh cranky old white guys....McConnell, Boehner, Cantor, Rubio, Cruz, ......Trump.
Time to close down the Republican Party. It's utterly useless and unrecognizable as the party of Lincoln.
1
Republican "leaders" have played these games with the Constitution and the country for the last seven years, then are shocked and awed that Donald Trump is running away with their party's presidential nomination. He's not an anomaly - Trump represents their party's self-indulgent priorities to a T.
2
Could the actions of the Republican Senators be considered treasonous:
a betrayal of country -- a violation of the allegiance owed by somebody to his or her own country?
a betrayal of country -- a violation of the allegiance owed by somebody to his or her own country?
1
1992--Democat controlled Senate should not consider Supreme Court nominee selected by Republican president.
2016--Republican controlled Senate duty bound to consider nominee by Democrat president.
Anyone wonder why so many people supporting Trump?
2016--Republican controlled Senate duty bound to consider nominee by Democrat president.
Anyone wonder why so many people supporting Trump?
5
Why not put this before the remaining 8 supremes and see how they take on the constitution of the US?
It would be very telling if even the Supreme Court believes the president who was elected 2 times both in landslides by the people, and who will be in office until Jan 20, 2017 is ineligible to nominate a replacement for a recent vacancy.
It would be very telling if even the Supreme Court believes the president who was elected 2 times both in landslides by the people, and who will be in office until Jan 20, 2017 is ineligible to nominate a replacement for a recent vacancy.
3
Eloquent;
Correct;
Politically Correct;
But most important; What Biden says in in accordance with the Preamble to our Constitution. What the other side is saying is just plain... well ...un-Constitutionional in both spirit and deed.
To me that makes those who obstruct the intended process un-American.
That is what the GOP has become with its Walls, its hate, its petty bickering, its name calling and its to obstruction of a President for reasons best left unsaid.
Correct;
Politically Correct;
But most important; What Biden says in in accordance with the Preamble to our Constitution. What the other side is saying is just plain... well ...un-Constitutionional in both spirit and deed.
To me that makes those who obstruct the intended process un-American.
That is what the GOP has become with its Walls, its hate, its petty bickering, its name calling and its to obstruction of a President for reasons best left unsaid.
1
As much as Biden wishes to dress it up, his comments clearly indicate that he would not have considered a nominee by a Republican President in the same circumstances. Having said that, perhaps the Republicans should reconsider their position in light of the super Tuesday results.
3
I think we are going at this in the wrong way. We should focus on the cost dollar wise that the Republicans have wasted not just in this instance but all appointments to the bench. These appointments when not filled cost the tax payer money and that is what we should be telling the tax payer. Maybe just maybe that would put an end to this debate and all others.
Give me a dollar figure 2 billion, 3 billion or 1000 dollars per judgeship a day. in delays.
Give me a dollar figure 2 billion, 3 billion or 1000 dollars per judgeship a day. in delays.
Another flip by a politician and his pretend explanation. Of course the readers of this paper will believe the lie. He's a lying democrat.
5
Mimi for President!
This is hilarious! The same person who advocated down Ng exactly this to a Republican President doesn't like a dose of his own medicine. The bottom line is that the Senate is well within their constitutional right to not consider any Obama nominee!
3
The logical conclusion to Sen. McConnell's position is that a President's term is only 3 years. Taking this reasoning a step further, Senators would have only 5 years, and Representatives only a single year. Is that what the Constitution provides? Not the last time I looked at it.
Sorry, Joe, you're being hypocritical on this one. Go consult your own 1992 speech on the floor of the Senate. And you presided over some of the most repulsively partisan smear-fests in judicial history.
5
When Trump becomes the GOP nominee, Mitch McConnell may have a change of heart. President Obama's nominee may look more appealing than a President Hillary Clinton nominee and a new Senate with more Democrats.
Joe, they are considering it, but not in the way you want. Please, Joe, check your statements on the matter you made in the 90's, or would that be a typical politicians double standard?
3
Blah blah blah, Mr. Biden. We're still waiting for Mr. Obama to actually propose a nominee. Nominate someone now and make the Republican obstructionists answer to the Nation, not your letter.
2
At their core, the current GOP Senators are cowards. They refuse to do their jobs, as required by the Constitution.
3
Not only is he stupid, he's dishonest as well.
3
Censure, sue or impeach those who announce that they will not do their jobs. There is nothing wrong with suggesting delay or suggesting candidates for the Supreme Court, but to specifically state that you will not do your job and your constitutional obligations. That is disrespectful and I hope very illegal.
Recent polls show that 66 percent of Americans want the Senate to hold hearings on a Supreme Court nominee while President Obama is still in office. Enough with the Republican lie that they are delaying until after a new president takes office "so the American people can be heard". The American people want the U.S. Senate to #DoYourJob.
32
Joe, I was a young intern working across the hall from your Russell Senate office when John Paul Stevens was nominated by an unelected President, Gerald Ford, on November 28th, two weeks after William O. Douglas resigned after his stroke. James Eastland was the Chairman. Mike Mansfield was The Majority Leader and the Democrats controlled the Senate 60-38-2. You will recall Mondale reduced the cloture vote from 67 to 60 earlier that same year.
The Democrats were firmly in charge. Yet they moved quickly in an "election year" as Carter was an announced candidate, to fulfill the vacancy. Voting to confirm on December 19th.
McConnell continues to destroy the integrity of that august body. How does one reconcile this history against McConnell's position of "let the people vote" for the right select the nominee. By this logic Gerald Ford should never have been granted the right to nominate John Paul Stevens!
Does that mean all cases involving John Paul Stevens are tainted?
Back in Michigan, our good friend Phil Hart is spinning in his grave.
God Speed Mr. Vice President.
The Democrats were firmly in charge. Yet they moved quickly in an "election year" as Carter was an announced candidate, to fulfill the vacancy. Voting to confirm on December 19th.
McConnell continues to destroy the integrity of that august body. How does one reconcile this history against McConnell's position of "let the people vote" for the right select the nominee. By this logic Gerald Ford should never have been granted the right to nominate John Paul Stevens!
Does that mean all cases involving John Paul Stevens are tainted?
Back in Michigan, our good friend Phil Hart is spinning in his grave.
God Speed Mr. Vice President.
36
Thank you, Mr. Vice President, for your words of wisdom and for reminding the Senate of the immense responsibility they have to serve our country, not their party. Your rational, compelling argument supported by the Constitution is a breath of fresh air given the current political circus. The reason I so desperately hoped that you would run for President is that I believed that you were the only candidate who might possibly end the destructive and dangerous divisiveness in our country and bring us back together. You reminded me of what the Senate used to be, a body of gentlemen and women who governed out of a sense of duty to their country with a willingness to compromise in order to move the country forward.
1
an "obligation" is something more than a "duty" or a "responsibility".
not fulfilling an obligation is an offence to, a violation of, the constitution
i.e. the Senate cannot choose not to fulfil an obligation, at least not democratically. it is the same as a coup.
that is what one calls rule of law: institutions themselves must abide by that rule
not fulfilling an obligation is an offence to, a violation of, the constitution
i.e. the Senate cannot choose not to fulfil an obligation, at least not democratically. it is the same as a coup.
that is what one calls rule of law: institutions themselves must abide by that rule
1
Spin Biden, spin.
It's easy after 20+ years to restate what you said so as to make it sound like you were not obstructing anything. When in fact you were delivering a speech, intentionally, telling the President what he should not do.
Pathetic.
It's easy after 20+ years to restate what you said so as to make it sound like you were not obstructing anything. When in fact you were delivering a speech, intentionally, telling the President what he should not do.
Pathetic.
4
are these the words of joe biden or of someone else (the v.p. has a tendency to expropriate the words of other people)?
2
In addition to the matter being argued on both sides, several unintended consequences are subtly emerging from VP Biden's statements then and now:
1. Hypothetical issues do one day emerge as "reality", so unless a person, which in this case being the major political figure VP Biden, takes a particular stance on a procedural Constitution issue, the circumstances of the day does not change the institution's manner to hold such procedures, like it or not, since this is not a matter of subjective opinion.
2. If the 2nd in command and one of the eldest (but perhaps not the wisest) statesperson of a political party continues to argue this point, how much assurance are they placing on Hillary to carry the torch? Seems to be not much...
1. Hypothetical issues do one day emerge as "reality", so unless a person, which in this case being the major political figure VP Biden, takes a particular stance on a procedural Constitution issue, the circumstances of the day does not change the institution's manner to hold such procedures, like it or not, since this is not a matter of subjective opinion.
2. If the 2nd in command and one of the eldest (but perhaps not the wisest) statesperson of a political party continues to argue this point, how much assurance are they placing on Hillary to carry the torch? Seems to be not much...
3
I think it is this inaction of Congress, whether denying new judges or ambassadors or passing bills is what gives Trump the power to attract people who want somebody that will get things moving. (Not saying Trump could really do anything.) Why Obama could not get this country to stop behaving like a couple of opposing fraternities or football teams, I don't know. But it has driven me to the point of not wanting to vote anymore if Bernie Sanders doesn't make it. But then the party of haters of people not like them would like that. Oh, what to do.
1
The appointments of Roberts and Alito were clear signs that the Republicans expected the Supreme Court to be a political body, their judicial arm, the last resort for enforcement of their unpopular agenda. The behavior of the Republican Senate now that Scalia has left the scene is confirmation. The GOP and their billionaire and corporate owners cannot afford to allow the Supreme Court to slip from their grasp. Without control of the Court how will they steal elections, suppress voters, destroy the climate and deport immigrants? I have said in many forums, all decisions of the Roberts Court are based on two and only two things 1) What is in the best sort term interests of the GOP? and 2) What is in the best long term interest of the .001%? Loss of a conservative majority on the Court would imperil both.....and cannot be allowed.
1
First Madeline Albright. Now Joe Biden.
The New York Times seems to be the safe-haven of choice for liberals to repeat and essentially repeat transparently proposterous statements under the guise of an apology or clarification.
The New York Times seems to be the safe-haven of choice for liberals to repeat and essentially repeat transparently proposterous statements under the guise of an apology or clarification.
4
Were you really that surprised Vice President Biden? I mean...Donald Trump is winning the Republican primary and will likely be the Republican nominee, even(!) after using valuable debate time to reassure American voters about the size of his "hands."
I'm pretty sure reasonableness, responsibility, and reality went out the window a long time ago.
I'm pretty sure reasonableness, responsibility, and reality went out the window a long time ago.
1
Why go only half-way down the road to absurdity?
"The Senate must not only consider President Obama's appointee they must CONFIRM the person."
"The Senate must not only consider President Obama's appointee they must CONFIRM the person."
Mr Biden
With all due respect between June 2001 and January 2003 your Democratically controlled Senate Judiciary Committee blocked 32 appellate cour nominees. They didn't even get a hearing.
And what about John Roberts? Wasn't the Senate's duty to vet him for Associate Justice? Did he appear before the committee? And didn't Bush withdraw his nomination? When did your party fulfill it's duty with Roberts? Harriet Meiers? Did your committee due it's duty with her?
Interesting that before 2003 there was only 1 Supreme Court nomination blocked and that was Abe Fortas? And that was a bipartisan effort.
And isn't it also interesting that you were one of the 25 Democratic that voted to block Alito? So when you voted to do this was it part of the "advice and consent" protocol your party followed? Was filibustering Alito and blocking Roberts and Meiers you doing your job, or just plain partisan poltics.
Finally, can you please comment on the following comment by Harrry Reid
"The duties of the Senate are set forth in the US Constitution. NOWHERE in that document does it say that the Senate has a duty to give Presidential appointees a vote. It says appointments shall be made by advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different different than saying every nominee receives a vote."
Senate Republicans are only following the example your party made with Roberts. Alito, Estrada, Meiers. Your party cast the dye, now you have to live with what your party did.
With all due respect between June 2001 and January 2003 your Democratically controlled Senate Judiciary Committee blocked 32 appellate cour nominees. They didn't even get a hearing.
And what about John Roberts? Wasn't the Senate's duty to vet him for Associate Justice? Did he appear before the committee? And didn't Bush withdraw his nomination? When did your party fulfill it's duty with Roberts? Harriet Meiers? Did your committee due it's duty with her?
Interesting that before 2003 there was only 1 Supreme Court nomination blocked and that was Abe Fortas? And that was a bipartisan effort.
And isn't it also interesting that you were one of the 25 Democratic that voted to block Alito? So when you voted to do this was it part of the "advice and consent" protocol your party followed? Was filibustering Alito and blocking Roberts and Meiers you doing your job, or just plain partisan poltics.
Finally, can you please comment on the following comment by Harrry Reid
"The duties of the Senate are set forth in the US Constitution. NOWHERE in that document does it say that the Senate has a duty to give Presidential appointees a vote. It says appointments shall be made by advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different different than saying every nominee receives a vote."
Senate Republicans are only following the example your party made with Roberts. Alito, Estrada, Meiers. Your party cast the dye, now you have to live with what your party did.
3
Can we all get REAL here, for just a moment?
Whoever gets elected in November will pick the nominee. Period. If that's Hillary, so be it. If it's Trump, or some other Republican, so be it. Either way, that's how it's going to be.
And that's exactly how it would be if the tables were turned. Is there really anyone out there who thinks a Democratic-controlled Senate would hold hearings and approve some nominee presented by a Republican president right now? Seriously? That's flatly contrary to how the Democrats have behaved in the past, and I have utterly no doubt they'd do exactly the same thing this time if the tables were turned.
Biden's op-ed was perhaps the most predictable article I have seen in the Times in quite some time. I give the Times credit for including a link to Biden's actual 1992 speech. A reader can read that speech and make his or her own decision on whether Biden's explanation, today, of what he said back then is persuasive.
Whoever gets elected in November will pick the nominee. Period. If that's Hillary, so be it. If it's Trump, or some other Republican, so be it. Either way, that's how it's going to be.
And that's exactly how it would be if the tables were turned. Is there really anyone out there who thinks a Democratic-controlled Senate would hold hearings and approve some nominee presented by a Republican president right now? Seriously? That's flatly contrary to how the Democrats have behaved in the past, and I have utterly no doubt they'd do exactly the same thing this time if the tables were turned.
Biden's op-ed was perhaps the most predictable article I have seen in the Times in quite some time. I give the Times credit for including a link to Biden's actual 1992 speech. A reader can read that speech and make his or her own decision on whether Biden's explanation, today, of what he said back then is persuasive.
3
And yet they still can't understand how Trump came to be their leader..
2
Biden:
Thank you for the well-written opinion piece. You summed up the situation perfectly.
Thank you for the well-written opinion piece. You summed up the situation perfectly.
1
Is there a case for dismissal of a politician that deliberately refuses to perform their duty? With the way the Republicans are behaving, I think it is time to levy that threat. This obstructionist mantra they have fashioned is a cancer on our society, and it reveals an underlying behavior that is not reflective of the OATH those Republicans took when they assumed their duties in public office.
1
Anything more predictable than this?
A Joe Biden op-ed on "I know what you THINK you saw on that C-Span video, but trust me: It wasn't that at all!"
Three truths here:
1. No nominee will be approved unless he or she is nominated by whomever is elected in November.
2. #1 would be true if the tables were turned.
3. #1 WAS true when the tables were turned in the past -- think Bork, Thomas, Alito, Biden on C-Span, Schumer in his 2007 remarks, and probably other examples we've yet to hear about.
Hypocrisy reigns supreme!
A Joe Biden op-ed on "I know what you THINK you saw on that C-Span video, but trust me: It wasn't that at all!"
Three truths here:
1. No nominee will be approved unless he or she is nominated by whomever is elected in November.
2. #1 would be true if the tables were turned.
3. #1 WAS true when the tables were turned in the past -- think Bork, Thomas, Alito, Biden on C-Span, Schumer in his 2007 remarks, and probably other examples we've yet to hear about.
Hypocrisy reigns supreme!
4
Because of the Republicans in the Senate, this issue has surpassed the election as the number one issue facing the nation. Clearly the Senate is abdicating its Constitutional responsibility in refusing to hold hearing on any possible nominee. The old black guy's talking now: this is clear evidence that the white racist GOP only follows rules when they are sure they is no black payout. They hate the black guy in the White House so much that their oaths mean nothing to them and nothing to the white racist people who follow them. If I were to bet, i would bet Obama's pick won't get a hearing. They hate him so much, they don't care about any oaths they swore on Bibles and they don't care about the Constitution...and their racist followers will enable them in getting away with it.
1
VP Biden - In light of your comments, perhaps you could explain to us why Sen. Schumer's or Sen. Obama's actions in prior years to block consideration of nominees for the Court, somehow don't apply now? Also, the Constitution does not require or even mention any time frame for the Senate to consider giving their consent to a nominee - nowhere does it put a timeframe on "duty". Your comments seem clearly designed for political purposes.
2
Senate Republicans should seriously consider negotiating with President Obama for a moderate jurist for the Supreme Court lest they be saddled with less than stunning nominees from Trump, Clinton or Sanders.
Ah Joe. You know what they say...hope springs eternal...
However, according to my magic 8 ball, "outlook not so good"
However, according to my magic 8 ball, "outlook not so good"
While I appreciate VP Biden's attempts to bring some sanity to the Republican senators' refusals to consider any Supreme Court nominee, I just cannot read his words without recalling his despicable handling of Anita Hill which resulted in confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas. Biden was the right man in the right place at the right time then and blew it. So his defense of his 1992 speech just loses so much gravitas for me.
2
I can see no break in the Republican's stated goal to refuse to hold hearings on the President's lawful duty to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice. My question is what can be done about it? What is the next step to counter this obstructionism? Are there no consequences for this behavior? All I hear is talk. What is anyone going to do about it?
1
If the Republicans decline to hold an official committee hearing on the nominee, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee should conduct a full-scale "hearing" in Washington on Capitol Hill. Certainly invite all of the committee Republicans.
This would give the American people a chance to judge the nominee and let the Republicans bask in their obstructionism.
This would give the American people a chance to judge the nominee and let the Republicans bask in their obstructionism.
You are absolutely right. Even though I am of the opposite
political party, I agree with with. If this does not happen,
I may even switch my party , and not vote for Trump>\
Who would he put forward?
political party, I agree with with. If this does not happen,
I may even switch my party , and not vote for Trump>\
Who would he put forward?
1
Vice President Biden,
Fellow citizen here. Why are you wasting your time?
3-4-16@1:26 am
Fellow citizen here. Why are you wasting your time?
3-4-16@1:26 am
1
They are acting like you were 9 years ago--have you forgotten ? Or has your disdain for the people become so great that you can not even address it in your op Ed?
3
Mr. Biden - you should have just let it go.
Now you sound like a fast-talking, untrustworthy politician.
Now you sound like a fast-talking, untrustworthy politician.
4
Vice President Biden has forgotten the counsel of Senator Biden, as well as the intention of Senator Obama.
If the shoe fits.
If the shoe fits.
3
News flash: Senate Republicans are obstructionists who are hopelessly delusional and Vice President Biden rambles on.
1
"It would be an astonishing act of obstruction for Senate Republicans to not consider Obama’s nominee ..."
Sadly, merely the latest of many such acts.
A real Constitutional crisis when the Congress has ceased to function, as it has. In such a climate, demagogues might flourish--oh wait, a minute...
Sadly, merely the latest of many such acts.
A real Constitutional crisis when the Congress has ceased to function, as it has. In such a climate, demagogues might flourish--oh wait, a minute...
3
What a nonsense, backtracking, revisionist view of his 1992 speech.
4
What a convenient reinterpretation of your 1992 speech, Joe! I guess Biden rules are in effect here!
4
Translation: When I threatened to not hold hearings on a Bush nominee during an election year, it was entirely different. He was a Republican. The rules are different for Republicans.
5
The obstructionist Senators have created the Donald Trump for President movement. The people these politicians are supposed to represent are furious. This madness has to stop.
1
I appreciate your remarks Vice President Biden. Your long record as a Senator speaks for itself. It goes without saying you remain loyal to a body you have spent most of your life in governing. No one is perfect, no human can be, and that includes yourself, Mr. Vice President. But throughout your career, you have exemplified attempting to do your level best, and despite mistakes on both sides of the aisle, one can only hope your words inspire your former colleagues to properly serve the American people.
One hopes that the Senate heeds your appeal to do due diligence. But I wouldn't count on it. Republicans currently have their hands full with the fiasco occurring within the battles raging with a fury not seen in eons among their presidential candidates. And yet Republicans want to double down again. They now want to take on President Obama once again, to do everything possible to obstruct the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice before the president's term ends.
Republicans should wake up and smell the fire and brimstone smouldering and about to blow sky high. Instead, the Senate GOP seems hellbent on taking their party down the road to perdition no matter what you suggest, Mr. Vice President.
Maybe the collapse this Fall of their party will wake them up. But I wouldn't take any bets on that occurring.
DD
Manhattan
One hopes that the Senate heeds your appeal to do due diligence. But I wouldn't count on it. Republicans currently have their hands full with the fiasco occurring within the battles raging with a fury not seen in eons among their presidential candidates. And yet Republicans want to double down again. They now want to take on President Obama once again, to do everything possible to obstruct the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice before the president's term ends.
Republicans should wake up and smell the fire and brimstone smouldering and about to blow sky high. Instead, the Senate GOP seems hellbent on taking their party down the road to perdition no matter what you suggest, Mr. Vice President.
Maybe the collapse this Fall of their party will wake them up. But I wouldn't take any bets on that occurring.
DD
Manhattan
3
Joe Biden asks' If they, the Republican Senators, love the Senate as much as I do. . . Well they don't. They have proven that they love only their own political ambitions and have only the desire to destroy the institution they are pledged to serve and through that ignore the Constitution and will of the people.
There silent obstruction is perhaps even mor damaging than the thoughtless hysterics of their candidate for president Donald Trump. It is the desperate act of Senators who are watching their Party implode and do not have a clue as to why or their own complicity over the past 8 years as the party representing nothing, the party of NO.
Good that Mr. Biden has spoken out, but I am sure that the words will just bounce off the wall that his colleagues have created, a wall Trump would be proud of not keeping out immigrants, but keeping out any sense of justice.
There silent obstruction is perhaps even mor damaging than the thoughtless hysterics of their candidate for president Donald Trump. It is the desperate act of Senators who are watching their Party implode and do not have a clue as to why or their own complicity over the past 8 years as the party representing nothing, the party of NO.
Good that Mr. Biden has spoken out, but I am sure that the words will just bounce off the wall that his colleagues have created, a wall Trump would be proud of not keeping out immigrants, but keeping out any sense of justice.
3
Right now Ronald Reagan must be looking down and cheering the Republican's day by day, month by month systematic destruction of the government he so loathed.
1
Even if the two situations are comparable, it still doesn't make it right. Obama and Biden know what they are doing, and that the Senate Republicans won't budge. They are smart to cover the bases. The Republicans have played their hand and committed themselves, even if they changed their minds, held a hearing and voted the nominee down. The paint is fresh and there's no way out of the corner. Let them feel the wrath in November.
2
According to the NYT in a previous article pointed to 1992 and Biden's statement that, "Senate refuse to confirm a nominee to the court until" after the upcoming election. In fact he called it "essential." I guess it depends on what his definition of "essential" is.
2
Your words in your Senate speech in 1992 belie your lame attempt to explain them.
So this op-ed officially makes Biden the most hypocritical politician in Washington D.C. That is saying a lot.
2
If the the Repubs think President Obama is a lame duck now. That they are utterly wrong about that has been pointed out before my many people. One more argument: if the President is a lame duck because we know that his term has a definite end, wouldn't any second term president be a lame duck the second he/she is sworn in? When does lame duckery begin? When grotesque Republican primaries are raging? Or do the worthies in the GOP claim it begins at the time a future African -American president is conceived in his mother's womb?
3
I didn't agree with Biden then and I don't agree with him now. Surely that is as consistent as this political editorial.
1
Life, politics, and almost anything else is a big chess game, not a sprint run to the finish. So, it actually maybe a good thing if the Republicans get this one and block (once again) the standard workings of the government. BUT THEN, the hope is that the American people choose wisely if "he or she" will be the next President and next Senators. Then (I know wishful thinking...) the elected ones can appoint and confirm a Justice that can effectively stir the fate of our beloved Country toward a path of progress based on merit, not bullying or economic incentives.
In accordance with the Biden/Schumer Rule, there will be NO HEARING, NO VOTE and NO CONFIRMATION for Obama's nominee.
7
It's this cheapness of Republican makes us look weaker in the world and will make our future bleak.
United we stand, divided we fall.
United we stand, divided we fall.
2
Mr. Vice President,
I do not believe your appeal to those folks on the other side of the isle is going to work.
Time to play "Hard Ball"
We need as a nominee a Hispanic Female who hopefully has actually
1) Been elected to something - State Rep - County Commissioner, Mayor - Like Justice O'Connor
2) Attended some law school other than Yale or Harvard (Not that there is anything wrong with Harvard) Stanford, UC Berk, Virginia etc etc.
3) A Double Triple Bonus would be that the selected individual has also served as a Trial Judge.
4) Young (at least at heart) approx. 37-45 years old
5) Hey we live in a Media world - so it be nice if she was at least "semi hot" I know this part will send women and many others into low earth orbit with cries of sexism and such BUT hear me out... We've got to play Hardball here and this is about winning and that means we must have a "winner" and this is America!
In America unfortunate and wrong as it may be a women's looks are least 3/5 of her total qualifications...
The visuals just make for better TV.
Think Sarah Palin but with an actual brain!
Then lets go campaign for the 2016 Election and tell America that those "dirty old" white guy racists in the Senate won't even give this wonderful women, eminently qualified, who happens to be Hispanic a hearing.
I bet we can take the Senate as well as getting the Democratic nominee elected to the Presidency!
I do not believe your appeal to those folks on the other side of the isle is going to work.
Time to play "Hard Ball"
We need as a nominee a Hispanic Female who hopefully has actually
1) Been elected to something - State Rep - County Commissioner, Mayor - Like Justice O'Connor
2) Attended some law school other than Yale or Harvard (Not that there is anything wrong with Harvard) Stanford, UC Berk, Virginia etc etc.
3) A Double Triple Bonus would be that the selected individual has also served as a Trial Judge.
4) Young (at least at heart) approx. 37-45 years old
5) Hey we live in a Media world - so it be nice if she was at least "semi hot" I know this part will send women and many others into low earth orbit with cries of sexism and such BUT hear me out... We've got to play Hardball here and this is about winning and that means we must have a "winner" and this is America!
In America unfortunate and wrong as it may be a women's looks are least 3/5 of her total qualifications...
The visuals just make for better TV.
Think Sarah Palin but with an actual brain!
Then lets go campaign for the 2016 Election and tell America that those "dirty old" white guy racists in the Senate won't even give this wonderful women, eminently qualified, who happens to be Hispanic a hearing.
I bet we can take the Senate as well as getting the Democratic nominee elected to the Presidency!
1
Sorry joe. Not remotely convinced of your intentions. You are a complete phony.
I am looking forward to the release of your tax returns What's the over under on your donations to charity? $100?
Will the NYT be reaching out to shumer and have him attempt to recant his statements?
Same for Barry and his decision to filibuster Alito?
I am looking forward to the release of your tax returns What's the over under on your donations to charity? $100?
Will the NYT be reaching out to shumer and have him attempt to recant his statements?
Same for Barry and his decision to filibuster Alito?
5
President Obama should just proceed nominating a candidate in a few weeks and let the Republicans deal with it. Hopefully, whatever they do or refuse to do will be considered by the voters in November.
4
Thank you, Vice President Biden. I live in a blue state with two Democratic Senators, so complaining on Senator Grassley's website is probably futile. This is all infuriating and depressing, What it comes down to is disrespect for President Obama.
5
Mr. Vice President, they don't care and you and President Obama should have figured this out by now.
2
Really missing you out there Uncle Joe!
2
The Veep makes no mention of the Dem strategy to simply stonewall dozens of W nominees for the CoA. And there's no particular difference between judicial nominations. The Dems kept some seats open for 8 years. They have less than no standing to complain when the GOP acts precisely as they did.
That said, the GOP stands on much firmer ground. While the GOP objects to the appointment of politicians to courts, the left objects to the appointment of judges. Listen to HRC's language, advocating for a "progressive" justice. That's a bald, POLITICAL term. If a "progressive" justice reads (or, more accurately, fails to read) the Constitution contrary to its text and history, he is not a judge, but a politician. We already have four politicians on the SCOTUS, whose votes NEVER deviate from the results the Democratic Party platform advocates. We can't afford an entire court composed of politicians who reject the notion that they are bound by the Constitution's language or, indeed, the idea that they can even know what that language actually means.
The left passionately hates judges, because judges refuse to impose leftist dogma from the bench. The GOP should do whatever it takes to prevent any more leftist politicians from taking judicial positions. No candidate who won't pledge to be bound by the text and original understanding of the document is competent to serve.
If BHO can find someone like that, he'll get every GOP vote. And the vote of not a single Democrat.
That said, the GOP stands on much firmer ground. While the GOP objects to the appointment of politicians to courts, the left objects to the appointment of judges. Listen to HRC's language, advocating for a "progressive" justice. That's a bald, POLITICAL term. If a "progressive" justice reads (or, more accurately, fails to read) the Constitution contrary to its text and history, he is not a judge, but a politician. We already have four politicians on the SCOTUS, whose votes NEVER deviate from the results the Democratic Party platform advocates. We can't afford an entire court composed of politicians who reject the notion that they are bound by the Constitution's language or, indeed, the idea that they can even know what that language actually means.
The left passionately hates judges, because judges refuse to impose leftist dogma from the bench. The GOP should do whatever it takes to prevent any more leftist politicians from taking judicial positions. No candidate who won't pledge to be bound by the text and original understanding of the document is competent to serve.
If BHO can find someone like that, he'll get every GOP vote. And the vote of not a single Democrat.
3
Enough already! When is President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden going to realize the GOP is not interested in leadership; not interest in doing the right thing; not interested in our United States Constitution: Not interested in anything- except negating the existence of a Democratically Elected African American Man as President of the United States of America?
5
Impeach them.
4
Well said. Lets hope cooler heads prevail and that our elected officials do the peoples business.
1
Joe is right of course, it is the duty of the Senate to advise and confirm the nominee. Republicans always bring up Bork - if you want to know some of the reasons behind the democrats being against him, do a google on Bork and the Saturday Night Massacre. That might show you the real side.
4
Good point. Had Bork refused orders, as the attorney general and the deputy attorney general did on that night, Nixon might have been forced from office within days instead of months, saving the nation a lot of agony.
1
Ignoring the rule of law while their authoritarian candidate continues to rise: The Republican Party in 2016 is both unconscionable and unrecognizable. It is sad -- and perilous -- for our nation when one of its political parties renounces its legal and moral footing. Historians may point to 2016 as the tipping point when the once mighty G.O.P. irrevocably descended into irresponsibility and fascism.
6
Unfortunately Mr McConnell and his ilk pine for the days of Antebellum plutocracy and never really believed in a democratic republic, unless they were the only ones allowed to vote in it.
So they will sit back, sip a mint julep, and do nothing like the lazy creatures they are.
So they will sit back, sip a mint julep, and do nothing like the lazy creatures they are.
7
Vice President Biden could not be more correct. The constitution is clear: The President shall nominate and the Senate shall provide advice and consent, unless the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee fears that such nomination could create immense political acrimony. It's right there in black and white for anyone to see. What's wrong with these people?
And it is equally obvious that had President Bush had occasion to submit a nominee to the Senate in the summer of 1992, the Democratic controlled Senate would have happily given such nominee a full and fair hearing after the 1992 election was complete, knowing a Democrat would soon occupy the White House, because obviously the failure to do so could have created an environment of immense political acrimony. No question about it.
And it is equally obvious that had President Bush had occasion to submit a nominee to the Senate in the summer of 1992, the Democratic controlled Senate would have happily given such nominee a full and fair hearing after the 1992 election was complete, knowing a Democrat would soon occupy the White House, because obviously the failure to do so could have created an environment of immense political acrimony. No question about it.
2
My intuition, frequently wrong, is that ANY senator who is willing to uphold his or her Constitutional oath, could "advise and consent' on President Obama's nomination without the approval of those senators who are in violation of their oath. In other words, I think the approval could come by those who are still willing to do it.
I could be wrong. It might have to go to the Supreme Court.
I could be wrong. It might have to go to the Supreme Court.
1
Your mistake is in assuming Republicans love either the Senate or the Constitution. They love only power and money. The Constitution is a fine enough thing only as long as they can use it to get what they truly love. When it conflicts with that, they have no use for it, and will ceed instead to things such as 'precedent' and 'custom'. When there is neither precedent or custom, they will 'make their own reality'. While those of us who respect the rule of law respond by saying "that isn't fair", they will go out and make an even more outrageous reality.
The only thing Republicans respect is the fear of losing their money and their power. Perhaps Mr Biden, you and the president can discuss options available to you via the Justice Dept or some other agency that can hold them accountable? Otherwise, your essays in the New York Times will fall on deaf ears.
The only thing Republicans respect is the fear of losing their money and their power. Perhaps Mr Biden, you and the president can discuss options available to you via the Justice Dept or some other agency that can hold them accountable? Otherwise, your essays in the New York Times will fall on deaf ears.
1
It's a nice pitch by Biden. But this isn't about the Constitution - which Obama has already stretched to the breaking point. In fact, there's a pretty clear conflict of interest when Obama is picking the Judge that in at least two cases (US v Texas and the Clean Power Plan) will rule on whether Obama has exceeded his authority.
No, this is pretty clearly about two things (a) balance of power on the Supreme Court and (b) the 2016 election. Since Reagan elevated Roberts 35 years ago, the Court has had a conservative majority. Liberals want to take the majority - a nomination that will far outlast Obama himself.
Secondly, it's about the 2016 election. Obama knows that his nominee for the Court is unlikely to get the needed 60 votes - since even Obama himself in the Alito nomination stated that Supreme Court Justices should require the 60 votes needed to overcome fillibusters. But Obama also knows that if he makes this a campaign issue, it will both inspire the liberal base and help to raise money for Hillary. And that's the reason why he wants hearings. He knows that the Republicans grilling a nominee (who is likely to be black or brown) will make for weeks of viral youtube videos. Without the hearings, it's tougher for Dems to make a video of an empty witness chair.
All this is understandable. Obama has every right to try to turn the Court liberal. But can we please stop pretending that this is about some high minded ideal. That's just hypocrisy.
No, this is pretty clearly about two things (a) balance of power on the Supreme Court and (b) the 2016 election. Since Reagan elevated Roberts 35 years ago, the Court has had a conservative majority. Liberals want to take the majority - a nomination that will far outlast Obama himself.
Secondly, it's about the 2016 election. Obama knows that his nominee for the Court is unlikely to get the needed 60 votes - since even Obama himself in the Alito nomination stated that Supreme Court Justices should require the 60 votes needed to overcome fillibusters. But Obama also knows that if he makes this a campaign issue, it will both inspire the liberal base and help to raise money for Hillary. And that's the reason why he wants hearings. He knows that the Republicans grilling a nominee (who is likely to be black or brown) will make for weeks of viral youtube videos. Without the hearings, it's tougher for Dems to make a video of an empty witness chair.
All this is understandable. Obama has every right to try to turn the Court liberal. But can we please stop pretending that this is about some high minded ideal. That's just hypocrisy.
3
Politicians have a hard time arguing that anything is about ideals because they twist and turn with the wind. Yet, that does not in itself rule out that ideals and principles are involved. Further, the idea that Congress should carry out its normal duties is not some weird, exalted concept. The system of lifetime appointments to the Court provides undue advantage to whichever side happens to be in the White House and the Republicans are more than happy when luck is on their side. If they want to turn down a nominee, they should do it in the normal way, by voting.
The Republicans have been seeking the nullification of both of Obama's election victories since the moment they occurred. They would have liked to have declared his presidency dead on arrival, now they see a chance to make his term dead near departure. This is serious business. It portends more disruption and continual conflict, more or less eternally as each party seeks advantage by calling the other out.
As for Obama's executive actions, he has little other choice to act on his own since Congress has made a game out of opposing everything legislatively. Otherwise, he could just go play golf most days and make a few speeches and the presidency, as an important office, would float away.
The Republicans have been seeking the nullification of both of Obama's election victories since the moment they occurred. They would have liked to have declared his presidency dead on arrival, now they see a chance to make his term dead near departure. This is serious business. It portends more disruption and continual conflict, more or less eternally as each party seeks advantage by calling the other out.
As for Obama's executive actions, he has little other choice to act on his own since Congress has made a game out of opposing everything legislatively. Otherwise, he could just go play golf most days and make a few speeches and the presidency, as an important office, would float away.
1
Clearly, President Obama wants to nominate a Supreme Court justice who is eminently qualified and acceptable widely. This candidate will be ignored or go down in flames as a result of McConnell's intransigence. What's holding up the process briefly is the agreement by future President-Elect Clinton to agree on this candidate, so she can re-nominate that person to a new Democratically-controlled Senate. Republicans will pay and pay for this error in judgement.
1
First Albright, now Biden. The NYT is fast becoming the go to place for Democrat subordinates who inadvertently happen to embarrass their bosses in public. It didn't work for Albright, sadly not for Biden either.
Responsibility to voters means not forcing a doomed, confrontational process on them at any cost, definitely not the voters cost. Not to mention certain public humiliation and ridicule. All because of unwillingness to accept stark political reality, instead going through the "say it ain't so" motions for an imagined higher moral purpose. Which already in progress as evidenced by some of the comments below.
Well, it is so, thank you for making that crystal clear GOP Senators. Which is why the Senate has already fulfilled its responsibility _to voters_ by advising the president against. What's left is for VP Biden to do his part as friend and counsel to the prez and give the president the advice in his and the country's best interest, which is to pull the switch asap.
What's to gain by not nominating? Everything. What's to lose? Almost everything, except for a small patch of imagined moral ground that says "my legacy: at least I tried".
Responsibility to voters means not forcing a doomed, confrontational process on them at any cost, definitely not the voters cost. Not to mention certain public humiliation and ridicule. All because of unwillingness to accept stark political reality, instead going through the "say it ain't so" motions for an imagined higher moral purpose. Which already in progress as evidenced by some of the comments below.
Well, it is so, thank you for making that crystal clear GOP Senators. Which is why the Senate has already fulfilled its responsibility _to voters_ by advising the president against. What's left is for VP Biden to do his part as friend and counsel to the prez and give the president the advice in his and the country's best interest, which is to pull the switch asap.
What's to gain by not nominating? Everything. What's to lose? Almost everything, except for a small patch of imagined moral ground that says "my legacy: at least I tried".
3
Elected officials have would should two distinct jobs. To serve they must be elected and once elected they should consider and vote policy issues. Today elections extend over a year and elected officials are always in election mode and never willing to consider policies.
2
Vice President Biden, your position is irrefutable. Surely, there are legal ramifications if elected officials conspire to be derelict in duty, as they have publicly announced. Whether or not there is a legal precedent, it should be carefully reviewed. To my mind, impeachment - in the least - is in order for those who refuse to honor the law and their legal responsibility as they have sworn to do as elected officials.
3
Yet another disingenuous call from the Left--for Obama to nominate, and the Senate to confirm. a disastrous left-wing Supreme Court Justice.
To all the Liberal readers here (95%), ask yourselves this question--and try to be honest: let's say the situation was reversed--that a Conservative president, in the waning months of his term, was presented with the opportunity to fundamentally alter the balance of power of the court to his advantage. What would Harry Reid have done--for that matter, Joe Biden? Answer: they would refuse to consider any nominee until after the election--hoping for a Democrat President.
Turn-about is fair play. Republicans, rightly or wrongly, will block any Obama nominee--exactly as Democrats would do to a Conservative. It's power politics--get over it. After all, no Liberals called for fairness when Democrats rammed the ACA down America's throat, by twisting its own parliamentary rules--and without a single Republican vote--and against the will of a great majority of our people.
What we do not need is another Supreme Court justice like Sotomayor, Ginsburg, or Kagan--who could not find a copy of the Constitution if it was tattooed on their backsides--who instead use their own progressive values to decide cases.
To all the Liberal readers here (95%), ask yourselves this question--and try to be honest: let's say the situation was reversed--that a Conservative president, in the waning months of his term, was presented with the opportunity to fundamentally alter the balance of power of the court to his advantage. What would Harry Reid have done--for that matter, Joe Biden? Answer: they would refuse to consider any nominee until after the election--hoping for a Democrat President.
Turn-about is fair play. Republicans, rightly or wrongly, will block any Obama nominee--exactly as Democrats would do to a Conservative. It's power politics--get over it. After all, no Liberals called for fairness when Democrats rammed the ACA down America's throat, by twisting its own parliamentary rules--and without a single Republican vote--and against the will of a great majority of our people.
What we do not need is another Supreme Court justice like Sotomayor, Ginsburg, or Kagan--who could not find a copy of the Constitution if it was tattooed on their backsides--who instead use their own progressive values to decide cases.
4
Apparently you didn't read the article you are commenting on. Mr Biden had a number of opportunities to pick up his marbles and pout. Instead he fulfilled the requirements of his job and the constitution probably to the detriment of those he represented and the country as a whole. The very act of obstructing the constitutional rights of this popularly elected president is the only thing politicizing this process.
1
There is no point in putting VP Biden's remarks in context for the Republicans, because they do not care about truth, only power. They will use whatever they can to appeal to the extremist base that they have created, regardless of facts. (How many of them truly do not believe in global warming?) I would not be surprise of the Republicans refuse to confirm any Justice during the term of Hillary Clinton. Their concern is not with governing or the Constitution, it is with giving power to their donor class by riling up their base for votes. So why should the Republicans allow the appointment of a Justice, in any President's term, who might not rule in favor of business interests or in favor of the social issues that rile up the base to keep them in power?
2
President Obama, Vice-President Biden:
I have no idea if you read all of these comments or not, but I would like to encourage you to do your constitutional duty and place forward a nomination, but if the senate, by the end of the summer, does not act, then I would ask you to withdraw that nomination and place forward the name of one of our retired supreme court justices to fill in until a permanent replacement is named by the next President. A year is way to long to go without a full court and if the republicans in the senate do not go along with this idea, then they will surely be exposed for what the truly are.
Thanks for reading this.
I have no idea if you read all of these comments or not, but I would like to encourage you to do your constitutional duty and place forward a nomination, but if the senate, by the end of the summer, does not act, then I would ask you to withdraw that nomination and place forward the name of one of our retired supreme court justices to fill in until a permanent replacement is named by the next President. A year is way to long to go without a full court and if the republicans in the senate do not go along with this idea, then they will surely be exposed for what the truly are.
Thanks for reading this.
31
The Supreme Court originally had only 6 Justices, it was raised to Seven, then went as high as 11 before, in recent times, settling on 9. The Constitution leaves it to Congress to decide how many Justices will be on the high Court. There is no crisis whether the current vacancy is filled or not. I personally would rather see Congress reduce the number to 7. I believe fewer justices would be more efficient since less grand standing at oral arguments but also fewer Justices would likely mean a greater effort to reach consensus....at least that was the case when there were fewer justices before.
2
It was the Democrats who politicized the process beginning with the Robert Bork nomination. That was the first time a well qualified jurist was rejected solely based on politics and his judicial philosophy. As liberals have increasingly tried to use the courts to accomplish what they cannot achieve through the democratic process, they should not be surprised that Republicans would steal from their playbook.
It would be nice if we went back to a time when the Supreme Court stuck with its constitutional duty to interpret the laws and not to make the laws. Then there might not be as much controversy over judicial nominations.
It would be nice if we went back to a time when the Supreme Court stuck with its constitutional duty to interpret the laws and not to make the laws. Then there might not be as much controversy over judicial nominations.
2
At least Bork got a hearing and a vote
Not much to see here, move along.
No observer of Republican behavior these past 7 years can be surprised, at all: failure to act on an Obama candidate was highly predictable. Why would conservatives give him such a victory?
This might play out as a lasting punch to the body Republican, but don't hold your breaths. American voters continually surprise in their lack of collective memory and in their inability to vote in their own best interests.
No observer of Republican behavior these past 7 years can be surprised, at all: failure to act on an Obama candidate was highly predictable. Why would conservatives give him such a victory?
This might play out as a lasting punch to the body Republican, but don't hold your breaths. American voters continually surprise in their lack of collective memory and in their inability to vote in their own best interests.
3
My wife takes her citizenship test next week. She asked me "Should I answer that the Supreme Court has 9 or 8 justices?" The obstruction occurring right now is not covert, such as: "The hearings are unfortunately delayed but will soon continue.....", but rather it is overt: "No way, Jose." The gamble of McConnell seems to include the idea that the anti-Obama electorate will support this sort unconstitutional behavior, and I believe they largely do. While my wife will pass her citizenship exam next week, I believe others are failing theirs, especially many in our Congress.
2
The Constitution is clear on this issue. Mr. Biden is correct--our President has the authority to make an appointment to the Supreme Court when a vacancy exists. And again Mr. Biden is correct--the Senate has the right to give its advice and consent.
All of this quibbling about the Republican controlled Senate, though, is meaningless until the President selects a nominee. Republican policy makers have played this strategy before...
Only a few years ago, Republicans proposed a seemingly ludicrous threat to shut down the government. Democrats called them on it, and GOP policy makers were forced to follow through with it, only to their disgrace. The strategy failed then, but suddenly now it's effective?
The President ought to pick someone. Put the ball in their laughably uncoordinated hands and let them stonewall, yet again, into their own misery.
And all this talk from Republicans that the American people ought to have a say in who is nominated...
The American people did have a say...four years ago...when they elected President Obama to his second term.
The Republican Party is a mess. I would know. I'm a member.
All of this quibbling about the Republican controlled Senate, though, is meaningless until the President selects a nominee. Republican policy makers have played this strategy before...
Only a few years ago, Republicans proposed a seemingly ludicrous threat to shut down the government. Democrats called them on it, and GOP policy makers were forced to follow through with it, only to their disgrace. The strategy failed then, but suddenly now it's effective?
The President ought to pick someone. Put the ball in their laughably uncoordinated hands and let them stonewall, yet again, into their own misery.
And all this talk from Republicans that the American people ought to have a say in who is nominated...
The American people did have a say...four years ago...when they elected President Obama to his second term.
The Republican Party is a mess. I would know. I'm a member.
55
The Republicans in the Senate have a choice: They can participate in the selection process by working with President Obama now, or they can watch from the sidelines next year as President Clinton works with a Democratic majority to fulfill their constitutional duty.
2
I realize no one wants to open this can of worms. I realize it's impractical. I realize it's frightening. I'm a grownup. But when an organized group within a government rises up against that government, in any other nation we'd be calling that act words like "treason." "Insurrection." A "velvet coup d'etat." The GOP has jumped the shark. We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto.
We need to realize that the veneer of "Republican" means nothing anymore. We are dealing with an organized, ruthless opposition to the nation of America, its central principles, and its system of government.
We need to realize that the veneer of "Republican" means nothing anymore. We are dealing with an organized, ruthless opposition to the nation of America, its central principles, and its system of government.
1
I like Biden, but I don't think his reasoning for his 1992 comment holds. It is clear when a president's term ends. As much as I don't like to see a conservative judge filling a vacant seat in the supreme court, arguing that there is a difference between appointments that take place before and after the summer in a president's last year is simply playing a game that I thought Mr. Biden was above playing.
21
Sigh. Ten seconds over Google would tell you that Justice Anthony Kennedy was nominated by Ronald Reagan on November 11, 1987, confirmed, and sworn in the next February.
Ah'm just a lib'rul and all, but I am fairly sure that a) November comes after summer, and b) the Presidential election was held the previous week, and c) that Reagan was, therefore, a classic "lame duck."
Would you like to go to the lightning round, and guess who ran Senate Judiciary at the time?
Ah'm just a lib'rul and all, but I am fairly sure that a) November comes after summer, and b) the Presidential election was held the previous week, and c) that Reagan was, therefore, a classic "lame duck."
Would you like to go to the lightning round, and guess who ran Senate Judiciary at the time?
2
"It is clear when a president's term ends."
Yes, it is. Mid-January in the year after an election. Not, early February in the year before the election.
Yes, it is. Mid-January in the year after an election. Not, early February in the year before the election.
1
Using the "Biden test", a nominee now before what may even be a brokered convention on the Republican side and an indictment on the Democrat side is certainly going to result in political acrimony and should therefore be delayed.
To the vast number of people here who will do their best Claude Rains impersonation, how do you think Joe Biden's editorial would read if the situation were reversed and he was still in the Senate? You know the answer. Every exhortation by Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Biden, et al will elicit nothing more than an eye roll. No one in Democrat leadership positions has any record of saying "I disagree vehemently with the position but respect the precedent and will act accordingly." So why expect Republicans to do that?
To the vast number of people here who will do their best Claude Rains impersonation, how do you think Joe Biden's editorial would read if the situation were reversed and he was still in the Senate? You know the answer. Every exhortation by Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Biden, et al will elicit nothing more than an eye roll. No one in Democrat leadership positions has any record of saying "I disagree vehemently with the position but respect the precedent and will act accordingly." So why expect Republicans to do that?
2
False equivalence. No Democrat has ever acted the way current day Republicans are. Ever. Vice President Biden as chair of the Judiciary Committee held hearings on every nominee, and every single one received a vote in the Senate.
This situation is entirely unprecedented in the history of the United States Senate.
The GOP cannot excuse their continual obstruction and unconstitutional abdication of duties.
This situation is entirely unprecedented in the history of the United States Senate.
The GOP cannot excuse their continual obstruction and unconstitutional abdication of duties.
1
Wonderful to see Professor (I mean Vice President) Biden weigh in on what has become one of the more vexxing political issues of the moment. And would that real-world politics were as straightforward and clean as Mr. Biden's reasoning here. Sadly, things have reached a point where the Republican position of refusal to even consider a nominee must seem perfectly logical in the world those politicians inhabit.
20
The Republicans are calling Obama's bluff. They want to frighten him with their threats into not making a nomination. If they are successful they can say it wasn't their fault that no Justice was appointed. Obama should ignore their threats, offer to meet with congressional leaders of both parties to get input on who would be the best candidate, and then submit the nomination. If the legislators then block the process and prevent an open debate and vote, then he should do a recess appointment, forcing them to address the issue.
33
He's not bluffing. And hang onto your beanie, because this particular President seems to have quite the habit of winning right after he gets counted out.
1
I think the approval rating for Congress stands at 13%. That is not because of this skirmish over the Court's vacancy. That is due to Congress not fulfilling its duty to work together to hammer our solutions to our problems. You folks want to fight. Fine. Fight. But don't throw around these charges of Congress not fulfilling its duty. Congress has been on holiday since most members, are either side of the aisle, decided to put the party first and America second. How has that been working out for you folks in Congress? At 13%, I would say not too well.
1
The failure to abide by one's oath--taken according to the religious formula "So help me God"--should be no slight matter for senators who wear their supposed Christianity on their sleeve. For Mormon senators, who hold the US Constitution to be divinely inspired, such oath breaking should be doubly troubling.
Perhaps we have become a thoroughly secular, cynical, opportunistic and irreligious people. In that case I recommend that we abandon the religious formula and use solely the secular "I do solemnly affirm. . . ."
There is no point putting those of morally weak character in theological jeopardy when they break their oaths of office. Simple moral and political jeopardy should suffice for our secular, legal purposes.
No use tempting the "Wrath to come" in these already perilous times.
Perhaps we have become a thoroughly secular, cynical, opportunistic and irreligious people. In that case I recommend that we abandon the religious formula and use solely the secular "I do solemnly affirm. . . ."
There is no point putting those of morally weak character in theological jeopardy when they break their oaths of office. Simple moral and political jeopardy should suffice for our secular, legal purposes.
No use tempting the "Wrath to come" in these already perilous times.
1
"The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to
a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an
election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of
Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year
nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider
not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the
political campaign season is over.
I sadly predict, Mr. President, that this is going to be one of the
bitterest, dirtiest, Presidential campaigns we will have seen in modern
times."
Sorry - I don't see a whit of difference between his opinion in '92 and McConnell's today - the teams have only changed position on the field. He thought '92 was dirty? It's going to look like a Sunday School picnic in comparison to '16.
a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an
election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of
Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year
nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider
not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the
political campaign season is over.
I sadly predict, Mr. President, that this is going to be one of the
bitterest, dirtiest, Presidential campaigns we will have seen in modern
times."
Sorry - I don't see a whit of difference between his opinion in '92 and McConnell's today - the teams have only changed position on the field. He thought '92 was dirty? It's going to look like a Sunday School picnic in comparison to '16.
13
I think there are several arguments that could be made against this well-composed argument; but one thing keeps sticking out in several of these pieces. That's the argument that Anthony Kennedy's appointment qualifies as a 'last year' appointment. It only falls into this category because the previous two candidates failed (both for ridiculous reasons). They were nominated before this 'window,' and both Bork and Kennedy took relatively long periods to process. The Democrats 'broke' the process with Bork and need to live with the ramifications. And let's not forget that President Obama was against the confirmations of Alito and Roberts, both very qualified even if others don't like their positions. He even supported a filibuster. So it's too late to appeal to the history and decorum of the Senate.
3
It's past time for Democrats, Republicans and all Americans who respect the Constitution to mobilize. Members of the House should be picketing the Senate chamber along with everyone else. Democratic Senators should rise and leave the chamber en masse, leaving Republicans without a quorum, the next time they try to pass another law that restricts civil liberties. And censure motions should be introduced against all members of the Senate who are failing to do their sworn duties. That's perfectly appropriate grounds for expulsion.
2
The Dems should go to court to force the Reps to live up to their oath to support and protect the constitution, which, by refusing to act as the constitution mandates, they are neither supporting or protecting. The obstructionism shown by both parties over the years to appoint judges to the bench has to stop. if court action is not taken, whats to prevent the Reps from refusing to provide hearings for the next however many years until a Rep is elected president?
1
"It is an unprecedented act of obstruction."
That surely is not true. Southern senators protected slavery for decades through compromises with Northern senators. And they later protected segregation by means of the filibuster. More recently, Republicans have refused to negotiate budgets and Democrats changed Senate rules that were viewed as essential by the founding fathers. Recent Supreme Court nominations have not swung the court 180 degrees. This one is unique. That Republicans are resisting full out is pretty much as expected. In the meantime, we have 8 justices, which is a far cry from having slavery. This surely is not an unprecedented act of obstruction.
That surely is not true. Southern senators protected slavery for decades through compromises with Northern senators. And they later protected segregation by means of the filibuster. More recently, Republicans have refused to negotiate budgets and Democrats changed Senate rules that were viewed as essential by the founding fathers. Recent Supreme Court nominations have not swung the court 180 degrees. This one is unique. That Republicans are resisting full out is pretty much as expected. In the meantime, we have 8 justices, which is a far cry from having slavery. This surely is not an unprecedented act of obstruction.
1
Biden was wrong in 1992, and he should admit that, instead of doubling down on the indefensible stance of refusing even to hold hearing on a nominee. Yes, there are some differences, but the core point remains: the President has full powers till his term ends, and denying him these full powers is wrong. He was elected for four years, not 3.5, and elections have consequences.
Refusing to hold hearings is a flat-our insult, no matter who does it -- Democrats or Republicans. Shame on Biden for splitting hairs on this.
Refusing to hold hearings is a flat-our insult, no matter who does it -- Democrats or Republicans. Shame on Biden for splitting hairs on this.
After reading Biden's 1992, it is clear that the media took that speech out of context and wrongly equated it with current Republican thinking. Biden suggested in 1992, that then Pres. Bush delay a nomination until after the November election at which time the Senate would then hold hearings and vote. Biden specifically points out that delaying is NOT an attempt to deny the president his right to nominate or have the nominee considered.
Biden's purpose in giving this speech, given on the eve of SCOTUS's summer recess, was to AVOID the rancor of recent nominations by injecting the politics of the campaign season into the process (also Poppy Bush was running for re-election, while Obama is term-limited and forced to retire).
The link is there to read and the language is plain and simple. Biden's 1992 speech intended no malice, political machination, or obstruction.
Joe Biden is not perfect. Indeed, he is very human and that may be his greatest strength. He has compassion and empathy, he is honest and true, moral and virtuous. It is regrettable that he did not run, and country will lose his services next January. It might not be fair to him, but I wish Bernie or Hillary would ask him to remain Veep.
Biden's purpose in giving this speech, given on the eve of SCOTUS's summer recess, was to AVOID the rancor of recent nominations by injecting the politics of the campaign season into the process (also Poppy Bush was running for re-election, while Obama is term-limited and forced to retire).
The link is there to read and the language is plain and simple. Biden's 1992 speech intended no malice, political machination, or obstruction.
Joe Biden is not perfect. Indeed, he is very human and that may be his greatest strength. He has compassion and empathy, he is honest and true, moral and virtuous. It is regrettable that he did not run, and country will lose his services next January. It might not be fair to him, but I wish Bernie or Hillary would ask him to remain Veep.
2
As a Republican I totally disagree with the politics aspect of choosing a Supreme Court judge - in 2017 after the Presidential elections are over. The President currently in office should be allowed to propose and nominate a viable candidate that can pass muster of both parties. There are issues before the court that come up each and every day and having a full court is essential to decisions on the gravest of matters. Let move on this already - the people can't wait.
1
Frankly, I can't believe the breathtaking stupidity of the Republicans on this given the facts on the ground. By flagrantly blocking Obama's nominee without any pretense of a fair hearing, they are opening Pandora's box... Here are the facts:
A; There will likely be a Democratic senate next year.
B; The new senate can and will invoke the nuclear option and remove the Republicans from any role in the nomination process, eliminating minority senator's right to filibuster. The Democrats will have ample political cover in doing so because the Republicans have demonstrated a profound unworthiness to be taken seriously on matters of decorum.
C; President Hillary Clinton (almost guaranteed) will nominate a far more liberal judge than Obama would ever consider.
D; That at least 3 justices, possibly 4, and maybe 5 will retire or die under her administration, giving Democrats an overwhelming majority on the judiciary likely to last a generation, all with zero input from the Republicans.
As a Democrat, this eventuality is both thrilling and horrifying. The nuclear option should NOT be toyed with.... However, Republicans have more or less given Democrats carte blanche. They can no longer be permitted to grind the people's business to a halt because of racism, political expediency, and petty grievances. With the great conjunction of potentially 4 maybe 5 vacancies to be filled, Republicans, don't tempt Democrats to do what is clearly in their short term interest to do.
A; There will likely be a Democratic senate next year.
B; The new senate can and will invoke the nuclear option and remove the Republicans from any role in the nomination process, eliminating minority senator's right to filibuster. The Democrats will have ample political cover in doing so because the Republicans have demonstrated a profound unworthiness to be taken seriously on matters of decorum.
C; President Hillary Clinton (almost guaranteed) will nominate a far more liberal judge than Obama would ever consider.
D; That at least 3 justices, possibly 4, and maybe 5 will retire or die under her administration, giving Democrats an overwhelming majority on the judiciary likely to last a generation, all with zero input from the Republicans.
As a Democrat, this eventuality is both thrilling and horrifying. The nuclear option should NOT be toyed with.... However, Republicans have more or less given Democrats carte blanche. They can no longer be permitted to grind the people's business to a halt because of racism, political expediency, and petty grievances. With the great conjunction of potentially 4 maybe 5 vacancies to be filled, Republicans, don't tempt Democrats to do what is clearly in their short term interest to do.
2
The fundamental problem is that the Republicans DO NOT love the Senate as Vice President Biden does. They have no respect for the history of the institution, it's role in maintaining the Constitutional balance of powers, the prestige of the office. Today's GOP would rather attempt to score cheap political points and undermine both the document they claim to revere as well as the will of the majority of Americans who elected and reelected President Obama, playing to the lowest common denominator of divisiveness rather than give even the patina of bipartisanship that they see as somehow 'legitimizing' a president that they have loathed for every moment of his presidency.
2
The Republicans are fools. Of course they should consider President Obama's nominee. They should hold hearings to consider the nominee. Then the Republicans should cite the Democrats' own precedent and Bork the nominee. That way President Obama can nominate someone to the Court, and the Senate can fulfill its obligation to advise and consent, or not consent (the Democrats' precedent). Maybe a filibuster or two, citing the Senator Obama precedent, could focus the republic on the hypocrites in both parties.
2
Senate Republicans do not love the Senate. They love the political positions of the benefactors who bought them a seat in the Senate and the prestige of the office. Since our political system is a never ending chase for campaign financial support, it is no wonder that some senators find it much easier to keep the deep pockets happy by voting as instructed and explaining their votes to non-contributing "constituents" using language supplied by the deep pocket lobby army. But this could be "a bridge too far" and the obstruction they have practiced since President Obama took office may cost them a Senate majority.
3
The Senate has already done its constitutional duty. As Vice-President Biden admits, the Senate's constitutional duty is to provide advice and consent. By telling the president it will not consider any nominee at this time, the Senate has given him its advice. If the president chooses not to heed that advice, that is his choice, but the Senate has already done its duty. All this talk about the Senate's "duty" to hold meetings and hearings and to take votes is NOT in the constitution. That is all made-up custom. None of it is constitutionally required. If you are going to invoke the constitution, maybe you should read it.
1
Just in case we've forgotten, a Supreme Court seat opened up during the administration of Gerald Ford.
Now, if there was ever a time to deny a president whose party held a Senate minority the ability to make a lifetime appointment to the Court, that was it. Gerald Ford had never run in, much less won, an election in a jurisdiction any larger than Michigan's fifth congressional district. At least until the coup d'etat that installed George W. Bush in the White House (who, I must point out, also filled seats on the Court with Democratic cooperation even despite their obviously partisan political nature), Gerald Ford had the most tenuous claim to the presidency since at least the installation of Rutherford B. Hayes and probably throughout our history.
But his nominee sailed through a Democratic Senate, and the worst thing that appointee ever did in his whole Supreme Court career was to resign. John Paul Stevens was a great one, and would still be if he were still on the court.
Now, if there was ever a time to deny a president whose party held a Senate minority the ability to make a lifetime appointment to the Court, that was it. Gerald Ford had never run in, much less won, an election in a jurisdiction any larger than Michigan's fifth congressional district. At least until the coup d'etat that installed George W. Bush in the White House (who, I must point out, also filled seats on the Court with Democratic cooperation even despite their obviously partisan political nature), Gerald Ford had the most tenuous claim to the presidency since at least the installation of Rutherford B. Hayes and probably throughout our history.
But his nominee sailed through a Democratic Senate, and the worst thing that appointee ever did in his whole Supreme Court career was to resign. John Paul Stevens was a great one, and would still be if he were still on the court.
4
There is a key difference between the current situation and the circumstances in 1992. In that year, a sitting Supreme Court justice had the option of remaining on the bench until the next president took office rather than timing his retirement to ensure appointment of a particular successor. In other words, there could have been a political scheme to create a vacancy. In the current situation, the vacancy was completely unexpected and so filling it would not create the appearance of a political trick. The only political trick is being played by the Republican obstructionists who seek, once again, to undermine this president's authority.
3
Could the President sue the Senate Majority Leader for refusing to do his job? Could citizens? I would be happy to sign on to a lawsuit if it could gain standing.
I am not asking can we compel him to approve a nominee, but compel him to allow hearings and an up or down vote in the full Senate. Beyond the current issue of a Supreme Court nominee is the use of obstruction to keep anything from getting done in Congress.
During the tenure of Ms Pelosi hundreds of well considered Bills passed the House only to die in a Democratic Controlled Senate not by votes of the full Senate but by stupid and arcane rules that allowed any Senator to place a hold on a bill with their identity secret and with no justification as to why.
I understand the Senate is allowed to set rules for itself, but they are not working for the interests of the American people and are seriously damaging our democracy. The Senate should be a deliberative body, not simply a barricade. If Mitch McConnell wants to debate the facts in an open session of the Senate I have no objection- fine, but have a vote at the end. But I object to this insane Parliamentary nonsense that is killing our country.
I am not asking can we compel him to approve a nominee, but compel him to allow hearings and an up or down vote in the full Senate. Beyond the current issue of a Supreme Court nominee is the use of obstruction to keep anything from getting done in Congress.
During the tenure of Ms Pelosi hundreds of well considered Bills passed the House only to die in a Democratic Controlled Senate not by votes of the full Senate but by stupid and arcane rules that allowed any Senator to place a hold on a bill with their identity secret and with no justification as to why.
I understand the Senate is allowed to set rules for itself, but they are not working for the interests of the American people and are seriously damaging our democracy. The Senate should be a deliberative body, not simply a barricade. If Mitch McConnell wants to debate the facts in an open session of the Senate I have no objection- fine, but have a vote at the end. But I object to this insane Parliamentary nonsense that is killing our country.
3
It may be time for the public to organize a million person march on the National Mall and stage daily demonstrations in front of the Capitol to demand from the Republican Senate Leadership to perform their duties for which they committed themselves by taking their oaths to uphold the constitution.
By refusing to consider any nomination of a supreme court justice by the President, they are blatantly refusing to perform the duties for which they were elected. Their obstructionism is tantamount to a dictatorship from their senate seats. In my opinion these are impeachable offences.
By refusing to consider any nomination of a supreme court justice by the President, they are blatantly refusing to perform the duties for which they were elected. Their obstructionism is tantamount to a dictatorship from their senate seats. In my opinion these are impeachable offences.
3
Several points
1. Biden's current comments are, conveniently, the exact opposite of his comments 20 years ago when, as a US Senator, he was a member of the Judiciary Committee. At that time he opposed the President (of the opposing political party) nominating a Supreme Court Justice when the President was in the last year of his term.
2. The Senate has the right not to act on a nominee regardless of the opinion of the President and the opposing political party. In the case, the Democrats can yell and scream, like children who throw a tantrum when angered by a parent's decision, but in the end, the Republicans do not, and likely will not, hold hearings on any replacement named by Obama to the Supreme Court. Time will tell whether they will pay any price for this decision, but their is precious little the President, or the Democrats can do to change this outcome.
1. Biden's current comments are, conveniently, the exact opposite of his comments 20 years ago when, as a US Senator, he was a member of the Judiciary Committee. At that time he opposed the President (of the opposing political party) nominating a Supreme Court Justice when the President was in the last year of his term.
2. The Senate has the right not to act on a nominee regardless of the opinion of the President and the opposing political party. In the case, the Democrats can yell and scream, like children who throw a tantrum when angered by a parent's decision, but in the end, the Republicans do not, and likely will not, hold hearings on any replacement named by Obama to the Supreme Court. Time will tell whether they will pay any price for this decision, but their is precious little the President, or the Democrats can do to change this outcome.
4
For a variety of reasons, the President has little or no power over the Congress; he has no means to punish them for not carrying out their Constitutional duties and, in turn, the public rewards obstructionism in while, at the same time, saying they want the government to operate successfully and resolve the nation's problems. The only answer to the adamant imposition of power in Congress against everything any president does or tries to do is to find and use raw power against them, force meeting force head on.
It is my view that the Democrats continue, in the main, to "play nice" with the Republicans on a wide number of issues while they slap the Democrats and Obama in the face at every opportunity. One huge example: billions of dollars in farm subsides, a lot of which goes to huge industrial scale farming operations that lower the quality of our food and threaten our health. Why do the Democrats cooperate in providing massive farm subsidies in states that vote agains them regularly without getting something in exchange from the Republicans?
There are a host of federal programs that help poverty stricken people in Republican states that Republicans, on "principle", oppose, even while the federal money, our money, pouring into those states helps them to survive and, what's more, continue to pay low wages. The essence is this: Republicans, and their states, get what they want from the feds, but then turn around and undermine what other states need. This should be stopped.
It is my view that the Democrats continue, in the main, to "play nice" with the Republicans on a wide number of issues while they slap the Democrats and Obama in the face at every opportunity. One huge example: billions of dollars in farm subsides, a lot of which goes to huge industrial scale farming operations that lower the quality of our food and threaten our health. Why do the Democrats cooperate in providing massive farm subsidies in states that vote agains them regularly without getting something in exchange from the Republicans?
There are a host of federal programs that help poverty stricken people in Republican states that Republicans, on "principle", oppose, even while the federal money, our money, pouring into those states helps them to survive and, what's more, continue to pay low wages. The essence is this: Republicans, and their states, get what they want from the feds, but then turn around and undermine what other states need. This should be stopped.
2
Considering the debacle within the Republican Party and the extent to which that party has surrendered itself to anti-democratic forces, our country cannot abide the intended usurpation of power that Senator McConnell is attempting. Vice President Biden says "It is an unprecedented act of obstruction." It is more, and a symptom of systemic corruption of democracy and the rule of law. As the leadership desperately tries to overturn it's primary choice: Trump, no one believes that they can restore trust in the Republican Party. If the Republicans hope to restore trust by ejecting Trump and persist in obstructing the Constitutional duty of the Senate we must all denounce their deceit.
The measured tone of the Vice President, his rejection of the false equivalence that Republicans make about their obstruction and his "hypothetical" speech is what separates the two parties. However, more decisive action will be needed to prevent a complete breakdown of the division of powers. In more rational times, one could imagine statesmen within the Republican Party restoring normalcy. Statesmen do not exist within the Republican Party. Mitt Romney attempts to unseat Trump, but has no credibility. McCain has no credibility, Graham, Ryan, Cruz, Rubio, Sessions, Cornyn, have no credibility as they have all participated and supported unjust war, racism, xenophobia, misogyny, sexism. Who is left to redeem the Republican Party? Who will end the racist acrimony against the President?
The measured tone of the Vice President, his rejection of the false equivalence that Republicans make about their obstruction and his "hypothetical" speech is what separates the two parties. However, more decisive action will be needed to prevent a complete breakdown of the division of powers. In more rational times, one could imagine statesmen within the Republican Party restoring normalcy. Statesmen do not exist within the Republican Party. Mitt Romney attempts to unseat Trump, but has no credibility. McCain has no credibility, Graham, Ryan, Cruz, Rubio, Sessions, Cornyn, have no credibility as they have all participated and supported unjust war, racism, xenophobia, misogyny, sexism. Who is left to redeem the Republican Party? Who will end the racist acrimony against the President?
1
I analyzed the Republican motive for obstruction.
Just as the Supreme Court decided the 2000 election in Bush JR's favor due to the Conservative majority of Republican Justices, The Senate knows that because the elections are always so close, either by design or some psychological characteristic, it is highly likely we will have another close election.
If we have another close election that finds it's way to the Supreme Court, for that or any other reason, perhaps by plan, the Supreme Court will be split without an Obama appointment forcing the issue to the Congress which is a majority Republican resulting in a Republican President winning the White House.
Everything is calculated by the Republicans.
I firmly believe elections are rigged to share power between the parties every few years to keep the peace.
Just as the Supreme Court decided the 2000 election in Bush JR's favor due to the Conservative majority of Republican Justices, The Senate knows that because the elections are always so close, either by design or some psychological characteristic, it is highly likely we will have another close election.
If we have another close election that finds it's way to the Supreme Court, for that or any other reason, perhaps by plan, the Supreme Court will be split without an Obama appointment forcing the issue to the Congress which is a majority Republican resulting in a Republican President winning the White House.
Everything is calculated by the Republicans.
I firmly believe elections are rigged to share power between the parties every few years to keep the peace.
I agree with the comments of the majority of people. Why try to reach Republicans with a call for them to act honorably? They have not done so for almost 8 years now. Why ask them to fulfill their duty as an agency of government? They have not done so for almost 8 years now. Why remind them of their duty under the Constitution? They do not honor it. They really are despicable. I cannot believe the lengths they will go. I thought having one of them call out "you lie" during the Presidents speech to be the worse behavior I've ever seen and as disrespectful of the Office of the President that was possible. I was wrong. Their latest acts of refusing to discuss the budget and now a refusal to fulfill their Constitutional duty of advice and consent is beyond the pale. I honestly believe they are acting as enemy's of this country. I really wish each and everyone of these Senators who will not act like senators could be impeach, sued, jailed, whatever. They need to be held responsible for their boorish actions. If they don't act like Senators and follow though with their threat, I hope the President takes the issue to the Supreme Court and have their actions declared unconstitutional. Now, that would be rich.
2
And if they continue to obstruct, President Clinton should nominate Barack Obama.
1
The Constitution is no longer the law of the land. The GOP has put power before country. Any voter who continues to vote for a GOP senator is rejecting the Constitution, rejecting the functions of the three branches of government and rejecting the rights of all voters. Tens of millions of American citizens voted in 2012 for a Nominator- In-Chief who will stay in that position until Jan 20 2017. This Senate has taken away the vote of millions. They are corrupt and out of order and unjust.
1
Dear Mr. Vice President:
With all due respect, your premise is rather flawed.
The senate has no sense of duty. At all.
Unless you are suggesting that the duty (of the house and senate) is to fleece the American taxpayer to irrigate the pockets of their constituencies (starting with AARP, Wall Street, Big business), leave behind an indebted population that must drink leaded water and regard education and healthcare as the divine privileges of white, Christians as long as they are rich.
You talk of these senators as anything other than the seriously dedicated kleptocrats comfortable in the clutches of lobbyists.
With all due respect, this this does not reflect the breadth of your naivety.
That you think you can talk to republicans who promised their voters that they are going to Washington to burn down the house that Obama is building - suggests a belief in fantasy.
Appeals will do nothing. 47% of Americans want to destroy you and the country for everyone other than rich white Christians. The rest can eat dirt once they are on the other side of the wall Trump is building.
And I say this with utmost respect; I thank you for your incredible service to the nation.
Kalidan
With all due respect, your premise is rather flawed.
The senate has no sense of duty. At all.
Unless you are suggesting that the duty (of the house and senate) is to fleece the American taxpayer to irrigate the pockets of their constituencies (starting with AARP, Wall Street, Big business), leave behind an indebted population that must drink leaded water and regard education and healthcare as the divine privileges of white, Christians as long as they are rich.
You talk of these senators as anything other than the seriously dedicated kleptocrats comfortable in the clutches of lobbyists.
With all due respect, this this does not reflect the breadth of your naivety.
That you think you can talk to republicans who promised their voters that they are going to Washington to burn down the house that Obama is building - suggests a belief in fantasy.
Appeals will do nothing. 47% of Americans want to destroy you and the country for everyone other than rich white Christians. The rest can eat dirt once they are on the other side of the wall Trump is building.
And I say this with utmost respect; I thank you for your incredible service to the nation.
Kalidan
Love the Senate? The Senate is corrupted by the system of legalized, money driven, extortion that is its modus operandi. Most of these guys are bought and paid for by Wall Street and corporations whose interests, by the way (pardon the Trumpian phrase), often do not represent the best interests of the country, or the wishes of a majority of Americans. Why would we expect more from an outfit whose members, by their own admission, spend half their time and effort raising money? Running the United States should be a serious business, but we have a bunch of self-important clowns in the driver's seat. Three or four chairman take positions and all committee members fall in line as if they have no ability to think for themselves. The joke is, unfortunately, on us, the voters who are willing to put up with this charade.
1
JOE BIDEN Has shown wisdom and common sense in his approach to the obstruction of a Supreme Court nominee, by documenting his own respectful communication when Biden himself was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. As the nomination occurred in the last year of the presidency of George H.W. Bush, Biden recommended, out of respect for the President, the American people and the Constitution, the nominee be put forth either before or after the campaign season, so as to avoid distraction from the electoral process. Biden also observed that the members of the Senate who are, beyond opposing, the nomination for a new Justice of the Supreme Court, but are refusing to observe the duties of their jobs as Senators, who have sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the USA. The position taken by McConnell and Grassley in refusing to cooperate with the nominating process is both unprecedented and, I believe, is unpatriotic, cowardly, immoral, unethical and an impeachable offense. Sadly, the President is in a difficult position, because if he recommends a nominee this Spring and the Judiciary committee refuses to do its duty to advise and consent, the nominee will be left swinging in the wind until after the election. The campaign would have been distracted from fullfiling its purpose of electing a new President, VP and members of Congress up for reelection. I believe that if the obstruction continues, the senate consider impeaching McConnell and Grassley.
The GOP's # 1 priority, since the day you and the president took office, has been to delegitimize Mr. Obama. They've spent considerably more time finding ways to insult the man than in doing the people's business ~ for which we pay them.
But this latest affront insults more than just the man. By refusing even to consider a nominee to fill the vacancy at the Supreme Court, they are, in essence, thumbing their noses at the presidency itself. As well as showing unprecedented contempt for democracy, by which a majority of Americans chose Mr. Obama to be our president. That we did so twice is evidence enough to disprove the GOP's initial theory it was a fluke.
It's almost laughable they have the gall to accuse President Obama of politicizing this process. It's not at all laughable that while they refuse to do the people's business, they continue to be paid.
But this latest affront insults more than just the man. By refusing even to consider a nominee to fill the vacancy at the Supreme Court, they are, in essence, thumbing their noses at the presidency itself. As well as showing unprecedented contempt for democracy, by which a majority of Americans chose Mr. Obama to be our president. That we did so twice is evidence enough to disprove the GOP's initial theory it was a fluke.
It's almost laughable they have the gall to accuse President Obama of politicizing this process. It's not at all laughable that while they refuse to do the people's business, they continue to be paid.
1
If I, as a citizen, had three wishes, here's what they'd be:
1) that the Senate Republicans obstruct this process until the president takes power.
2) that Senators Clinton and Sanders put aside their considerable differences and agree to run on a joint unity ticket for the sake of ensuring a Democratic victory and use the Supreme Court issue to win back control in the Senate.
3) that the new administration would force the most progressive candidate they can find down the throats of the Republican Party and subsequently use the power of the federal government to cash the Republican agenda legislatively.
Sanders is right. We need a revolution in this country. But he is wrong to think that it is just an economic revolution that is needed. Without Congress and the Supreme Court, nothing happens.
But he and many of his supporters (of which I am one) are dead wrong to think he'll win this election without the Hillary vote. And Hillary is even more wrong to assume the inverse. Against Trumpism, all hands on deck.
1) that the Senate Republicans obstruct this process until the president takes power.
2) that Senators Clinton and Sanders put aside their considerable differences and agree to run on a joint unity ticket for the sake of ensuring a Democratic victory and use the Supreme Court issue to win back control in the Senate.
3) that the new administration would force the most progressive candidate they can find down the throats of the Republican Party and subsequently use the power of the federal government to cash the Republican agenda legislatively.
Sanders is right. We need a revolution in this country. But he is wrong to think that it is just an economic revolution that is needed. Without Congress and the Supreme Court, nothing happens.
But he and many of his supporters (of which I am one) are dead wrong to think he'll win this election without the Hillary vote. And Hillary is even more wrong to assume the inverse. Against Trumpism, all hands on deck.
1
Let's all willingly suspend disbelief a minute, as the former Senator and Secretary of State would have put it, although in the years since then I've always had the nagging feeling that's a double-negative, but can't prove it, and assume that the Vice President's opinion piece is not one of the weakest examples of hypocrisy denial any of us has had the pleasure to read in our respective lives of whatever length.
Rather, let's take the Vice President at his word, that all he meant in 1992 was that in his professional political judgment, he feared that not all that long before a Presidential election, a Supreme Court nomination in those trying times would "create intense political acrimony" and therefore it would be better to put any nomination over until after the election. with no hearings "until after the political campaign season is over."
It is obvious, that under this Biden Rule, in times much more acrimonious to begin with, and with any present nomination likely to increase that acrimony exponentially, that no Supreme Court nomination should be presently considered. Then, if Hillary Clinton wins, she may defer to the current President nominating the next Justice or make the nomination upon taking office as they may agree, or if the Republican wins, he will make the nomination.
But, we don't need the acrimony of a present Supreme Court nomination, and we thank the Vice President for the wisdom of his Rule enunciated so long ago.
Rather, let's take the Vice President at his word, that all he meant in 1992 was that in his professional political judgment, he feared that not all that long before a Presidential election, a Supreme Court nomination in those trying times would "create intense political acrimony" and therefore it would be better to put any nomination over until after the election. with no hearings "until after the political campaign season is over."
It is obvious, that under this Biden Rule, in times much more acrimonious to begin with, and with any present nomination likely to increase that acrimony exponentially, that no Supreme Court nomination should be presently considered. Then, if Hillary Clinton wins, she may defer to the current President nominating the next Justice or make the nomination upon taking office as they may agree, or if the Republican wins, he will make the nomination.
But, we don't need the acrimony of a present Supreme Court nomination, and we thank the Vice President for the wisdom of his Rule enunciated so long ago.
3
Those senators refusing to consider Pres. Obama's Supreme Count nominations constantly refer to their own deeplreligious faith, have sworn the senatorial oath on their bibles to uphold the US Constitution, and have lied. The US Constitution includes the Appointments Clause (Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2) requiring the Senate to advise and consent regarding Presidential nominations to the Supreme Court, with no mention of a residual presidential term of 9 months. The senatorial oath reads:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
1
The Republican Senate is indeed effectively spreading congressional gridlock to the Supreme Court by refusing to consider a nominee, and attempting to extend gridlock to the Executive, too, by saying the President shouldn't even nominate a new Justice. Failure to take action now on a nominee could result in a vacancy for two years or more, as a new President's nominee would need to be vetted and then hearings held (not a quick process). The process could take longer if a Democrat were to win the race for the White House and a Republican controlled Senate were to decide that it did not favor that President's nominee. The world will not stand still for two years, or more, and important matters demand action soon. Democracy and leadership require the skill of compromise, but the Republican Senate is demonstrating that it is weak in this skill. Surely they do not fear this President, or that the rules of the Senate could prevent them from refusing to consent to a nomination, so what is their real motivation?
I listened to the 1992 speech in its entirety. It was over 90 miniutes long. I deserve a medal. First off, the context was as Biden states: it was a very bitter period after the defaming of Bork and the accusations against Thomas of sexual depravity. So he is correct. What he doesn't tell you is that he and Senator Kennedy were personally responsible for the debacles those two nominations became and they always will be. The simple fact is that liberals in the Senate will never again support a superb jurist of Scalia's talents and breadth of knowledge. "Borking" is now part of the language thanks to Biden and Kennedy. It's political. Their best hope is to fight to the bitter end and hope for a "moderate," most of whom have ended up siding with the liberal bloc on the court on most issues.
Republicans have never seriously contested a Democrat Supreme Court nominee since Johnson nominated the crook Fortas in the 60s. In that time Democrats have killed 3 nominations outright and nearly defeated Thomas. Obama, Biden, Clinton and others filibustered Judge Alito's nomination.
So, like most of what Biden has said and written in his life, this is what Scalia would call political argle-bargle. There is dead-on political fight over the direction of the court. Obama and Biden are going to mis-characterize it every way possible even though it laughable to assert they would do anything different if the situation was reversed.
It's Scalia's seat. It is different.
Republicans have never seriously contested a Democrat Supreme Court nominee since Johnson nominated the crook Fortas in the 60s. In that time Democrats have killed 3 nominations outright and nearly defeated Thomas. Obama, Biden, Clinton and others filibustered Judge Alito's nomination.
So, like most of what Biden has said and written in his life, this is what Scalia would call political argle-bargle. There is dead-on political fight over the direction of the court. Obama and Biden are going to mis-characterize it every way possible even though it laughable to assert they would do anything different if the situation was reversed.
It's Scalia's seat. It is different.
5
In the past, the Senate was generally the body that tempered bad moves taken by the House of Representatives. Now, it appears the Senate is going down the same do nothing path as Republicans in the House. If they hold this course until after the November election then I expect that the Republican will lose their current majority in the Senate. That would be the only positive outcome of a failure to consider a Supreme Court nominee I expect to see this month. The Republican's only possible vindication would be a Republican WIN in the presidential election in November. Considering the current state of that race, it is unlikely. The result will be a Democrat in the White House; a Democratic majority in the senate come 2017, and a leftward swing in the Supreme Court that will likely outlive most of the Republicans remaining in the Senate.
1
If Biden were running for President, I just might break my record of voting Republican. At least he makes sense here. But the thought occurs to me that the Senate is indeed fulfilling their responsibility. They are advising the President against submitting any nomination at this time. The Senate certainly doesn't have any obligation to consent. The President remains free to go against the advice of Senate leadership, but doing so won't put anyone on the Supreme Court. Unless he nominates an ultra conservative. In that case, the Senate just might change their position and quickly approve the nominee.
1
One other note, too bad Joe Biden is not running for President. Compared to The New York Time's choice, and the GOP disaster, he would compare with an FDR or a Lincoln.
What a mess.
What a mess.
6
Dear N.Metrowsky:
Once again, two notes too many, Mr.M.
The mess you refer to is one-sided. It's The GOP that's in a kerfuffle. The Dems are moving along quite nicely, thank you very much. Hillary and Sanders have conducted a fairly mild and decent debate over the direction the Democratic Party should take. It's been Left versus Center-Left for eons, not much new to report there.
Sanders is fully cognizant that he stood a snowball's chance in Hades of capturing the nomination. He's acted as the Left's conscience, attempting to keep Hillary's centrist views in line. He will use his delegates and the adulation of the new and young voters he's brought to the party to synthesize the two wings for the Fall contest. This is old hat politics. Anyone who's even a casual observer of the game should be aware of what develops in the coming months.
It's the GOP that's in shambles. Love, aka optimism, will always trump hate. Hillary will trump The Donald, because more Americans than not do not want to the US to be viewed as the laughingstock of the world. Electing Donald Drumpf would do just that.
No worries, Nick, the US and the world will be in better hands with Hillary despite your trepidation. Concluding whomever becomes president is a certifiable lunatic says more about the writer of such balderdash than it does about those accused of personality quirks pertaining to cycles of the moon.
DD
Manhattan
DD
Manhattan
Once again, two notes too many, Mr.M.
The mess you refer to is one-sided. It's The GOP that's in a kerfuffle. The Dems are moving along quite nicely, thank you very much. Hillary and Sanders have conducted a fairly mild and decent debate over the direction the Democratic Party should take. It's been Left versus Center-Left for eons, not much new to report there.
Sanders is fully cognizant that he stood a snowball's chance in Hades of capturing the nomination. He's acted as the Left's conscience, attempting to keep Hillary's centrist views in line. He will use his delegates and the adulation of the new and young voters he's brought to the party to synthesize the two wings for the Fall contest. This is old hat politics. Anyone who's even a casual observer of the game should be aware of what develops in the coming months.
It's the GOP that's in shambles. Love, aka optimism, will always trump hate. Hillary will trump The Donald, because more Americans than not do not want to the US to be viewed as the laughingstock of the world. Electing Donald Drumpf would do just that.
No worries, Nick, the US and the world will be in better hands with Hillary despite your trepidation. Concluding whomever becomes president is a certifiable lunatic says more about the writer of such balderdash than it does about those accused of personality quirks pertaining to cycles of the moon.
DD
Manhattan
DD
Manhattan
Maybe The New York Times Wonder Woman Hillary Clinton, came come in and save the day. According to this newspaper, and her supporters, she can do anything and everything to the point of being super human. She can go to the Senate and bend arms, while she is testifying about her insecure e-mail server and the great Benghazi screw up. She can have company with Donald Trump, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz singing like a choir of scorched cats, as they too try to twist Senator's arms to do theri jobs.
Mr. Obama is going to at least do his job, send the Senate a nominee. He will be the only sane person left, in Washington, to try to get the job done. But, after January, we have one of the four lunatics taking control of the asylum
Mr. Obama is going to at least do his job, send the Senate a nominee. He will be the only sane person left, in Washington, to try to get the job done. But, after January, we have one of the four lunatics taking control of the asylum
1
I don't think she's Wonder Women, but then again, I also don't see Sanders as Superman either. Their policies and voting records are very close together. She and Obama are pretty similar too, and share a large pool of loyal voters who like and trust them. They've both stuck their necks out and they've both made mistakes. So has Sanders, but the GOP hasn't bothered to spend millions advertising them to the world, the way they've done to Clinton and Obama.
So why this hatred and contempt that sounds like a Republican rant? I don't get it. I like them all. But why are Obama and Sanders so fine with you, while Clinton's The Wicked Witch of the West? The disproportion makes me think either you have to hate anyone who competes with Bernie or that she...is a she.
Your rancor is not helping you win new voters, which is the whole point, nu?
So why this hatred and contempt that sounds like a Republican rant? I don't get it. I like them all. But why are Obama and Sanders so fine with you, while Clinton's The Wicked Witch of the West? The disproportion makes me think either you have to hate anyone who competes with Bernie or that she...is a she.
Your rancor is not helping you win new voters, which is the whole point, nu?
To a room full of lawyers, duty and obligation are voluntary acts. They really don't have to do anything. There is no timetable in their obligation, no specific way to carry it out other than by what others have done. There isn't a law written anywhere that there have to be 9 justices. They don't gotta do anything really. This is a terrible way for leaders to act but with no consequences to themselves, you really shouldn't expect a different behavior.
1
Well the law say there are supposed to be nine and so when there's fewer the President should nominate someone. If the Republican Senate leadership then refuses to perform its constitutional duty it is then up to the voters to do their duty & throw the bums out! McConnel may not be up for re-election but enough Republican senators are up for him to lose his leadership position.
I agree wholeheartedly, Mr. Vice-President, but what is your administration for?
Our president should nominate someone, NOW. By not doing so, isn't President Obama violating the constitution as well? The fact that the republicans aren't cooperating is no excuse.
As they say, two wrongs don't make a right.
Our president should nominate someone, NOW. By not doing so, isn't President Obama violating the constitution as well? The fact that the republicans aren't cooperating is no excuse.
As they say, two wrongs don't make a right.
NOW you say, so he should have nominated someone while Scalia's body was still warm? VP Biden talks about the Prez consulting with senators before he nominates someone, what's wrong with that? He will nominate someone probably quite soon.
The reports say Obama is vetting possible nomineees. That is the normal procedure. It takes a few weeks.
Thank you Mr. Vice President.
Let us be real. The process matters. If the 'righties' can't tolerate the Black President of the United States making a Liberal appointment to the SCOTUS that is their privilege. But they must observe the forms to make their refusal legitimate. Have the hearing and a vote on the floor of the Senate. That would uphold our grand traditions. Even if they refuse consent.
But an outright refusal to act in any way is simply seditious. Take that knowledge with you to the voting booth in November.
Let us be real. The process matters. If the 'righties' can't tolerate the Black President of the United States making a Liberal appointment to the SCOTUS that is their privilege. But they must observe the forms to make their refusal legitimate. Have the hearing and a vote on the floor of the Senate. That would uphold our grand traditions. Even if they refuse consent.
But an outright refusal to act in any way is simply seditious. Take that knowledge with you to the voting booth in November.
7
There's so much angst about the childish words of the GOP their attempt at manipulation. Just ignore them.
Can't we wait until a nominee is selected before we too look like whiners and children. After all, where have the grown-ups gone?
Can't we wait until a nominee is selected before we too look like whiners and children. After all, where have the grown-ups gone?
1
Well said, Mr. Vice President. The Supreme Court is hamstrung with 8 members, meaning that 4-4 ties affirm whatever the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling happens to be. For the party in power in the Senate to refuse to engage in dialogue and participate in the process, without even knowing the identity of the nominee, is childish and an abdication of a vitally important responsibility.
Moreover, the Senate has failed to act on many nominees to the lower federal courts, such as a U.S. District Court nominee in the city in which I live. Senators, do your job! Engage in governing! Review candidates and vote on them one way or another!
Moreover, the Senate has failed to act on many nominees to the lower federal courts, such as a U.S. District Court nominee in the city in which I live. Senators, do your job! Engage in governing! Review candidates and vote on them one way or another!
3
Nice, thoughtful persuasive essay, Mr. Biden - thank you.
But the angry, low-information voters that the GOP has nurtured over the past 40 years won't see it, or understand it if they do it's tl:dr (too long; didn't read). The message must be an effective Twitter soundbite, such as: "The Constitution gives the President the duty to appoint Justices. The Constitution gives the people the duty to elect Presidents."
But the angry, low-information voters that the GOP has nurtured over the past 40 years won't see it, or understand it if they do it's tl:dr (too long; didn't read). The message must be an effective Twitter soundbite, such as: "The Constitution gives the President the duty to appoint Justices. The Constitution gives the people the duty to elect Presidents."
4
I know it can't be Joe Biden who does this - but when, oh when, is someone going to have the courage to deal with the elephant in the room? What I mean, of course, is why - beyond obvious partisan, win-at-all-cost, betray-the-Constitution Republican furor - they hate Barack Obama so much and always have.
12
So Dawn, it didn't bother you when Harry Reid would not allow a Senate budget bill for 3 years? That was '' hate''? Read the archives of The Times. With the consent of the Vice President Sen. Reid bottled up legislation time and again including no budget for three years. I guess those Democrats wont be held accountable for not doing their duty by Mr. Biden.
2
Let us be clear about what this act by McConnell and Grassley really is, it is fundamentally an act of cowardice.
Cowardice - is a trait wherein fear and excess self-concern override doing or saying what is right, good and of help to others or oneself in a time of need—it is the opposite of courage.
The OPPOSITE of courage...
Cowardice - is a trait wherein fear and excess self-concern override doing or saying what is right, good and of help to others or oneself in a time of need—it is the opposite of courage.
The OPPOSITE of courage...
11
I'm Curious...in business first , people last America, an employee can lose their job instantly for any number of given reasons and often enough , without being given a reason.
We have all heard that Amazon can be a hard task master and its warehouse employees are constantly required to speed up their performance based on demand realities and it can be a grueling and often failed attainment for many.
All over America Business and the Employer call the shots and if an employee has a problem with anything they and their problem are often left without a job and the hapless employee now has 2 problems ...
So please tell me how might an errant Senator or Congressman lose their Job?
Would they be able to stay in their position...keep their Job and continue to receive their Pay and Benefits if they refused to do their Job? If they acted against their Constitutional Duty?
Obstructing all relevant and important legislation and workings of Congress ensuring that others were by their actions prevented from doing their jobs , and duties and from fulfilling the mandate Given to them ?
Or what about refusing to allow the flow of funds to keep Government functioning leading to the mass lay off of Millions of people without pay , causing economic hardship and harm and tarnishing the reputation of the House?
Are you telling me that all the above obvious failures and clear cut dereliction of duty and sworn oath is acceptable?
It's OK?
Fire Them. IMMEDIATELY.
Yesterday.!
We have all heard that Amazon can be a hard task master and its warehouse employees are constantly required to speed up their performance based on demand realities and it can be a grueling and often failed attainment for many.
All over America Business and the Employer call the shots and if an employee has a problem with anything they and their problem are often left without a job and the hapless employee now has 2 problems ...
So please tell me how might an errant Senator or Congressman lose their Job?
Would they be able to stay in their position...keep their Job and continue to receive their Pay and Benefits if they refused to do their Job? If they acted against their Constitutional Duty?
Obstructing all relevant and important legislation and workings of Congress ensuring that others were by their actions prevented from doing their jobs , and duties and from fulfilling the mandate Given to them ?
Or what about refusing to allow the flow of funds to keep Government functioning leading to the mass lay off of Millions of people without pay , causing economic hardship and harm and tarnishing the reputation of the House?
Are you telling me that all the above obvious failures and clear cut dereliction of duty and sworn oath is acceptable?
It's OK?
Fire Them. IMMEDIATELY.
Yesterday.!
4
Chances are very good that Congress, passed a law that they are exempt from any form of termination possibilities. A lot of laws that apply to everyone else, does not apply to Congress.
This is how they can get away with working less than 50% of any given year. That they get long weekends, when they do work. That they can take the entire summer off. And, that they take week long breaks around major federal holidays, and three weeks at Christmas.
And when they are done blowing hot air, and obstruction the nation's business, they can retire on the taxpayer's dime; with gold plate heath insurance.
As an employee, in a "right to work state", you work at the pleasure of your manager. Short of not paying you, and physical abuse, they can get away with just about anything.
This is how they can get away with working less than 50% of any given year. That they get long weekends, when they do work. That they can take the entire summer off. And, that they take week long breaks around major federal holidays, and three weeks at Christmas.
And when they are done blowing hot air, and obstruction the nation's business, they can retire on the taxpayer's dime; with gold plate heath insurance.
As an employee, in a "right to work state", you work at the pleasure of your manager. Short of not paying you, and physical abuse, they can get away with just about anything.
4
You have to admire the guts of Biden to say it with a straight face, that takes talent. I do not agree with the Republicans position but Biden is a hypocrite.
11
Did you read the article?
Providing "advice and consent" for a Supreme Court nomination is not just about "love [for] the Senate," it's about adhering to the very basis of our democracy--the Constitution. If you refuse to adhere to your elected oath to "support" it, you should either resign or be impeached. This is no small political matter; it is an anarchistic rebellion against the very document that has created our civil society and the "rule of law." To deny or obstruct it is to deny the very legitimacy of our form of government. It is an outright insurrection by a political party using the very positions they hold under the Constitution to put themselves above and before the Constitution they seek to void. It is intolerable to the freedom and well-being of the nation and must be dealt with with all the force necessary to preserve and protect the Constitution.
146
And, where, exactly, in the Constitution are the time frames laid out for this process that is denying this "rule of law?" The Senate has provided it's advice - don't bother sending a nominee, don't waste taxpayer money vetting folks whose nomination will not be considered. I know it's inconvenient for most of you here in the leftist echo chamber, but it is what it is. If you don't like it, vote and hope that other voters have similar views. If that's the case, you'll get what you want eventually.
2
Dear Mr. Vice President –
You are a decent and honorable man. But you are playing against people who are neither decent nor honorable. I understand why it is hard for you to see that, hard for you to accept that.
Your experience in the Senate Is like the aging process – losing one hair at a time and putting on weight one ounce at a the time. It is only when the cumulative effect comes obvious that you can clearly see what is happened.
Let the clowns and bullies have their way for now. And then, in November, win the presidency and win back the Senate. And then, even more, never forget. Just think, beginning in 2017, with control of the Senate, the next Supreme Court justices could be Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.
Ted Cruz should appreciate what should now be the watchword of the Democratic Party: je me souviens/remember the Alamo.
Let the games begin.
You are a decent and honorable man. But you are playing against people who are neither decent nor honorable. I understand why it is hard for you to see that, hard for you to accept that.
Your experience in the Senate Is like the aging process – losing one hair at a time and putting on weight one ounce at a the time. It is only when the cumulative effect comes obvious that you can clearly see what is happened.
Let the clowns and bullies have their way for now. And then, in November, win the presidency and win back the Senate. And then, even more, never forget. Just think, beginning in 2017, with control of the Senate, the next Supreme Court justices could be Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.
Ted Cruz should appreciate what should now be the watchword of the Democratic Party: je me souviens/remember the Alamo.
Let the games begin.
2
The House should call for Senator McConnell and Senator Grassley's impeachment for failure to uphold their respective oaths.
6
Senators are not subject to impeachment. That provision of the Constitution applies only to executive and judicial branch officials. Legislators are subject to their chamber's ethics rules and disciplinary process.
2
The Senate has given advice and Obama will take the constitutional part of that advice and incorporate it as best he can into his nomination. As for consent, the Senate is taking a pass - as it has the right to do under the principle that the Senate has the right to remain silent on an issue - and I am sure the Supreme Court will recognize that right by swearing in Obama's nominee without further.
Surely the Supreme Court will want to establish that it has the right to exist under law, in accordance with the constitution, rather than to be trampled under the stampeding feet of a political mob as the repblicans suggest.
Ben Franklin was sage when he emerged form the constitutional convention long ago and was asked "what government have you given us Mr. Franklin". His now famous reply was "A constitution, if you can keep it".
When Obama has made his nomination, it will be up to the
Supreme Court if they wish to continue as a bona fide "separate and equal" branch of the US government. I'm quite sure they will swear in the appointee..
Surely the Supreme Court will want to establish that it has the right to exist under law, in accordance with the constitution, rather than to be trampled under the stampeding feet of a political mob as the repblicans suggest.
Ben Franklin was sage when he emerged form the constitutional convention long ago and was asked "what government have you given us Mr. Franklin". His now famous reply was "A constitution, if you can keep it".
When Obama has made his nomination, it will be up to the
Supreme Court if they wish to continue as a bona fide "separate and equal" branch of the US government. I'm quite sure they will swear in the appointee..
3
Republicans should consider the following:
1. It is unconstitutional to deny the President's right to nominate.
2. If the Republicans win the presidency, Democrats will repay in kind and frustrate the eventual nomination.
3. The consequence would mean perhaps two years of vacancy in the Supreme Court.
4. You have now a chance to a dialogue with the President that you will not have if the Democrats win the election.
5. If Trump is your nominee, you are facing an election disaster and the Democratic president will have a freer hand in nominated someone.
6. In denying a hearing, you are increasing the political animosity,
something that is of no value if you win presidency.
7. You have created sufficient obstructionism the last eight years.
Act reasonably, if you can.
1. It is unconstitutional to deny the President's right to nominate.
2. If the Republicans win the presidency, Democrats will repay in kind and frustrate the eventual nomination.
3. The consequence would mean perhaps two years of vacancy in the Supreme Court.
4. You have now a chance to a dialogue with the President that you will not have if the Democrats win the election.
5. If Trump is your nominee, you are facing an election disaster and the Democratic president will have a freer hand in nominated someone.
6. In denying a hearing, you are increasing the political animosity,
something that is of no value if you win presidency.
7. You have created sufficient obstructionism the last eight years.
Act reasonably, if you can.
100
1. The President is not being denied his right to nominate.
2. Democrats have already engaged in often nasty partisan smear campaigns over judicial nominees (remember Bork, Thomas). They already play this game far dirtier than the Republicans, for sure.
3. Not likely. With foreknowledge, the new President would probably nominate immediately upon entering office and the Senate would have already scheduled hearings to begin soon after.
4. Most likely true.
5. The jury is still out on this one. I'm only beginning to understand the Trump phenomenon, and Hillary, who is likely the Democrats nominee would be a terrible candidate and could very well be staring at federal charges over her handling of classified email.
6. Democrats already poisoned that well with their disgusting antics over the Bork and Thomas hearings, and their avowed stances over other potential Republican nominees.
7. Obstructionism is a two-sided problem. With Democrats wanting to expand the government's power, reach, and role in most aspects of our lives and Republicans wanting to reduce government's size and its role in our lives, it's hard to see where compromise works for either side. Would Democrats want to reduce the government a little bit or Republicans increase it a little bit? Seems like a stalemate is preferable to compromise for both sides if they are on the losing end of the deal.
2. Democrats have already engaged in often nasty partisan smear campaigns over judicial nominees (remember Bork, Thomas). They already play this game far dirtier than the Republicans, for sure.
3. Not likely. With foreknowledge, the new President would probably nominate immediately upon entering office and the Senate would have already scheduled hearings to begin soon after.
4. Most likely true.
5. The jury is still out on this one. I'm only beginning to understand the Trump phenomenon, and Hillary, who is likely the Democrats nominee would be a terrible candidate and could very well be staring at federal charges over her handling of classified email.
6. Democrats already poisoned that well with their disgusting antics over the Bork and Thomas hearings, and their avowed stances over other potential Republican nominees.
7. Obstructionism is a two-sided problem. With Democrats wanting to expand the government's power, reach, and role in most aspects of our lives and Republicans wanting to reduce government's size and its role in our lives, it's hard to see where compromise works for either side. Would Democrats want to reduce the government a little bit or Republicans increase it a little bit? Seems like a stalemate is preferable to compromise for both sides if they are on the losing end of the deal.
2
The basic incantation of Republicans to reduce the size of government by reducing the budget remains a dream until Congress stops stuffing the budget with arms and weapons that even the military don't want, until Congress removes the absurd prohibition of negotiating the price of medicines, until we stop subsidies to farm corporations, the oil industry, etc., until we remove absurd loopholes in the tax system, until we stop facilitating tax evasions through arcane tax regulations.
As far as reducing the government's role in our lives, it depends on what measures one wants removed. We are way beyond the times when society is willing to countenance poverty, lack of medical care and inequality under the law. So, either the market or society must provide these guarantees or the government has to do it. I would take either option, but I want to make sure that if the first fails, the second comes in.
As far as reducing the government's role in our lives, it depends on what measures one wants removed. We are way beyond the times when society is willing to countenance poverty, lack of medical care and inequality under the law. So, either the market or society must provide these guarantees or the government has to do it. I would take either option, but I want to make sure that if the first fails, the second comes in.
Strategic thinking seems to have gone by the wayside...the GOP strategists have landed them in March with an heir apparent who they despise (and likely despises them)...No, strategic thinking does not appear to be a GOP strong suit.
I am glad that the NYT published this which corrects distortions and flagrant misrepresentations of Senator Biden's 1992 speech. It was late June 1992 shortly before the conventions!
Notel: "I recommended that the Judiciary Committee not hold hearings “until after the political campaign season is over.”
Note as well: Biden, Kennedy, Leahy, other Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee from 1980s onwards always accepted the president's prerogative for nomination, held hearings, had votes on nominees.
Never anything like the obstruction now threatened and actually ongoing for other courts.
I note some posters here have some issues with facts!
General observation: the election season now begins effectively after a president's inauguration! What is the cut-off supposed to be for a president exercising a constitutional responsibility. If eleven months is deemed somehow the cut-off for Obama, why not establish precedence and make it 13 or 15 or 18 months or whatever? Play games with the constitution?
Notel: "I recommended that the Judiciary Committee not hold hearings “until after the political campaign season is over.”
Note as well: Biden, Kennedy, Leahy, other Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee from 1980s onwards always accepted the president's prerogative for nomination, held hearings, had votes on nominees.
Never anything like the obstruction now threatened and actually ongoing for other courts.
I note some posters here have some issues with facts!
General observation: the election season now begins effectively after a president's inauguration! What is the cut-off supposed to be for a president exercising a constitutional responsibility. If eleven months is deemed somehow the cut-off for Obama, why not establish precedence and make it 13 or 15 or 18 months or whatever? Play games with the constitution?
51
As president of the Senate, isn't their something parliamentary that the vice president can do to move the nomination forward or make it uncomfortable for Senate Republicans not to consider it?
23
Please note - Obama hasn't actually nominated anyone yet. There is nothing to move forward.
Right, as in circumvent the process...again. Got it.
Fortunately NO! There isn't going to be a tie in the Senate.
1
Hey Joe. Did you complain when Harry Reid suppressed the entire operations of the Senate (i.e didn't do their duty) for years by not moving forward any legislation? Noooooo. Did you complain when Senator Obama attempted to boycott Alito's nomination? Noooooo. Did you protest when Schumer vowed to not vote on any additional Bush nominees? Noooooooo.
You are a hypocrite just like your boss.
You are a hypocrite just like your boss.
42
Perhaps you didn't actually read the column. When Vice President Biden was the chair of the Judiciary Committee, every single nominee had a hearing, and every single nominee had a full vote in the Senate. Senator Reid actually moved much important legislation, a historic fact.
In the entire history of the United States of America, never before has the Senate refused to even consider a nominee. Never. That is from the Senate historian. There are facts, and there are lies.
In the entire history of the United States of America, never before has the Senate refused to even consider a nominee. Never. That is from the Senate historian. There are facts, and there are lies.
53
And yet legislation did move forward, and Alito was confirmed, and Shumer voted on more Bush nominees... nice try.
4
Yes, all that was said but were these nomination acted upon? Yes they were.
Let's be clear this is action and not just talk...the Dems acted and approved Alito and Bush nominees....what the Senate is doing is unconstitutional and defies the law.
Don't quote the constitution unless you mean to follow it.
This is about race, Obama and the Republicans bald faced attempt to hijack the nomination process....pure and simple.
Let's be clear this is action and not just talk...the Dems acted and approved Alito and Bush nominees....what the Senate is doing is unconstitutional and defies the law.
Don't quote the constitution unless you mean to follow it.
This is about race, Obama and the Republicans bald faced attempt to hijack the nomination process....pure and simple.
5
I'm left to wonder how many better men could have filled that slot after the first six years of his tenure. Beavers in both parties are about to have their log jam broken up.
3
Failed democratic states around the world now can point to our democracy as a role model to continue and justify their own corrupt practices.
Does Biden truly love the senate still? Really?! I guess he must be one of the 14% that shows up in public opinion polls on Congress.
Does Biden truly love the senate still? Really?! I guess he must be one of the 14% that shows up in public opinion polls on Congress.
9
If you have some time, you should look up Senator Biden's 'farewell address' on the senate floor to understand his love for the senate and his disenchantment with what it may and has become.
Also, know that Vice President Biden is one of the truly great statesmen and public servants and all Americans should be proud of his service to the nation.
Also, know that Vice President Biden is one of the truly great statesmen and public servants and all Americans should be proud of his service to the nation.
Whatever, the Senate is under no obligation to consent, nor to even consider an Obama nomination.
Dear Mr Vice President,
Thank you for clarifying your views and past experience on the Judiciary Committee. Sadly, I don't think the Republican leaders will take a step back and
think about their oath or anything else but obstructing our President.
You wrote an excellent op-ed for the NYTimes, but you are preaching to the choir.
That is why I am asking you to do what you do best, get out on the stump, speak to the people and let them know that this obstructionism is unconstitutional and unprecedented in our country's history.
I know you can do it, look what you did for gay marriage.
My sincerest thanks,
Andrea
Thank you for clarifying your views and past experience on the Judiciary Committee. Sadly, I don't think the Republican leaders will take a step back and
think about their oath or anything else but obstructing our President.
You wrote an excellent op-ed for the NYTimes, but you are preaching to the choir.
That is why I am asking you to do what you do best, get out on the stump, speak to the people and let them know that this obstructionism is unconstitutional and unprecedented in our country's history.
I know you can do it, look what you did for gay marriage.
My sincerest thanks,
Andrea
121
This is why the normal voter cannot stand career politicians like Biden. By starting off his tirade saying do not send up a nominee and then ending with Oh well send a nominee up and with his idiotic logic that he would somehow have a fair vetting of a nominee with all his restrictions is laughable.
Typical political double speak and why Washington is held in such Lo esteem.
Typical politician cannot give a straight answer to a simple question.
Typical political double speak and why Washington is held in such Lo esteem.
Typical politician cannot give a straight answer to a simple question.
1
The Republicans who refused to allow the hearing for a new Supreme Court judge are the biggest lawbreakers. They are disfiguring the Constitution. They should be impeached. How can we expect American citizens to respect the law when its custodians are blatantly breaking it. What an affront to decency! The right to bear arms they so cherish may well turn against them. Everything about America is broken down.
48
"They are disfiguring the Constitution."
You should be right at home with that, considering who you helped put in the White House-twice.
You should be right at home with that, considering who you helped put in the White House-twice.
Please point out an instance of law breaking here...
1
But if the Democrats refuse to impeach then they are to blame and the Republicans know this.
It’s fascinating to watch which Constitutional obligations our president and vice president choose to practically ignore and which they demand to carry out.
They pretty much ignore their obligation to enforce our immigration laws (if an illegal immigrant can make it across the border into our country without being caught, then short of his committing a major crime, he has next-to-no chance of being deported), yet the president and vice president complain when Congress refuses to vet their Supreme Court nominees.
The Obama administration could require all employers to use e-verify to make sure their current and future employees are legally entitled to work here. In addition, the Administration could refuse to give social services and various forms of government aid (such as FEMA grants) to anyone who is here illegally, and the administration could deny funding to any organization that works with illegal immigrants. Once they cannot find employment and are denied aid, illegal immigrants will start to leave. The Administration should deport any stragglers.
When the Administration follows through with its Constitutional obligations to enforce the laws of the land, Congress should hold hearing on its candidates for the Supreme Court.
They pretty much ignore their obligation to enforce our immigration laws (if an illegal immigrant can make it across the border into our country without being caught, then short of his committing a major crime, he has next-to-no chance of being deported), yet the president and vice president complain when Congress refuses to vet their Supreme Court nominees.
The Obama administration could require all employers to use e-verify to make sure their current and future employees are legally entitled to work here. In addition, the Administration could refuse to give social services and various forms of government aid (such as FEMA grants) to anyone who is here illegally, and the administration could deny funding to any organization that works with illegal immigrants. Once they cannot find employment and are denied aid, illegal immigrants will start to leave. The Administration should deport any stragglers.
When the Administration follows through with its Constitutional obligations to enforce the laws of the land, Congress should hold hearing on its candidates for the Supreme Court.
30
Oh, stop. The President has not ignored his obligations. You blame Mr. Obama for every illegal who slips across the border in dead of night? Blame the Congress for not funding border enforcement. You blame Mr. Obama for not stopping employers from hiring illegals? Blame the employers. They know the law. And blame Congress for not funding enforcement of the laws. You want the Government to hunt down and deport--with all legal safeguards--somewhere around eleven million people? Are you willing to pay for that process? What's more, immigration policy has nothing--nothing--to do with the Supreme Court nomination process. The President has not vowed to ignore the Constitution; the Republicans in Congress have. This argument, which Republicans constantly bring up, reminds me of a small child defending himself by bringing up what his little brother did last month.
134
Oh stop. The president is the chief law enforcement officer. If Congress didn't fund border enforcement, it was because Harry Reid killed almost 400 bipartisan bills that crossed his desk over a 2 year period and ground government to a halt. Regardless, Obama had/has no intention of enforcing the immigration laws. That is abundantly apparent by the evidence of the last 7+ years.
2
Fewer people have immigrated illegally under Presidents Obama than any in last 30 some years. He has deported more than any. Please explain how this shows he hasn't upheld the immigration laws.
8
It was wonderful earlier this week seeing our President asking Senators McConnell and Grassley to offer suggestions for his consideration. I would love to know from Vice President Biden whether in all is years on the Judiciary Committee, a President had ever reached across the aisle - to a Majority leader who has disrespected him at every step of his Presidency - the way President Obama has. We are so fortunate to have a President of character who, despite years of Republican obstruction, still maintains his calm, collect, thoughtful ways, and usable to ask his adversaries for the advice the Constitution speaks about.
112
At this point in time I hope the senate never confirms another Supreme Court justice ever again. The court has turned into another political wing and I fear we will never have justice, true justice not tainted by ideology.
14
Reading the Anti biden comments, I'm wondering those people speak the same language as me
We have a vacancy by death in Feb
Biden was speaking in June, about a possible vacancy occurring in, say July
and what did Biden say ?
Hold hearings after the election
So, to people like Abbott hall or whoiskevinjones, can you explain yourselves to the rest of us ?
We have a vacancy by death in Feb
Biden was speaking in June, about a possible vacancy occurring in, say July
and what did Biden say ?
Hold hearings after the election
So, to people like Abbott hall or whoiskevinjones, can you explain yourselves to the rest of us ?
25
Thank you for your sanity among voices of unreasonableness.
Obama is a tone deaf, left leaning President. This is evidenced by losing the House and Senate to the opposition during his tenure. This is because the American people rebelled against his policies. Heck, over 30 state governorships and legislatures are held by Republicans. The majority of Americans do not like Obama's policies. That is indisputable based on the evidence. So, why would Congress give Obama another bite at the SCOTUS apple knowing that he would take the court left for a generation when the American public doesn't want that? He is free to nominate and Congress has an obligation to respond to his nomination. It will be a no, but he can nominate all he wants. Maybe Obama should have engaged Congress (his own party complained about it) over the last 7 years and Harry Reid shouldn't have killed almost 400 bipartisan bills for 2 years. Chickens are coming home to roost........and Democrats would be doing the same thing if the tables were turned.
2
Biden for President!
Please?!?!
Please?!?!
24
You're joking right?
2
Regardless of Mr. Biden's credibility about his own past statements, it seems clear that the Senate has a Constitutional obligation to help bring the Supreme Court back to a full bench. With the many pronouncements that it might not do so -- before any nominee is available for consideration -- aren't there clear grounds for impeachment proceedings against the refuseniks?
44
I would like to ask Anita Hill her thoughts on the vice president's remarks about the Senate's duty to advise and consent. He sat in the hearing room and served on the Judiciary Committee where members ripped her integrity to shreds so they could approve Clarence Thomas' nomination and send it to the full Senate for a vote. Clarence Thomas is not and will never be the eminent and African American SCOTUS justice that Thurgood Marshall certainly was.
15
Government shutdowns, partisan obstructionism, partisan fillibusters, partisan gerrymandering... And the taxpayers pay politicians, but they don't serve the will of the people. They serve their political party, super PAC funders and their own re-election efforts. This is why Sanders raised more money than others and why Trump is popular. Both are somewhat involved in selling "pipe dreams" to the citizens. Trump is selling the dream of a functioning conservative government and Sanders is selling the dream of a functioning liberal government. They are popular because people want their taxes to support a functional government. McConnell and Romney might not like Trump, but they are a big part of the reason he is popular.
19
Thank you, Vice President Biden, for your wise words. I hope the current Senators who vow to obstruct President Obama's nominees take heed, for what they are doing is clearly in violation of the United States Constitution itself. To ignore it when it is inconvenient or politically expedient would essentially be to subvert the rule of law itself.
I have studied political theory for over twenty years, and I am shocked, yet again, by how recklessly Republican senators are willing to act for what they believe, falsely, to be in their own best political interest.
I have studied political theory for over twenty years, and I am shocked, yet again, by how recklessly Republican senators are willing to act for what they believe, falsely, to be in their own best political interest.
29
The Constitution is the Constitution and the Senate is a political body, full of people with round mouths, a convenient thing as they ALL talk out of both sides of these orifices. Unfortunately the Democrats seem to fold after making threats while the nihilists in the Republican Party tend to hold their ground. So the strict constructionist Republicans will wink at their constitutional duties and the Dems will fold like a pup tent after being reminded of their earlier, empty threats. Aargh.
2
Thank you, Joe. Please forgive the familiarity; I just get the feeling you are more comfortable with informality than with rigid protocol.
While not a lawyer, I don't believe one needs to be law-school educated to read and understand the Constitution. Those who appear to have the hardest time with that task are attorneys. And politicians. And most especially politicians who are attorneys...and Republicans. The gentlemen who authored that document believed that future generations would understand their intent, and so didn't delve into minutiae or itemized lists, and timetables and outlier events like putting everything on hold until volatile elections have seen the last ballot counted. Perhaps they should have taken a few extra minutes with Art. II, Sec. 2 to do just that.
Not that it would make a whit of difference to Mr. McConnell and friends.
For an in-depth discussion as to why, please see the following:
http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/holybook/articles/dumber.html
While not a lawyer, I don't believe one needs to be law-school educated to read and understand the Constitution. Those who appear to have the hardest time with that task are attorneys. And politicians. And most especially politicians who are attorneys...and Republicans. The gentlemen who authored that document believed that future generations would understand their intent, and so didn't delve into minutiae or itemized lists, and timetables and outlier events like putting everything on hold until volatile elections have seen the last ballot counted. Perhaps they should have taken a few extra minutes with Art. II, Sec. 2 to do just that.
Not that it would make a whit of difference to Mr. McConnell and friends.
For an in-depth discussion as to why, please see the following:
http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/holybook/articles/dumber.html
4
The primary purpose of the Constitution is to assure the peaceful transfer of political power. Since Obama was elected, the Republicans have done everything possible to prevent him from exercising Presidential power. The SC issue is nothing less than a naked power grab by the Republican Senators, and an attempt to subvert the purpose of the Constitution. Obama should play this issue for all that it is worth to elect a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate in November. After the election, if the Republicans have failed to perform their Constitutionally mandated duty of providing "advice and consent," Obama should perform his duty and directly "appoint," and swear in, a new Justice to the SC. The Senate Republicans will have the right to challenge this in the court system, but I suspect they will lose on a 5-4 on a party line decision in the SC. There is no way to deal with the Republicans other than to use raw, brutal power on them. They use brute force and brute force must be used against them.
18
Sad. This attitude is exactly how we got here. I blame both parties. But you, who only see GOP obstruction, are delusional.
1
Mr. Vice President: I am one citizen who will thank you for reminding the elected representatives of the people in the United States Senate that they are duty-bound, sworn by oath (on the Holy Bible) to perform their office. President Obama is merely performing a prescribed duty guaranteed to him in the Constitution. Your extensive history in the judicial nomination process in the Senate should be credentials enough. This process is not to be taken lightly, but when ideology is allowed to spill over on to the Constitution and blot out the clear and unmistakable words that grant this power to the executive, then we have lost our way as a nation of laws. As you eloquently wrote, there can be no justification whatsoever for the Senate's seditious behavior in this matter. "We, the people" have business that must be conducted, and when the nation's legislators decide what is right and what is not, then we have left the path of wisdom. Mr. Vice President, the gratitude of concerned citizens everywhere is yours this night. May God help us if wisdom does not ultimately prevail.
18
You are right, Mr Vice President, thank you for clarifying to Mitch McConnell and his Republican caucus their duty, although in view of how they have governed (not) throughout President Obama's term, I doubt they will. Mitch McConnell, Sen Grassley are disrupting the senate and the supreme court with their false claims that the Democratic Caucus would do the same if roles were reversed. That is simply not true and suggests the middle school bullying mindset of the Republicans in congress. They have constantly put the Republican partys interest over the interests of the United States. They should be deeply ashamed to be so transparent about their loyalty to party over country. I might add the press has a responsibility to correct the record on their many mistruths, our country needs everyone to uphold their responsibilities.
On another matter, won't you please consider running for President? You have the humanity of a great president and the respect of many people like myself who would be honored by your Presidency as we are by President Obama.
On another matter, won't you please consider running for President? You have the humanity of a great president and the respect of many people like myself who would be honored by your Presidency as we are by President Obama.
11
As you write Mr. Vice President, by obstructing the President and stalemating the judiciary the Republicans are ignoring the constitution and the American people who have voted twice for our Commander in Chief. The question is, who are they representing with this petulant political move. They are, obviously, playing to the most extreme element of their party but what has that gotten them in return? The Republican establishment is the most hated group of individuals in the most hated branch of the government judging by polls of both parties. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans appreciate the obstructive tactics of the Republican elites. They have lost their leader in the Congress and are about to lose the Republican Presidential nomination to someone with no political affiliation with the establishment at all. Indeed, that is his biggest selling point. The second question is why would they continue down this road after they have seen all of these posted "Dead End" signs.
10
McConnell cares nothing about this Nation and his conduct in the Senate over the last 7 years is a record of mindless obstruction, first to bring about JOB ONE, making Obama a 1-term president, and now JOB TWO, extorting that President by shutting down the Government without considering that such would not be good for the Nation. If anything, McConnell is the poster boy for who should not be in positions of power.
“There’s only one thing Barack Obama needs to keep his grip on power,” McConnell said, “He needs the U.S. Senate!”......And that tells you all you need to know about McConnell's vision for the country.
McConnell's "greatest contribution to American politics may be that he was a plaintiff in a case that eventually led to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which opened the door to unlimited corporate political contributions and the subsequent rise of super PACs.
McConnell also supports the complete elimination of the few remaining campaign bribery laws.
Combine his unregulated campaign finance insanity ideas with his love of unregulated coal pollution, tax cuts for the rich, pork barrel politics, record use of the filibuster, and unsated thirst for personal political power, McConnell is one of the worst enemies of progress, democracy and average Americans this country has ever seen.
“There’s only one thing Barack Obama needs to keep his grip on power,” McConnell said, “He needs the U.S. Senate!”......And that tells you all you need to know about McConnell's vision for the country.
McConnell's "greatest contribution to American politics may be that he was a plaintiff in a case that eventually led to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which opened the door to unlimited corporate political contributions and the subsequent rise of super PACs.
McConnell also supports the complete elimination of the few remaining campaign bribery laws.
Combine his unregulated campaign finance insanity ideas with his love of unregulated coal pollution, tax cuts for the rich, pork barrel politics, record use of the filibuster, and unsated thirst for personal political power, McConnell is one of the worst enemies of progress, democracy and average Americans this country has ever seen.
10
Anticipating those who may object that Vice President Biden opposed a nomination and confirmation hearings in 1992, his argument in that regard is sound. It was the summer of '92, and to have responsibly done the necessary vetting and held the necessary hearings going into the fall of a general election year would have been not only rife with political overtones (even more than usual), but would also have been severely handicapped by 1/3rd of the Senate campaigning for reelection in the fall.
It's now only early March. There's ample time to follow the Constitutional process in an orderly and reasonable manner. The position of Majority Leader McConnell is reprehensible and even perhaps the very pinnacle of GOP obstruction of the orderly process of governing that has dogged President Obama's past five years as Chief Executive of the United States.
Mr. McConnell will probably go to his grave believing that he did his "duty" to his country and the cause of conservatism, but it's my belief that history will see his time in office quite differently. Eight years of political gridlock is no heritage to be proud of, unless he thinks of himself as a modern day Cato the Younger, who by his intransigence helped to destroy the Roman Republic and to bring about the age of Emperors.
It's now only early March. There's ample time to follow the Constitutional process in an orderly and reasonable manner. The position of Majority Leader McConnell is reprehensible and even perhaps the very pinnacle of GOP obstruction of the orderly process of governing that has dogged President Obama's past five years as Chief Executive of the United States.
Mr. McConnell will probably go to his grave believing that he did his "duty" to his country and the cause of conservatism, but it's my belief that history will see his time in office quite differently. Eight years of political gridlock is no heritage to be proud of, unless he thinks of himself as a modern day Cato the Younger, who by his intransigence helped to destroy the Roman Republic and to bring about the age of Emperors.
222
The constitution either requires the Senate to consider a nominee or it does not. There is no exception for nominees submitted at a certain point in a campaign cycle or where the vetting process could produce "immense political acrimony" in the judgment of the head of the Judiciary Committee.
The President should submit his nominee in due course and the Senate should hold hearings and give such nominee an up or down vote. Failure to do so violates the constitutional obligations of the Senate, the same obligations then Senator Biden was happy to ignore in 1992.
The President should submit his nominee in due course and the Senate should hold hearings and give such nominee an up or down vote. Failure to do so violates the constitutional obligations of the Senate, the same obligations then Senator Biden was happy to ignore in 1992.
To put a Dickensian twist on this, I can see Mitch McConnell visited by the ghosts of American history past, present, and future on the Eve of the GOP convention.. Then having seen the barely marked grave of his party, and the lack of mourners, he stands up in the Convention next day to endorse the Democratic candidate and has a Boehner-like crying fit. Kill and cook the GOP goose all in one.
A boy can dream.
A boy can dream.
So the shoe on the other foot doesn't seem to fit? That's odd.
1
Why do you expect the Republic Party to play by the rules?
They have done nothing.
The Republic Party has ignored both the Constitution and the War Powers Act with respect to IsIs and the Middle East World War.
There is no infrastructure bill.
There is no health care bill.
There is no jobs bill.
There is no tax reform legislation.
There is no voting rights legislation.
There is no George W. Bush post office.
There is no draft to strengthen our ground forces destroyed in the Iraqi Bushkreig.
Budget bills?
The Republic Party ran on a platform that the Federal government does not work,
and have poured sand in the gears and iodine in oil pan to prove it.
So what makes anyone believe the Republic Party will play by and subject to anything other than political expediency.
McConnell has emasculated Obama, nothing he proposes will see daylight.
The Judiciary is now neutered.
Coup d'etat......
They have done nothing.
The Republic Party has ignored both the Constitution and the War Powers Act with respect to IsIs and the Middle East World War.
There is no infrastructure bill.
There is no health care bill.
There is no jobs bill.
There is no tax reform legislation.
There is no voting rights legislation.
There is no George W. Bush post office.
There is no draft to strengthen our ground forces destroyed in the Iraqi Bushkreig.
Budget bills?
The Republic Party ran on a platform that the Federal government does not work,
and have poured sand in the gears and iodine in oil pan to prove it.
So what makes anyone believe the Republic Party will play by and subject to anything other than political expediency.
McConnell has emasculated Obama, nothing he proposes will see daylight.
The Judiciary is now neutered.
Coup d'etat......
7
Though I agree with the Vice-President's hopes, it's hard to imagine the GOP stepping back from its obstructionist position. Calculating cynically (all the while proclaiming some noble "priniciple" that amounts to abdication of its constitutional responsibility), McConnell et al. have decided that they to defy the 66% of Americans who polls say want a justice to be considered by the Senate rather than have to reject someone whom they approved unanimously to the federal bench or on procedural grounds stonewall the process. Whoever President Obama nominates would reconfigure the court away from the conservative majority. Better to delay, delay, delay and hope that the fractured GOP can win in November. If that fails, well, nothing lost. The GOP can fight whomever President Clinton/Sanders nominates. Well, maybe there is something lost: the last vestige that the Supreme Court is above partisan politics.
4
Nothing astounding.... this is the group whose member called our President a liar, in public.
Which invited Netanyahu to Washington specifically to dis our President.
Which has openly and flagrantly disrespected our President at every turn.
This is the group whose ENORMOUS lies and distortions of Hillary's record actions have turned our politics into a farce.
This is the group whose thinly veiled racism, misogyny, nativism, and worship of money in politics have pushed our democracy into serious dysfunction, so that they could then blame the dysfunction on Obama.
This is the group that spawned Trump who, if elected will complete the destruction of the America we love... and possibly push us into a world war that can kill millions.
So please, smiling Joe.... it's a bit late for your sense of shock. When the call to battle was first sounded you should have stepped up. Instead you were busy making your own political calculations.
You want to help ??? Really join the FIGHT (and I don't mean announce), for God's sake... or please just keep quiet ....
Which invited Netanyahu to Washington specifically to dis our President.
Which has openly and flagrantly disrespected our President at every turn.
This is the group whose ENORMOUS lies and distortions of Hillary's record actions have turned our politics into a farce.
This is the group whose thinly veiled racism, misogyny, nativism, and worship of money in politics have pushed our democracy into serious dysfunction, so that they could then blame the dysfunction on Obama.
This is the group that spawned Trump who, if elected will complete the destruction of the America we love... and possibly push us into a world war that can kill millions.
So please, smiling Joe.... it's a bit late for your sense of shock. When the call to battle was first sounded you should have stepped up. Instead you were busy making your own political calculations.
You want to help ??? Really join the FIGHT (and I don't mean announce), for God's sake... or please just keep quiet ....
4
Ok folks; again, the lesson of the day is: The GOP has played their Race Card since the day Barack H. Obama was elected and will continue long after he is gone. This is not love of Country or protecting the integrity of the "institution". This is blinding hatred of a BLACK man MORE than love of one's county, more than the fear of backlash, more than the fear of losing reelection:
Blinding hatred is not fearful of anything except loss of something to hate. The only thing that the GOP is fearful of is Donald Trump.
Blinding hatred is not fearful of anything except loss of something to hate. The only thing that the GOP is fearful of is Donald Trump.
2
All that anyone can say after reading this OPED and viewing the whole CSPAN video should be when you look up the word Hypocrite in the dictionary, there should be the big smiling face of Joe Biden. If he thinks that little rant at the end of his Senate floor speech lets him OFF THE HOOK, he is sadly mistaken. If he really thinks that Obama is going to nominate an acceptable candidate to the Republicans where the current White House will compromise or consult with the Senate or moderate his selection, I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn for him. Also in Biden's own words, if the President consults and advises with the Senate or moderates his selection, I will consider a nomination. But if the President does not, I will oppose the nomination as is my right. After eight years, does any sane person think that Obama will now work with the Senate? You have got to be kidding.
This shall now be forever known as The BIDEN DOCTRINE !
This shall now be forever known as The BIDEN DOCTRINE !
7
Okay, good. Thanks Mr. Biden for using your media pulpit to state your airtight case. But guess what? It won't matter.
What would matter is if you'd use your formidable and extensive sway with certain Republicans in the Senate you so revere, and whip up 5 of them to change sides and restore a Democratic plurality. It's gonna happen in November anyway. Why not get started early?
You can start with Mr. Sasse of Nebraska. He signaled that he's ready to break camp in the case of nominee Trump. One down, four to go. C'mon, do it.
One can only dream...
What would matter is if you'd use your formidable and extensive sway with certain Republicans in the Senate you so revere, and whip up 5 of them to change sides and restore a Democratic plurality. It's gonna happen in November anyway. Why not get started early?
You can start with Mr. Sasse of Nebraska. He signaled that he's ready to break camp in the case of nominee Trump. One down, four to go. C'mon, do it.
One can only dream...
4
Question: What would Antonin Scalia (RIP) say?
Well, as a famous originalist in reading the Constitution, he would most likely say the Constitution mandates that the sitting president should nominate a candidate to fill the vacancy, and the Congress should provide advice and consent.
Which means that after due consideration, they would either reject or appoint the nominee. But in no event should the Congress repudiate the Consitution by not providing advice and consent, much less refusing to even conduct a hearing.
If they want to, let them filibuster the president's choice, and let the voters judge come November 2016. But at least hold hearings.
Isn't that what we are paying them to do?
Well, as a famous originalist in reading the Constitution, he would most likely say the Constitution mandates that the sitting president should nominate a candidate to fill the vacancy, and the Congress should provide advice and consent.
Which means that after due consideration, they would either reject or appoint the nominee. But in no event should the Congress repudiate the Consitution by not providing advice and consent, much less refusing to even conduct a hearing.
If they want to, let them filibuster the president's choice, and let the voters judge come November 2016. But at least hold hearings.
Isn't that what we are paying them to do?
1
Not only the Senate is duty bound to pick a replacement to the Supreme Court - therefore VP Biden is absolutely right about it - but also it is to the Republicans' self-interest to do so. The argument is pretty much laid out in Mr James Stewart's column
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/business/a-way-to-a-deal-on-a-supreme-...
It the Republicans don't want to accept logic, they should learn from history. They tried to prevent Sen Elizabeth Warren from taking the job as the Director of the Consumer Protection job and now they got stuck with her as their thorny colleague who can serve in her capacity for many more years to come.
If the Republicans wanted to roll the dice and bet Trump to be on their side, they were free to do so. But a Madam President Clinton or even President Sanders could very well send President Obama to the Supreme Court. Mr Obama is qualified, vetted - and young. The Democrats - and America for that matter - may end up having the last laugh
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/business/a-way-to-a-deal-on-a-supreme-...
It the Republicans don't want to accept logic, they should learn from history. They tried to prevent Sen Elizabeth Warren from taking the job as the Director of the Consumer Protection job and now they got stuck with her as their thorny colleague who can serve in her capacity for many more years to come.
If the Republicans wanted to roll the dice and bet Trump to be on their side, they were free to do so. But a Madam President Clinton or even President Sanders could very well send President Obama to the Supreme Court. Mr Obama is qualified, vetted - and young. The Democrats - and America for that matter - may end up having the last laugh
4
Just imagine the Republican reaction if a Democratic President nominated Obama to the Supreme Court. Serves them right!
The Senate must not only consider President Obama's appointee they must CONFIRM the person. WE will hold their feet to the fire to force them to do it. Go For It, President Obama - WE have your back and WE want a socially conscious Supreme Court of the United States.
11
Wouldn't it be nice if the comment system automatically deleted all comments that demonstrate the writer has not read the material, but only showed up to present a talking point?
I responded to one Walter, but it is surprising how many people have absorbed the talking point and refuse to even read Vice President Biden's discussion of his ealier suggestions? Two differences leap to the eye: late June is not mid February, and the resignation was hypothetical, putting it close to the election, and therefore a much more reasonable argument. Plus he was advising, not refusing to even think about it.
Strictly speaking, the rightist judicial activities, acting out the advice of the Kochtopus, have held sway long enough. They gave us 8 disastrous years of Bush. They are willing to let our earth proceed headlong towards extinction, waste, exploitation, pollution, dumping and all. They are eager to support income inequality and enable power brokering by the powerful.
It's past time for the natural balance to reassert itself. The people have spoken, both in 2008 and 2012.
I responded to one Walter, but it is surprising how many people have absorbed the talking point and refuse to even read Vice President Biden's discussion of his ealier suggestions? Two differences leap to the eye: late June is not mid February, and the resignation was hypothetical, putting it close to the election, and therefore a much more reasonable argument. Plus he was advising, not refusing to even think about it.
Strictly speaking, the rightist judicial activities, acting out the advice of the Kochtopus, have held sway long enough. They gave us 8 disastrous years of Bush. They are willing to let our earth proceed headlong towards extinction, waste, exploitation, pollution, dumping and all. They are eager to support income inequality and enable power brokering by the powerful.
It's past time for the natural balance to reassert itself. The people have spoken, both in 2008 and 2012.
75
Susan,
This isn't about speaking and listening, but about talking over and forcing a small group's will on the rest of us. Right now, it's the GOP. In the developing primary, it's the DNC. Vice President Biden can exert his influence and demand the DNC clean up its act. We need high ranking Democrats to speak up now, before the party goes in the same direction as the GOP.
This isn't about speaking and listening, but about talking over and forcing a small group's will on the rest of us. Right now, it's the GOP. In the developing primary, it's the DNC. Vice President Biden can exert his influence and demand the DNC clean up its act. We need high ranking Democrats to speak up now, before the party goes in the same direction as the GOP.
4
Susan, there's actually a third, and major, difference...
Mr. Biden's hypothetical suggestion called on the President (George HW Bush) to hold off naming a replacement, should one be needed, until after the election. But he did NOT demand the decision be left for the winner of the 1992 election! In fact, he promised a nomination by President Bush in November 1992 would be acted upon before the end of the year.
By contrast, of course, the GOP today are demanding President Obama make NO nomination at all!
Mr. Biden's hypothetical suggestion called on the President (George HW Bush) to hold off naming a replacement, should one be needed, until after the election. But he did NOT demand the decision be left for the winner of the 1992 election! In fact, he promised a nomination by President Bush in November 1992 would be acted upon before the end of the year.
By contrast, of course, the GOP today are demanding President Obama make NO nomination at all!
Susan - The "people" also spoke in the last two Congressional elections in which Republicans gained control. Ignoring for your benefit Biden's actions in '92, how do you explain Schumer's or Obama's actions and words in prior years when faced with similar situations?
The Republicans are in a panic now that Justice Broccoli has passed on, as they had such a nicely rigged Court, so many decisions going the 5 to 4 route on decisions made. As they had the majority in numbers, they could prevail on many more decisions toward their 'conservative' leanings.
They also know that it is likely that President Obama would nominate a jurist with qualities like clear headedness, fairness, and yes a likely leaning toward humane and progressive ideals.
The Republicans think it is a far better bet for them to wait to approve a new Supreme Court justice, that they have an equal chance of winning the Presidency - at least in their minds. For them, they must be thinking 'why not roll the dice and delay the decision, what have we got to lose?'
They also know that it is likely that President Obama would nominate a jurist with qualities like clear headedness, fairness, and yes a likely leaning toward humane and progressive ideals.
The Republicans think it is a far better bet for them to wait to approve a new Supreme Court justice, that they have an equal chance of winning the Presidency - at least in their minds. For them, they must be thinking 'why not roll the dice and delay the decision, what have we got to lose?'
17
Tim - Your thoughts and comments are so biased that you're simply unable to contemplate others' points of view. Your attitude is a good example of why Congress and the White House - apart from a failure of leadership in both places - cannot work together to get the nation's work done.
1
While Vice President Biden's explanation of his Bush-era remarks is a bit belabored, his conclusion is correct.
There is no Constitutional precedent for failing to consider the Supreme Court nomination of a sitting president. President Obama should nominate a Supreme Court justice posthaste, and the Senate should duly consider the nominee. For the Senate to do otherwise is obstructionist and an abrogation of its solemn responsibilities under the Constitution.
There is no Constitutional precedent for failing to consider the Supreme Court nomination of a sitting president. President Obama should nominate a Supreme Court justice posthaste, and the Senate should duly consider the nominee. For the Senate to do otherwise is obstructionist and an abrogation of its solemn responsibilities under the Constitution.
56
Our elected representative have many duties that they consciously ignore and one more or less will not save the Republic. It's a quick death by Trump or a slow one by Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, who midwifed Clarence Thomas, is not one to talk.
4
There is a well-established principle in the nominating process called "presumption of confirmation." It basically holds that since the Constitution gives to the President the responsibility of naming a Court Justice, that the Senate should give deference to that choice unless and until they find good reasons to reject the nominee.
For example, when Reagan nominated Robert Bork, he got his hearing (unlike, apparently, whomever Mr. Obama nominates). During that hearing, Bork made plain his view that states in fact DO have a right to have racially discriminatory segregation laws in place, and the Federal government has no authority (via the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts) to negate these laws. He also expressed strong opposition to any laws giving women equality to men in any way, and made clear he'd vote on the court to repeal any such laws. This was found to be so outside the mainstream of jurisprudence as to be unacceptable on a modern Supreme Court.
Reagan's next nominee, Ginsburg, withdrew after admitting to smoking marijuana with students at Harvard Law School. But Reagan's next choice, Kennedy, was confirmed unanimously by the Senate. And in fact, pretty much all the Supreme Court nominees since have been confirmed with little dissent. Thomas was exceptional due to claims he'd harassed female subordinates. Sadly, Mr. Biden failed to call corroborating witnesses to Anita Hill's accusations. Had he done so, Thomas likely would never have been confirmed.
For example, when Reagan nominated Robert Bork, he got his hearing (unlike, apparently, whomever Mr. Obama nominates). During that hearing, Bork made plain his view that states in fact DO have a right to have racially discriminatory segregation laws in place, and the Federal government has no authority (via the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts) to negate these laws. He also expressed strong opposition to any laws giving women equality to men in any way, and made clear he'd vote on the court to repeal any such laws. This was found to be so outside the mainstream of jurisprudence as to be unacceptable on a modern Supreme Court.
Reagan's next nominee, Ginsburg, withdrew after admitting to smoking marijuana with students at Harvard Law School. But Reagan's next choice, Kennedy, was confirmed unanimously by the Senate. And in fact, pretty much all the Supreme Court nominees since have been confirmed with little dissent. Thomas was exceptional due to claims he'd harassed female subordinates. Sadly, Mr. Biden failed to call corroborating witnesses to Anita Hill's accusations. Had he done so, Thomas likely would never have been confirmed.
67
Senate Republicans should take the best deal they're going to get by acting on Obama's Supreme Court nominee now. With Donald Trump as their likely nominee, the Dems will retain the White House and improve their numbers in the Senate, perhaps even take control. Then the Democratic President will have a stronger hand in nominating an even more liberal Justice than Obama could today. What do you say, Mitch, play the hand you've got, or the worse one you'll be dealt later?
51
Or play the winning hand to be dealt by the Republican voters in November.
Yes, Mitch, delay...and see Justice Obama on the bench next year.
"I hope [Republican Senators] will think about the oaths they have taken."
And I hope those who fail to honor their oaths are swiftly removed from office.
And I hope those who fail to honor their oaths are swiftly removed from office.
65
Mark - Let's then include among those "swiftly removed from office", Pres. Obama for willfully failing to enforce numerous laws he swore to uphold in his oath of office, and which are set forth in the 'take care' provision of the Constitution.
1
The Republicans in the Senate deciding to do the correct thing for our country? Pretty to think so.
18
Vice President Biden deserves thanks for his comments. All of us appreciate and honor his service to the country.
Some of us are old enough to remember Anita Hill and her riveting testimony about the then nominee Clarence Thomas. Other women were apparently ready to come forward to buttress this testimony with similar accounts from their own lives. It didn't happen.
So there was stain to go around that day too.
Some of us are old enough to remember Anita Hill and her riveting testimony about the then nominee Clarence Thomas. Other women were apparently ready to come forward to buttress this testimony with similar accounts from their own lives. It didn't happen.
So there was stain to go around that day too.
42
I remember that vividly as well. Today, however, I have forgiven Mr. Biden because he's done a lot, given so much for the goodof the country.
7
You never give up, Democrats tried unsuccessfully to, "Bork" Clarence Thomas. Their was no proof of any of the accusations by Hill!
Massively long stain, biden gave us thomas, period.
The question to ask here is why are the Senate Republicans unwilling to even consider a candidate? In principle they could always smile, listen, and vote "no."
And at one further remove, they could slow the process, and then think about the nominee in front of them ... and what they think their odds of winning the election are, and what nominee they may get from the next Democratic president if they lose this election.
Both Bernie and Hillary have consistently outpolled Trump nationally, and the wreckage that Trump is now inflicting on the GOP (and what they are doing in return) makes it seem very unlikely that they will get a Republican president. Obama's nominee will likely be more moderate than that of a Democrat at the beginning of their term ... at least consider it?
There are only two possible reasons for the Republican intransigence, and neither does them proud:
* The base is in a fury and a panic; the senators are scared of being seen as "traitors" to a right-wing cause, scared of being primaried by their own voters.
* There's the fear that once the process starts the pressure to confirm a qualified nominee will increase. But the pressure to give up on this refusal of congressional duty will increase much more.
They are risking senate seats with this, and it is a measure of their desperation and "back to the wall" mentality that they are doing this.
And at one further remove, they could slow the process, and then think about the nominee in front of them ... and what they think their odds of winning the election are, and what nominee they may get from the next Democratic president if they lose this election.
Both Bernie and Hillary have consistently outpolled Trump nationally, and the wreckage that Trump is now inflicting on the GOP (and what they are doing in return) makes it seem very unlikely that they will get a Republican president. Obama's nominee will likely be more moderate than that of a Democrat at the beginning of their term ... at least consider it?
There are only two possible reasons for the Republican intransigence, and neither does them proud:
* The base is in a fury and a panic; the senators are scared of being seen as "traitors" to a right-wing cause, scared of being primaried by their own voters.
* There's the fear that once the process starts the pressure to confirm a qualified nominee will increase. But the pressure to give up on this refusal of congressional duty will increase much more.
They are risking senate seats with this, and it is a measure of their desperation and "back to the wall" mentality that they are doing this.
22
Thank you Vice President Biden for your impassioned plea to those who have hearts of stone. and to whom the Constitution and the citizens of this country mean nothing. The Republican Senators are resolute in not even vaguely entertaining the notion of holding hearings for a Supreme Court nominee, even if President Obama were to nominate Jesus. The Party of "No" and "you lie" will continue to obstruct and to fail the citizens of this country by refusing to govern. Their actions have bordered on treason. They have failed do do their sworn duty, and they should resign.
The party of personal responsibility is now the party of reckless irresponsibility. They have diminished this country in stature and all that it stands for, in the eyes of the world.
The party of personal responsibility is now the party of reckless irresponsibility. They have diminished this country in stature and all that it stands for, in the eyes of the world.
39
I don't think today's GOP would like Jesus, actually. Didn't he say the rich should help the poor?
Can obstructionist senators not be sued for breach of duty since they swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and the law? Clearly they are in violation of the Constitution and as such should be held accountable.
31
They can be sued just as soon as Obama is sued for implementing different ObamaCare than the one he signed into law, for failing to enforce immigration law and for making recess appointments while Congress was in session.
Since when do Democrats have a concern about upholding the Constitution.
And by the way, the Senate has no obligation to act on a Presidential nomination.
Perhaps this is payback for failing to hold hearings or a vote on the two DC Court of Appeals vacancies that occurred during Bush's Presidency, which were later filled, along with two vacancies that arose during Obama's administration, by Reid's use of the nuclear option.
Two Appellate judges stolen from Bush = one SCOTUS judge stolen from Obama. Payback is a beach.
Since when do Democrats have a concern about upholding the Constitution.
And by the way, the Senate has no obligation to act on a Presidential nomination.
Perhaps this is payback for failing to hold hearings or a vote on the two DC Court of Appeals vacancies that occurred during Bush's Presidency, which were later filled, along with two vacancies that arose during Obama's administration, by Reid's use of the nuclear option.
Two Appellate judges stolen from Bush = one SCOTUS judge stolen from Obama. Payback is a beach.
1
This behavior is just one of the many things driving republicans away from the establishment and toward Trump.
6
Thank you, Mr. Vice President, for bringing a call for law and order to these lawless lawmakers.
41
In the race to the bottom, Republicans never disappoint. Calling themselves Christians and exhibiting most of the seven deadly sins:
pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth
actually, I wouldn't mind a bit more sloth, though. They are very busy with their dastardly doings. Whited sepulchers, especially the sanctimonious ones, Cruz most particularly.
If they
pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth
actually, I wouldn't mind a bit more sloth, though. They are very busy with their dastardly doings. Whited sepulchers, especially the sanctimonious ones, Cruz most particularly.
If they
25
Thanks for sharing your balanced non-partisan fact based views....
1
I have never seen the like of the Republican spectacle today. I do not see how the Republican party can survive intact, but the dangers to the nation of the splintered remains may be worse.
Trump has proved that a third of Republicans (and a considerable number of independents and Democrats) are eager for fascism. This lays bare something that has until now been seen as an outlandish claim from the left.
These people will not go away if Trump is defeated. Their anger and grievance will find another leader, another outlet ... until ... what?
Trump has proved that a third of Republicans (and a considerable number of independents and Democrats) are eager for fascism. This lays bare something that has until now been seen as an outlandish claim from the left.
These people will not go away if Trump is defeated. Their anger and grievance will find another leader, another outlet ... until ... what?
“Advice and Consent” can consist of structured hearings, a referral out of the Senate Judiciary Committee with a recommendation for or against to the Senate as a whole, or a refusal to refer out of committee … or it can consist of a Bronx Cheer. The Senate gets to set its own rules for conduct of its constitutional responsibilities. Now, VP Biden, constitutionally President of the U.S. Senate, certainly has a perch from which to wax didactic as to process, but in the end that counsel plus $2.75 will get you a short ride on a NYC subway.
Refusal to even consider an Obama nominee to replace Antonin Scalia is politically dumb to me; but, then, I’m not Mitch McConnell or Chuck Grassley; and neither is VP Biden.
President Obama seems to think that these guys will relent and hold hearings. Frankly, I don’t think they will, even if his eventual nominee is someone a lot of Republicans can support. If a Republican wins in November, the likelihood is high that WHOEVER Mr. Obama nominates won’t be as conservative as that new Republican president will nominate in 2017. Besides, after saying they won’t hold hearings, I don’t see how they can cave and retain face – and they don’t have to.
Mr. Biden’s clarification of his own position in 1992 is entertaining, because it’s precisely the position now taken by Senate Republicans – he’s simply making out that it’s not.
The Bronx Cheer is not what I would have done; but, as our president is fond of saying, elections have consequences.
Refusal to even consider an Obama nominee to replace Antonin Scalia is politically dumb to me; but, then, I’m not Mitch McConnell or Chuck Grassley; and neither is VP Biden.
President Obama seems to think that these guys will relent and hold hearings. Frankly, I don’t think they will, even if his eventual nominee is someone a lot of Republicans can support. If a Republican wins in November, the likelihood is high that WHOEVER Mr. Obama nominates won’t be as conservative as that new Republican president will nominate in 2017. Besides, after saying they won’t hold hearings, I don’t see how they can cave and retain face – and they don’t have to.
Mr. Biden’s clarification of his own position in 1992 is entertaining, because it’s precisely the position now taken by Senate Republicans – he’s simply making out that it’s not.
The Bronx Cheer is not what I would have done; but, as our president is fond of saying, elections have consequences.
11
You, like your fellow Republicans, continue to put party over national interest. If that's patriotism, and you have an inkling of knowledge of history, it would have been called collaboration in 1942--in other words, treason.
1
"These guys?" Try "YOUR guys."
The Court specifically, and courts generally, were intended by the Constitution to be well-insulated from these little games. High time you recognized this.
The Court specifically, and courts generally, were intended by the Constitution to be well-insulated from these little games. High time you recognized this.
1
The current Senate Republican position is most decidedly not the same as Mr. Biden's position in 1992. What he advocated then was for the President to consult with the Senate to nominate someone who would be a reasonable compromise candidate. Ten minutes after the except that the GOP is giving so much air play to, Biden said, “I believe that... compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate. Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President [George H.W. Bush] consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.” He never in fact failed to hold hearings.
By contrast, the current Senate leadership is NOT saying that Obama should consult with them and name a reasonable compromise candidate. They are refusing to consider ANY nominee by this President whatsoever. I fully expect Obama to name a moderate and clearly qualified candidate in the spirit of compromise, which is the approach he has taken throughout his presidency. If the Senate then continues to refuse to hold hearings, or even meet the candidate, it will become plain that their refusal is merely a continuation of McConnell's vow on the eve of Obama's inauguration — to refuse to cooperate in any way with him.
The GOP's efforts to rationalize their behavior cannot conceal the fact that they are engaging in political obstructionism unprecedented in US history.
By contrast, the current Senate leadership is NOT saying that Obama should consult with them and name a reasonable compromise candidate. They are refusing to consider ANY nominee by this President whatsoever. I fully expect Obama to name a moderate and clearly qualified candidate in the spirit of compromise, which is the approach he has taken throughout his presidency. If the Senate then continues to refuse to hold hearings, or even meet the candidate, it will become plain that their refusal is merely a continuation of McConnell's vow on the eve of Obama's inauguration — to refuse to cooperate in any way with him.
The GOP's efforts to rationalize their behavior cannot conceal the fact that they are engaging in political obstructionism unprecedented in US history.
2
psssst Joe, they don't care.
The republicans don't love the senate or respect the democratic process, except when they have the votes to win.
When they have the votes, they're "doing what the American people want". When they don't have the votes, then 'the voters need to have a chance to express their will'.
You can't 'win', make progress, bargain, negotiate, or otherwise have a positive discussion with your republican colleagues, when they do not participate in good faith.
The words you throw at them, like "patriotism" and "love of the senate", means nothing to them. Its just words they know they can use to manipulate you into ceding ever more ground.
Honestly Joe, its time to stop playing doormat already.
But cheer up. Because the seeds of their dis-consent, has led to the blooming of the vaingloriously flowering Trump bush. Though it may look regal, it does seem to leave a bad aroma. And its growing like weeds.
The republicans don't love the senate or respect the democratic process, except when they have the votes to win.
When they have the votes, they're "doing what the American people want". When they don't have the votes, then 'the voters need to have a chance to express their will'.
You can't 'win', make progress, bargain, negotiate, or otherwise have a positive discussion with your republican colleagues, when they do not participate in good faith.
The words you throw at them, like "patriotism" and "love of the senate", means nothing to them. Its just words they know they can use to manipulate you into ceding ever more ground.
Honestly Joe, its time to stop playing doormat already.
But cheer up. Because the seeds of their dis-consent, has led to the blooming of the vaingloriously flowering Trump bush. Though it may look regal, it does seem to leave a bad aroma. And its growing like weeds.
98
Then nominate someone!!! This is a two step process.
7
An nomination is in the works. Can't you see that?
14
The President will...as the Constitution obligates him to do so ("the President SHALL nominate...", used in an obligatory formal form).
But shouldn't our concern be for the unprecedented insistence of Republicans that they will NOT do their Constitutional duty for a full 11 months, just in the hope the next President is a Republican? Or, perhaps as some have suggested, it's a political self-interest decision by Senate Republicans, fearful that if they do their jobs their angry Tea Party voters will turn on them for actually doing their job?
But shouldn't our concern be for the unprecedented insistence of Republicans that they will NOT do their Constitutional duty for a full 11 months, just in the hope the next President is a Republican? Or, perhaps as some have suggested, it's a political self-interest decision by Senate Republicans, fearful that if they do their jobs their angry Tea Party voters will turn on them for actually doing their job?
Republicans are twisting the Vice-President's words and ignoring a simple oversight on his part. When he said from the floor of the Senate “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." and “That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me we will be in deep trouble as an institution.” Mr. Biden obviously felt there was no need to add the proviso "Unless a future Democratic President is in the same situation with a Republican Senate...that's just common sense." Surely everybody knew at the time that was understood and to distort the obvious intent of his words at the time is shameful.
18
If Majority Leader McConnell had said that the lame duck Senate would consider the (then truly) lame duck President's nominee after the November election (but before the new President is sworn in!) then he would have said the same thing as then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Biden. But he didn't. True, the results of the elections would probably have some influence up or down for either side during the lame duck period, but one might also hope that it would give both sides a chance to cool down a bit before new battles with the new President's administration can begin.
Actually, I'm thinking that if Secretary Clinton is elected November 8 and the Dems make significant inroads in the Senate, by November 9 Senator McConnell will suddenly see the light and practically demand a nominee from President Obama so hearings could begin posthaste.
Actually, I'm thinking that if Secretary Clinton is elected November 8 and the Dems make significant inroads in the Senate, by November 9 Senator McConnell will suddenly see the light and practically demand a nominee from President Obama so hearings could begin posthaste.
Thank You, Vice President Biden.
You are such an example of Service, of Humanity, of Humility, and of Honor. Thank You.
Now, about that Oath of Office thing...that bit about "preserve, defend and uphold the Constitution of the U.S..." I am SO distraught that our country has come to a place where sitting members of the US Senate have openly chosen their party above their Country.
How do we move forward...where is the path? It must be there somewhere...
You are such an example of Service, of Humanity, of Humility, and of Honor. Thank You.
Now, about that Oath of Office thing...that bit about "preserve, defend and uphold the Constitution of the U.S..." I am SO distraught that our country has come to a place where sitting members of the US Senate have openly chosen their party above their Country.
How do we move forward...where is the path? It must be there somewhere...
66
Vice-president Joe Biden, you could have written a better appeal. You fall into the classic Democrat trap: responding to criticisms, and allowing the opposition to set the agenda, as opposed to stating facts, and consequences.
Your administration has tried to reason with the Republican House and Senate--even volunteered to meet them halfway on a myriad of issues, including immigration, health care reform, national budget and foreign policy. Their response, from inauguration day, has been to demean and insult the president, and reveal a strong preference to harm the country, our citizens, and the world, rather than govern. You may love the Senate, Mr. Biden, but make no mistake, the Senate Republicans are the party of the revolting Mr. Trump.
Do you think you can successfully appeal to a sense of honor? Do you think they care for a single moment that they are breaking their oath of office to uphold the constitution? Let the duration between Scalia's death and the congealing of Mitch McConnell's obstructionist facade be your answer.
Elections are coming, Mr. Biden.
You, and President Obama, have tried the carrot, Mr. Biden.
But now, if ever there was a time, is the time for the stick.
Your administration has tried to reason with the Republican House and Senate--even volunteered to meet them halfway on a myriad of issues, including immigration, health care reform, national budget and foreign policy. Their response, from inauguration day, has been to demean and insult the president, and reveal a strong preference to harm the country, our citizens, and the world, rather than govern. You may love the Senate, Mr. Biden, but make no mistake, the Senate Republicans are the party of the revolting Mr. Trump.
Do you think you can successfully appeal to a sense of honor? Do you think they care for a single moment that they are breaking their oath of office to uphold the constitution? Let the duration between Scalia's death and the congealing of Mitch McConnell's obstructionist facade be your answer.
Elections are coming, Mr. Biden.
You, and President Obama, have tried the carrot, Mr. Biden.
But now, if ever there was a time, is the time for the stick.
161
And the 'stick' is exactly what?
Vice-President Biden's statement IS the proper stick!
Vice-President Biden's statement IS the proper stick!
13
Not to mention that guys like TBD have never run for office, let alone held one.
Recess appointment?
The Republicans have troubles convincing a majority of voters to vote for their presidential candidates. In 2000 the Supremes voted to stop the count in Florida. Now that their hero is gone, they would rather be guilty of obstruction than let even a middle of the road candidate get voted on.
They want power. Steal it, buy it, have the court rubber stamp all their desires. Guns for everybody, kill affirmative action, allow unlimited money into elections as speech. Talk about an activist court.
I hope for the GOP convention to blow up. We need a Democratic President and Senate. The current senators think they can weather the disapproval. They have to hope to hang on to their court.
They want power. Steal it, buy it, have the court rubber stamp all their desires. Guns for everybody, kill affirmative action, allow unlimited money into elections as speech. Talk about an activist court.
I hope for the GOP convention to blow up. We need a Democratic President and Senate. The current senators think they can weather the disapproval. They have to hope to hang on to their court.
41
"Middle of the road" is a political concept. There is no "middle"; there are judges, who follow the law, and politicians, who don't. A judge goes where the law takes her; a politician takes the law where she wants it to go.
Such was the difference between a judge, like Scalia, who followed the law, and a politician, like RBG, who follows her ideology.
Such was the difference between a judge, like Scalia, who followed the law, and a politician, like RBG, who follows her ideology.
2
For those who say that the nomination of a justice to SCOTUS should wait so the people can decide at the next election, they seem to have forgotten the separation of powers. The members of SCOTUS are NOT elected, they are to be appointed. And, as such, the decision should not be based on an election. We have a duly elected President and a duly elected (if ineffective) Senate and the Constitution says that the President nominates and the Senate confirms (or denies). Just get on with the process as described in the Constitution.
84
Breathtaking hypocrisy.
"As ye sow, so shall ye reap".
"As ye sow, so shall ye reap".
9
And exactly when did Democrats "sow" this?
When Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy, Democrats held hearings, and voted to confirm him to office, within a year of an election.
When Ike appointed William Brennan through a recess appointment just three WEEKS prior to election day, Democrats made no complaints, no threats, but instead held hearings and a confirmation vote.
In fact, despite the GOP claims of some sort of "80-year precedent" of no Supreme Court nominations in an election year, there is no such precedent! Quite the opposite! Literally ever time there has been a court opening in an election year in the past, the sitting President filled the position, with no complaints from the Senate!
What the GOP are doing now is literally unprecedented in U.S. history...so how could Democrats have somehow sown this action, unless its underestimating how dishonest and crooked Republican members of Congress can be.
When Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy, Democrats held hearings, and voted to confirm him to office, within a year of an election.
When Ike appointed William Brennan through a recess appointment just three WEEKS prior to election day, Democrats made no complaints, no threats, but instead held hearings and a confirmation vote.
In fact, despite the GOP claims of some sort of "80-year precedent" of no Supreme Court nominations in an election year, there is no such precedent! Quite the opposite! Literally ever time there has been a court opening in an election year in the past, the sitting President filled the position, with no complaints from the Senate!
What the GOP are doing now is literally unprecedented in U.S. history...so how could Democrats have somehow sown this action, unless its underestimating how dishonest and crooked Republican members of Congress can be.
1
Biden? The phrase pompous hypocrite immediately comes to mind. Biden is a man who has never had a non-political job in his adult life and is one of the establishment architects of the mess the nation is in. In his decades in Congress how many shady deals, debacles and unfunded and badly thought out programs has he been involved in? How many nominees of all kinds did he stab in the back? Biden represents everything that Sanders, Trump and Cruz voters are rebelling against - the utterly corrupt, inbred and incompetent establishment.
Enough from these arrogant, deluded, selfish, rich old white men. The Times does itself, its readers and the nation a disservice by publishing this mans dishonest drivel.
Enough from these arrogant, deluded, selfish, rich old white men. The Times does itself, its readers and the nation a disservice by publishing this mans dishonest drivel.
12
Mr. Biden NEVER prevented a sitting President from fulfilling his Constitutional duty to name a Supreme Court nominee. This is something ONLY Republicans would even attempt.
1
You sound like a prudent, judicious, even-tempered type. You should throw your hat in the ring and straighten things out right good.
Yessiree
Yessiree
1
Facts? He was a lawyer. Congress is about making laws. So, he should have been a logger or a miner or a salesman or an engineer to learn how to make laws and run government. You seem to think that politicians only steal money.
First, you should look at your hate, fabrications, and the ignorance with which you speak. If he didn't represent the people of Delaware well, he would have been voted out.
I'm sure he's done more in his life for other people than you have done for anybody but yourself. See, I can make up fabrications just like you.
What do you really know about Joe Biden? I probably know more about your simplicity than you know about yourself by just reading your words or do you just hate him because you think that's cool?
First, you should look at your hate, fabrications, and the ignorance with which you speak. If he didn't represent the people of Delaware well, he would have been voted out.
I'm sure he's done more in his life for other people than you have done for anybody but yourself. See, I can make up fabrications just like you.
What do you really know about Joe Biden? I probably know more about your simplicity than you know about yourself by just reading your words or do you just hate him because you think that's cool?
1
I'm surprised you haven't heard of the Biden-Obama exception. "In the year before an election the President shouldn't be able to nominate a Justice," even though according to the Constitution they should be able. Eat your own words Vice-President.
11
Walter didn't bother the read the article..
67
...or much of anything else.
3
Walter, Mr. Biden didn't say those words...Perhaps you should read the column, and learn what he really said.
For those here but not reading the column. back in 1992 in the 3-4 months prior to election day, following some highly political fights in Congress and with the President, Mr. Biden suggested if (and emphasis there, as there was no opening on the Court when Mr. Biden spoke, as opposed to today when we already have that opening), he suggested the President wait UNTIL AFTER ELECTION DAY!!
Note the difference between what Biden said then, and what the GOP say today (lying about how they're the same thing). Biden said wait a few months, then President Bush make his nomination, to be confirmed before the new President takes office. Contrast that with today's GOP, who say President Obama simply should not make any nomination, ever, even though the election is 8 months away yet, twice as far as it was when Biden spoke!
For those here but not reading the column. back in 1992 in the 3-4 months prior to election day, following some highly political fights in Congress and with the President, Mr. Biden suggested if (and emphasis there, as there was no opening on the Court when Mr. Biden spoke, as opposed to today when we already have that opening), he suggested the President wait UNTIL AFTER ELECTION DAY!!
Note the difference between what Biden said then, and what the GOP say today (lying about how they're the same thing). Biden said wait a few months, then President Bush make his nomination, to be confirmed before the new President takes office. Contrast that with today's GOP, who say President Obama simply should not make any nomination, ever, even though the election is 8 months away yet, twice as far as it was when Biden spoke!
3
The operative word in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution is "shall," as in "he (the president) shall nominate..." As Webster says, when "shall" is used in formal speech or writing, it expresses compulsion, obligation or necessity. President Obama has no choice but to fulfill his sworn Constitutional requirements. When politically motivated Republicans insist that the twice-elected Mr. Obama forfeit his right and duty to nominate, they are undermining the Constitution and our governmental foundation.
This, from a political party that likes to wrap itself in the American flag, every chance it gets.
This, from a political party that likes to wrap itself in the American flag, every chance it gets.
150
It depends on what shall means as Bill Clinton would say.
4
When we write software requirements, "shall" is used very sparingly. When used, "shall" means "you must do this, or the software is not done, and you will not get paid."
I've never delved into this at all, but as president of the Senate, isn't their something parliamentary that the vice president can do to move the nomination forward or make it uncomfortable for Senate Republicans not to consider it?
8
No. There isn't. I wish there were.
Agreed.
#DoYourJob - Advise and Consent.
#DoYourJob - Advise and Consent.
7
The problem is the definition of "Advice and Consent".
2
Mr. Vice President-
This article shows, as does your whole career of public service, why so many of us hoped you would be our next President.
I hope at least some of the current Senators will be recalled to their constitutional duty by your example.
Thank you for your wisdom, your eloquence, and your heartfelt love of America.
This article shows, as does your whole career of public service, why so many of us hoped you would be our next President.
I hope at least some of the current Senators will be recalled to their constitutional duty by your example.
Thank you for your wisdom, your eloquence, and your heartfelt love of America.
31
I hope the position taken by Republicans in Congress will be rethought.
However, the fact that this position was taken at all should put quit to the idea that our political gridlock is two-sided. Every Republican incumbent has demonstrated their contempt for democracy, and the legislative process.
In a democracy, the proper way to put an end to gridlock is to toss out those responsible for creating it. The gridlock, failed funding bills, and so forth have been created largely by one party, who, these days, explicitly does not believe in Government.
Admittedly, Republicans have so biased the voting for the House of Representatives via Gerrymandering that many more votes are needed to elect a majority of Democrats than Republicans. (and a Republican Supreme Court did not see fit to fix this) Still, voting is the change mechanism to use first.
All of us need to vote for responsible candidates in the primaries, and for those who favor democracy in the general election.
However, the fact that this position was taken at all should put quit to the idea that our political gridlock is two-sided. Every Republican incumbent has demonstrated their contempt for democracy, and the legislative process.
In a democracy, the proper way to put an end to gridlock is to toss out those responsible for creating it. The gridlock, failed funding bills, and so forth have been created largely by one party, who, these days, explicitly does not believe in Government.
Admittedly, Republicans have so biased the voting for the House of Representatives via Gerrymandering that many more votes are needed to elect a majority of Democrats than Republicans. (and a Republican Supreme Court did not see fit to fix this) Still, voting is the change mechanism to use first.
All of us need to vote for responsible candidates in the primaries, and for those who favor democracy in the general election.
9
Is it possible that the Republican leaders who are trying to stop Donald Trump's candidacy fail to realize that the kind of obstructionism they have shown in the process for filling an empty Supreme Court seat is emblematic of the attitude that has galvanized Trump supporters? Go through the process and live with the outcome.
10
Thank you, Vice President Biden.
We have watched you stand by your endeared Senate, your country, and have admired your loyalty to your president.
I remember when you ran against Barack Obama. And I remember when you became the VP nominee. And I so remember the day you stood aside your wife, Dr. Jill Biden, after the loss of your son, declaring you would not run this time.
And now, we will remember your plea to your colleagues to do the right thing, to not obstruct, but to show care for those who will be affected by the decisions of the High Court of our land. You are doing the best you can to ask them to please rethink this immature response in the times of their juvenile lack of responsibility. We hope they will take heed, turn to the respect of your plea and the plea of justice for our country.
We have watched you stand by your endeared Senate, your country, and have admired your loyalty to your president.
I remember when you ran against Barack Obama. And I remember when you became the VP nominee. And I so remember the day you stood aside your wife, Dr. Jill Biden, after the loss of your son, declaring you would not run this time.
And now, we will remember your plea to your colleagues to do the right thing, to not obstruct, but to show care for those who will be affected by the decisions of the High Court of our land. You are doing the best you can to ask them to please rethink this immature response in the times of their juvenile lack of responsibility. We hope they will take heed, turn to the respect of your plea and the plea of justice for our country.
19
It's not clear to me which Supreme Court nominee the Senate GOP is awaiting, Elizabeth Warren upon a Democratic victory, or Donald's sister upon a Drumpf trump. Its seems to me the best bet anybody has for an apolitical appointment is from Professor Obama. After this little tantrum of theirs, I cannot imagine them having a single word to say in opposition to an appointment by a president freshly elected by " we the people." Senator McConnell should be careful of what he wishes for, as he may get his wish.
11
I agree wholeheartedly. I've lived through an inordinate amount of government gridlock in my short 29 years, but this is the first time I've seen a situation that actually strikes at the heart of the American Constitutional system. Not only does this despicable episode undermine the integrity of the Senate, it undermines the integrity of our democracy. Senate Republican "leadership" should be ashamed of themselves.
24
This is rich. Did he forgot that we all saw the tape of him arguing just the opposite a few years ago. Not to mention Chuck Schumer. Then everyone wonders why we are skeptical of politicians.
20
Do you also not recall that when the situation arose then Senator Biden did in fact fulfill his constitutional responsibility?
I don't wonder, because I know it's a matter of stupidity.
1
Did you read the article, Michael? He didn't say the Senate wouldn't consider a Bush appointee. He urged the President to wait till after the election to appoint. Barring that, he urged the Judiciary committee to wait till after the election to consider the appointee. He didn't say the President shouldn't appoint. He didn't vow that the Senate would refuse to consider the appointee.
This comment is a perfect example of why this country is in the state it's in: People like Michael refuse to face the facts. Or even try to learn them.
This comment is a perfect example of why this country is in the state it's in: People like Michael refuse to face the facts. Or even try to learn them.
Yes I agree but only because we have a Democrat as president. Now if we had Republican president I would demand it be put off until after the next election. The stakes are to high.
4
I think you need to review the embedded video, joe. Mr. Biden said in 1992 delay the senate judicial actions until the November elections had passed. The current day Republicans are saying not at all before January 20, 2017.
And exactly what is the difference between the two Hank?
1
Well, the GOP does not love the Senate. So, sorry Mr. Biden. The long legacy of the SCOTUS is dead. They have been, under Scalia, frequently merely an arm of partisan politics, and they will be, in the future, even MORE of an army of partisan politics.
Who will change this, and step back from the abyss? Mitch McConnel? You gotta be kidding.
Who will change this, and step back from the abyss? Mitch McConnel? You gotta be kidding.
18
It should also be noted that this is not an orderly replacement. We now have a dysfunctional court with only eight justices. Have we forgotten that only 15 years ago it took the supreme court to decide an election? It's not entirely impossible that we find ourselves in this situation again. What then?
10
The 89,000 people that voted for Nader in Florida certainly have not forgotten how Gore lost 2000 election. Neither will the 600 Republicans who decided the election. I know it was the chards, the Supreme Court...the other guy
Feeling the Bern in Trxas.
Feeling the Bern in Trxas.
In that case, the lower court's decision would stand (in an SC tie). Meaning the Florida vote count would have continued. It's unclear if that would have changed the results, but it would have been interesting to see.
2
Good point, Michael!
Had the Court been sitting with only 8 Justices 15 years ago, the review of the Florida Supreme Court's decision would have resulted in a 4-4 tie...meaning the Florida Court's decision to actually recount EVERY SINGLE VOTE would have prevailed...and Gore would have won!
Had the Court been sitting with only 8 Justices 15 years ago, the review of the Florida Supreme Court's decision would have resulted in a 4-4 tie...meaning the Florida Court's decision to actually recount EVERY SINGLE VOTE would have prevailed...and Gore would have won!
1
I completely agree with Biden of course, but I don't know that he's the best voice of reason here. Yes, what he said in 1992 was different from what Republicans are saying now, but it feels disingenuous to claim it wasn't a partisan act, just different by a matter of degree.
7
There is what Biden said, and then there is what he did. He did, in fact, fulfill his constitutional responsibility by confirming the nominee for SCOTUS.
1
By refusing to even consider President Obama's nominee, the Republicans have put the final nail in the Obstructionist coffin they have crafted since President Obama's first day in office. There is no longer any doubt.
This is a final insult from McConnell and his tribe to this President - and to the American peoples who elected him nearly 8 years ago. When McConnell+Grassley say the American people should decide in the next election, they ignore the Constituional issue that the American people DID decide - and President Obama was that decision.
This type of "insider-trading" by the Republicans, their obstructionism, their complete and utter disrespect for this President, has brought Trump to their doorstep.
I fervently hope this latest, and most revolting, insult will bury the Republicans in their own trash - and allow the Democrats to retake the Senate.
This is a final insult from McConnell and his tribe to this President - and to the American peoples who elected him nearly 8 years ago. When McConnell+Grassley say the American people should decide in the next election, they ignore the Constituional issue that the American people DID decide - and President Obama was that decision.
This type of "insider-trading" by the Republicans, their obstructionism, their complete and utter disrespect for this President, has brought Trump to their doorstep.
I fervently hope this latest, and most revolting, insult will bury the Republicans in their own trash - and allow the Democrats to retake the Senate.
599
There is a big storm brewing and Mr. Drumpf is a sign of it. I believe the GOP is digging a really deep hole and truly hope it sucks them all down never to return.
It really is up to the voters—we can decide if obstructionism is the way forward, or if we can chose a better path—it's really up to us, but we have to care enough to show up.
It really is up to the voters—we can decide if obstructionism is the way forward, or if we can chose a better path—it's really up to us, but we have to care enough to show up.
3
reply to Seth: Democrats will only take the House and Senate when voters stop voting against their own interests- and send to Congress, those who actually represent the citizens of their respective states. Voters elect State Representative who do not represent them, and then send them to Congress where they [again] do not represent them? Voters elect "sound bite" politicians and the rest of us "get" to suffer the results.
and the House.
Amazing hypocrisy in light of his own revisionist history.
14
Did you read the article? He didn't say the Senate wouldn't consider a Bush appointee. He urged the President to wait till after the election to appoint. Barring that, he urged the Judiciary committee to wait till after the election to consider the appointee. He didn't say the President shouldn't appoint. He didn't vow that the Senate would refuse to consider the appointee.
Hey Joe, let's go to the videotape. Your speech in 1992 advocated for the exact same thing you are opposed to now. I think the GOP should not stall on a Scalia replacement but your hypocrisy on this is astounding. And you all wonder why there is a rebellion afoot?
17
Perhaps you're the one that needs to check the videotape. Where on it did Senator McConnell say, "We will hold a hearing on President Obama's nominee after the November elections"? Because it seems to me that all he's been saying is that he would refuse to let the Senate consider any nominee put forward by President Obama at all, ever. But perhaps I misheard, or misread. Video, please?
Did you read the entire editorial or look at the entire video? That's not at all was he was saying in 1992. He said that if a vacancy came up during the summer or early fall, the President should wait until after high campaign season and the election to name a nominee. The current vacancy occurred early in the year and the nomination and hearings could proceed before the fall campaign season. He never said that the president shouldn't nominate someone or that the Senate wouldn't hold hearings. There was no obstruction, only advice, which is supported by the Constitution.
3
Did you read the article? He didn't say the Senate wouldn't consider a Bush appointee. He urged the President to wait till after the election to appoint. Barring that, he urged the Judiciary committee to wait till after the election to consider the appointee. He didn't say the President shouldn't appoint. He didn't vow that the Senate would refuse to consider the appointee.
Here is the problem and it is in the first sentence. " in my 36 years in the senate" This is a big problem for our country. Career politicians overstaying their time in government. So, people like Biden, Reid, Pelosi, McConnell, Grassely et al, the establishment, have no say in my world. Thus, Bidens editorial has no merit.
5
What's wrong with experience? After all, the voters determined each time that they wanted Biden to remain in the Senate, and the voters determined in 2008 and 2012 that they wanted Biden as their vice-president (or at the very least wanted Obama as their president enough that any faults they found with Biden didn't change their vote to McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan).
Career politicians aren't the problem. Politicians who don't do their job, take bribes, and/or don't answer to their constituents are the problem.
Career politicians aren't the problem. Politicians who don't do their job, take bribes, and/or don't answer to their constituents are the problem.
4
This argument never ceases to amaze me. In what other important capacity, or even less important capacity for that matter, would you prefer a less experienced operator? Do you want a rookie surgeon cutting operating on your child? Would you prefer an experienced or an inexperienced mechanic working on your car? We are talking about the most powerful country in the world and who would be our leaders.
So often the preferred alternative to "career politicians" are folks from the business world. Do you think any of those successful businessmen and women got to the top by being inexperienced? Would their board of trustees put a rookie management trainee in the role of CEO?
Of course not.
So often the preferred alternative to "career politicians" are folks from the business world. Do you think any of those successful businessmen and women got to the top by being inexperienced? Would their board of trustees put a rookie management trainee in the role of CEO?
Of course not.
Dear Mr. Vice-President:
Bravo. ~cz
Bravo. ~cz
11
If memory serves me correctly, if anything Sen. Biden bent over backwards to accomodate the Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, by not allowing certain key witnesses to testify before Congress on the character of said nominee. Sen. Biden's ommission was widely commented on the time, and it still resonates today.
14
Yeah, sure that's what happened.
2
I guess Mr. Biden forgot his 1992 position when he opposed all presidential supreme court nominations during an election year. Of course a Republican was president at that time.
16
Until after the election. Don't forget that part -- that's the difference between then-Senator Biden's position in 1992 and the Senate GOP leadership's position now. He said "Wait"; they say "Don't nominate at all, or else."
1
I just posted this answer after another response like yours:
Did you read the entire editorial or look at the entire video? That's not at all was he was saying in 1992. He said that if a vacancy came up during the summer or early fall, the President should wait until after high campaign season and the election to name a nominee. The current vacancy occurred early in the year and the nomination and hearings could proceed before the fall campaign season. He never said that the president shouldn't nominate someone or that the Senate wouldn't hold hearings. There was no obstruction, only advice, which is supported by the Constitution.
Did you read the entire editorial or look at the entire video? That's not at all was he was saying in 1992. He said that if a vacancy came up during the summer or early fall, the President should wait until after high campaign season and the election to name a nominee. The current vacancy occurred early in the year and the nomination and hearings could proceed before the fall campaign season. He never said that the president shouldn't nominate someone or that the Senate wouldn't hold hearings. There was no obstruction, only advice, which is supported by the Constitution.
3
I've never delved into this, but as president of the Senate, isn't their something parliamentary that the vice president can do to move the nomination forward or make it uncomfortable for Senate Republicans not to consider it?
4
"...If they love the Senate as much as I do, they need to act...
Joe, they have - as the Senate typically does...
That's why we no longer love the Senate as much as you do - or the House, either...
Joe, they have - as the Senate typically does...
That's why we no longer love the Senate as much as you do - or the House, either...
9
.....and why Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have so much traction....
1
Mr. Biden was wrong then, just as McDonnell is wrong today. The sitting president gets to appoint a Supreme Court vacancy. Case closed.
6
Did you even read Mr. Biden's take on what happened in 1992?
1
Vice President Biden is terrific. He is totally reasonable and trustworthy on this issue.
3
Mr. Biden might I suggest you look up the meaning of hypocrisy? It is easy enough to do using Google. You do know how to use Google, yes?
9
Well said Mr. Vice President. Now the President needs to move and make his nomination. Time's a-wastin'.
3
The Republicans in the Senate speak right past President Obama to prospective nominees: "Don't even think of accepting this nomination."
6
"If they love the Senate as much as I do, they need to act."
They don't. The value the Party of Plutocracy above all else.
The rigid lock-step of obstruction they all march in shows that not a single one values the Senate, or democracy, or the nation itself.
Only serving the (short-sighted) desires of extreme wealth. That is all they stand for.
They don't. The value the Party of Plutocracy above all else.
The rigid lock-step of obstruction they all march in shows that not a single one values the Senate, or democracy, or the nation itself.
Only serving the (short-sighted) desires of extreme wealth. That is all they stand for.
14
Obama should hold off on the nomination and let President Clinton nominate a young ultra liberal candidate for approval by a Democratic senate after the electorate overwhelmingly rejects the Trump/Cruz horror show in the fall. That way this country can be shaped as a 21st century progressive democracy and spared from stupid debates about abortion, gun rights, the death penalty and every other issue that was settled in civilized countries decades ago.
13
May I nominate you for worst right-wing troll of the day? Congrats, as it is an honor deeply earned.
1
I'm sorry, Mr. Vice President. The words in your 1992 speech speak for themselves. This column comes across as hypocritical.
The good news, for Democrats, is that it's not likely to matter. It's very likely our next President will be Ms. Clinton.
The good news, for Democrats, is that it's not likely to matter. It's very likely our next President will be Ms. Clinton.
2
Let's ask the grand jury.
7
I supported Democrats for four decades but now support no one. Both parties are a government of the government people who reinforce their own power, one branch empowering the others with only election time appeals to the American people.
While the Republicans have traditionally been the military party, since Bill Clinton oversaw the attempt at disarming the Waco Texas Christians turned into a savage torture and mass murder, the Democrats have become the police state party. Bill Clinton and Joe Biden were instrumental in reinforcing the police forces with 100,000 more cops that led to today's reality that America is now a defacto social prison. President Obama early on declared he wanted to further reinforce the police ranks with another 100,000 police.
I thought about whether I wanted Obama to seat a Supreme Court Justice. He has already appointed Loretta Lynch Attorney General, and Comey as F.B.I. Director, both hailing from the New York prison city region that is spreading it's brand of unconstitutional public enslavement throughout the country and beyond through their in-the-pocket Television networks.
Both parties are locked in a battle of self empowerment and we the citizens, are languishing in jails, or unemployed because of a police record, and turned upside down as suspects to garner paychecks and advancement by the American police state.
I dislike both ruling parties. I will be fine if the Senate obstructs a nominee, who would likely be supportive of police.
While the Republicans have traditionally been the military party, since Bill Clinton oversaw the attempt at disarming the Waco Texas Christians turned into a savage torture and mass murder, the Democrats have become the police state party. Bill Clinton and Joe Biden were instrumental in reinforcing the police forces with 100,000 more cops that led to today's reality that America is now a defacto social prison. President Obama early on declared he wanted to further reinforce the police ranks with another 100,000 police.
I thought about whether I wanted Obama to seat a Supreme Court Justice. He has already appointed Loretta Lynch Attorney General, and Comey as F.B.I. Director, both hailing from the New York prison city region that is spreading it's brand of unconstitutional public enslavement throughout the country and beyond through their in-the-pocket Television networks.
Both parties are locked in a battle of self empowerment and we the citizens, are languishing in jails, or unemployed because of a police record, and turned upside down as suspects to garner paychecks and advancement by the American police state.
I dislike both ruling parties. I will be fine if the Senate obstructs a nominee, who would likely be supportive of police.
4
Very well put. I agree 100%. But can we also take this as a lesson in governance - apply rules and conduct in opposition the same way that you would like them applied to you when in office (and vice versa). Hypocrisy should be beneath our government.
8
The only thing on people's minds is the presidential election.
1
Can't we walk and chew gum at the same time?
1
I think Obama should nominate and the Senate should hold hearings on a nominee this year. That said, it is a bit hypocritical for Biden to be delivering this message. I would rather he and Schumer just admit their posturing when the shoe was on the other foot was wrong rather than try and explain it away.
11
Has Mr. Obama nominated some one? Did we miss it? If he hasn't nominated anyone this issue is moot.
8
Always good the hear from Uncle Joe Biden Jr. His apologia with 'I's galore is almost as convincing as his Neil Kinnock speech. Time for Joe to move on...
5
Joe Biden is right to remind the Senate of its solemn duty to hold hearings on prospective jurists who may be nominated by President Obama to fill the late Justice Scalia's seat at the Supreme Court. The Senate's Republicans' refusal to consider such a hearing is an act of unspeakable political cowardice. The Senators need to be know that they need not necessarily accept Obama's nominees. But, at the very least, the Senators need to show their common decency by listening to what the nominees have to say.
8
For the Republicans - especially Mitch McConnell and his ilk - to refuse even to consider any nominee that President Obama may select is offensive and repugnant to the U.S. Constitution, a dereliction of a U.S. Senator's duties and an act of betrayal of such Senator's constituents. This matter should not even be up for debate or discussion. All U.S. Senators must follow to the letter the mandate of Article II Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Anything less should subject a U.S. Senator to impeachment.
11
I, and I suspect most readers, agree that "anything less should subject a U.S. Senator to impeachment." But since impeachment proceedings must originate in the House, and the House is under the control of the Republican Party, IT.WILL.NOT.HAPPEN.
1
And this is the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Mr. Biden provides a careful political history, a constitutional imperative and a call to love the duties of the senate.
The Republican message is that Democrats steal the will of the people, obstruct democracy and impose their extreme agenda on the American people.
One is a call to history, duty and love of government. The other is a call to anger, hate and division. Which do you think will get more media play? Bring out more voters?
The Republican message is that Democrats steal the will of the people, obstruct democracy and impose their extreme agenda on the American people.
One is a call to history, duty and love of government. The other is a call to anger, hate and division. Which do you think will get more media play? Bring out more voters?
446
All dishonest half truths and utterly hypocritical.
7
Mr Hartman, are you aware why Biden moved the Kennedy nomination thru? Do your homework, sir.
David, I find far more hate in people like you than I do in Trump or in Fox news.
But alas, you do not have a mirror.
Absolutely every issue is discussed here, not on its merits but in terms of how awful the Republicans are.
But alas, you do not have a mirror.
Absolutely every issue is discussed here, not on its merits but in terms of how awful the Republicans are.
1
Absent extraordinary circumstances yet to be revealed, the refusal to hold hearings before a nominee is even identified is hard to fathom.
8
We love you, Joe, but you're talking facts here. And as we all know (Colbert told us years ago), facts have a liberal bias. It'll be interesting to see how many commenters complain that you did in 1992 exactly what the Republicans are doing now. Which will show, of course, that they didn't read your article, but that's never stopped them before. Sigh.
15
It is quite incredible that such a smart man as Mr Biden would expect the citizens of this country to buy the nonsense he is peddling in this piece.
7
He's not that smart
4
Yes, look forward to Senator Biden's defense of President Obama's refusal to act on a Clinton indictment. Can't wait for that history lesson.
1
"...I hope that Republican leaders will take a step back and think about what they are doing. I hope they will think about the oaths they have taken. I hope they will think about their responsibility to the voters of this nation. And I hope they will think about their role in upholding the integrity of the United States Senate."
I hope the Democrats remember this if/when they find themselves in a similar situation. It is all too common for both Parties to do 180 degree turns based on the politics of the day.
I hope the Democrats remember this if/when they find themselves in a similar situation. It is all too common for both Parties to do 180 degree turns based on the politics of the day.
5
Joe already gave you empirical evidence tht there is NO precedent for this, over a lifetime of his Senate duty. Why are you asserting false equivalency where none exists?
11
Democrats have had numerous opportunities to have done this, and didn't. Not once!
Eisenhower's recess appointment three weeks prior to election day in 1956...Anthony Kennedy's confirmation just 9 or 10 months prior to election day...In fact, the NYTimes last week ran a story detailing that there have been seven Supreme Court seats come open since 1900 in an election. In literally every instance, the sitting president, in his last year in office, nominated a replacement. In each case, the replacement was given a hearing and a confirmation vote. Most of these seven instances involved a Republican President and a Democratic Senate.
What today's GOP are doing is literally unprecedented in U.S. history.
Now, if the GOP stand firm and allow no hearing or vote until 2017, when the Senate next becomes Democratic Party controlled, I would expect the Democrats to follow the GOP's lead and do the same thing. Once established, the precedent is available to all.
Eisenhower's recess appointment three weeks prior to election day in 1956...Anthony Kennedy's confirmation just 9 or 10 months prior to election day...In fact, the NYTimes last week ran a story detailing that there have been seven Supreme Court seats come open since 1900 in an election. In literally every instance, the sitting president, in his last year in office, nominated a replacement. In each case, the replacement was given a hearing and a confirmation vote. Most of these seven instances involved a Republican President and a Democratic Senate.
What today's GOP are doing is literally unprecedented in U.S. history.
Now, if the GOP stand firm and allow no hearing or vote until 2017, when the Senate next becomes Democratic Party controlled, I would expect the Democrats to follow the GOP's lead and do the same thing. Once established, the precedent is available to all.
1
There is absolutely NOTHING to argue with here. Biden lays it out crystal clear. A a Senator, failing to uphold the oath of your office and the cut-and-dry protocol outlined by the US Constitution is nothing short of political extortion and a flagrant abuse of power. We are talking about a deliberate and disgraceful disregard by radicalized GOP Senators for the legitimacy of the American voting population and the very founders of this country. These people are not doing their job, period. They are a cancer to our nation and need to be voted out of office as soon as possible by anybody in BOTH parties who loves the USA, is proud of our great democracy, and sincerely cares for the health and security of our future.
8
The position of Republican leaders in untenable. A refusal to consider any Obama nominee implies that they would, in principle, refuse to consider even someone who shares Justice Scalia's legal philosophy. Obviously, this is unreasonable. It is a blatant and unprecedented dereliction of a Constitutional obligation. It is conduct unbecoming of the Senate. It seems destined for condemnation in the court of public opinion.
I imagine that McConnell, Grassley, and the rest of the Republican leadership are aware of this. I would speculate that their position is meant to placate special interests and to nudge President Obama's selection to the right of his political preference. If the Republican senators are duty-bound to consent to a qualified nominee, then they may as well attempt to pressure Obama into a more moderate selection.
I imagine that McConnell, Grassley, and the rest of the Republican leadership are aware of this. I would speculate that their position is meant to placate special interests and to nudge President Obama's selection to the right of his political preference. If the Republican senators are duty-bound to consent to a qualified nominee, then they may as well attempt to pressure Obama into a more moderate selection.
Obama's first choice was the very moderate Sandoval of Nevada. I believe the powers that be told him to remove himself from the running. The reason is that the GOP would have no justification for not holding hearings, and no reason to not confirm him. Voila: they would have supported the president. And that is something the senate GOP cannot do. Far better in the eyes of the powers, to have the SCOTUS be a red meat issue to draw out right wing voters come November. Our constitution? Democratic process? Tradition/Precedent? BAH-- who cares.
3
Thank you Vice President Biden for your clear and straightforward statement. Your points regarding the Presiden's and the Senate's constitutional duties, and overview of the nomination process during your years so service in the Senate, make a case for something that shouldn't even need argument — our elected representatives MUST fulfill the Constitutional and sworn duties of their office, for the full term of their office. I appreciate President Obama's commitment to his duty and am appalled by any Senator that pledges to obstruct the nomination process. Such obstructionism should disqualify practioners from office. If the Republican leadership continues to call for obstruction, I hope that voters will punish each and every Senator that blocks a fair and timely nomination process from occurring.
5
Not to restate what others have said, but Joe, don't you know that a Black president only gets to fulfill 3/5 of his term?
Those Republicans who excoriate Trump for his wavering on the KKK need to ask themselves how close they are to that same mindset.
Those Republicans who excoriate Trump for his wavering on the KKK need to ask themselves how close they are to that same mindset.
11
Ah, the old race card a favorite of the extreme,delusional left.
6
And what is the term for one who reflexively plays the race card card?
I agree with the Vice President's assertions HOWEVER trying to use logic (or shaming) to convince a recalcitrant Republican majority in the Senate to act responsibly is a waste of time since those people have no sense of decency which logic or shaming could have an effect upon.
13
This is a clear congressional abuse of power, abrogating the Constitutional duty of the president of the United States to nominate Supreme Court candidates. It is good that Vice President Biden corrects the myth about his period, and reminds us of his exemplary conduct in the Senate.
James Madison in the Federalist Papers 47 and 48 warned that the greatest threat to democracy was not a tyrant president, but Congress taking over the powers of the other two branches of government. Under the Republicans and Senator McConnell, the Republicans are blocking both the powers of the presidency and hobbling the Supreme Court by denying it a full slate of justices.
"The legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex."
"An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others."
Welcome to McConnell's elective despotism, mostly based on partisanship and racism, of course.
James Madison in the Federalist Papers 47 and 48 warned that the greatest threat to democracy was not a tyrant president, but Congress taking over the powers of the other two branches of government. Under the Republicans and Senator McConnell, the Republicans are blocking both the powers of the presidency and hobbling the Supreme Court by denying it a full slate of justices.
"The legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex."
"An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others."
Welcome to McConnell's elective despotism, mostly based on partisanship and racism, of course.
6
I think we all realize the Obama Administration runs a no Justice Department that will not prosecute even egregious crime when it is committed by men in expensive suits. But does it have a definition for treason and if so, does it arrest and prosecute? Men in expensive suits?
4
When does such "obstructionism" cross the line and become criminal sedition?
16
Mr. Vice President, I thank you for your forthright plea to the Senate to uphold the oaths they solemnly swore when they took office. The Constitution clearly states that no individual had the right to refuse his (or her) sworn obligation to the Republic. Anyone paying close attention to this unhappy matter realizes that President Obama is obeying the laws entrusted to him by submitting a nominee to fill a vacancy. It is to be hoped that Senators McConnell, Grassley, Cornyn, etc. will choose the path of law and not lawlessness when they make their choice. Our nation's health depends very seriously upon their decision.
8
It's a constitutional duty of the Senate to advise and give its consent. I believe the Senate has already advised Obama. And mimicking the author's words years ago the Senate has told Obama not to nominate anyone until the people have spoken in the November election. It seems Joe is now "clarifying" his remarks from 1992 but a brief trip down memory lane via Youtube indicates that his stance then is the very stance the Senate is now taking.
Sorry Joe, you can't rewrite history because you are having your arm twisted by your JV, inept, divisive, lawless boss.
Sorry Joe, you can't rewrite history because you are having your arm twisted by your JV, inept, divisive, lawless boss.
5
Vice President Biden,
It's clear the GOP senators do not love the Senate like you do. They adhere to Reagan's mantra, now on loop on AM talk radio, that government is the problem; Or Norquist's even more disturbing line about drowning the the government in the bathtub. So, if their obstruction taunts have become so warped, so off the rails, maybe it's time to look at what the repercussions are, what the consequences are for dereliction of duty, for breaking that sacred oath to office. No one wants to see a precedent set like this, where American voters are disrespected after twice electing President Obama, where the Executive Branch is belittled, and where our Constitution is disregarded. It's time this grandstanding gets checked and balanced.
It's clear the GOP senators do not love the Senate like you do. They adhere to Reagan's mantra, now on loop on AM talk radio, that government is the problem; Or Norquist's even more disturbing line about drowning the the government in the bathtub. So, if their obstruction taunts have become so warped, so off the rails, maybe it's time to look at what the repercussions are, what the consequences are for dereliction of duty, for breaking that sacred oath to office. No one wants to see a precedent set like this, where American voters are disrespected after twice electing President Obama, where the Executive Branch is belittled, and where our Constitution is disregarded. It's time this grandstanding gets checked and balanced.
12
I guess someone other then government spent that $19 trillion and made the mess the nation is in. Hmmm...I wonder who that was. Can you enlighten us?
7
@Maxine: It was big business which pays off the senators for tax loop holes. It was Citizen United which caters to big business. The purse strings are controlled by the un-elected. Government is not the problem. The problem is greed.
1
I think you're referring to the national debt of $19 trillion. Do you understand that's debt that's built up over more than 200 years? Yes, it's grown under Obama, but more slowly in recent years than it did under Bush and Reagan. Both Bush and Reagan doubled the debt on their watches. So we all own it - both parties. All Americans.
1
Sorry, Joe, you said what you said—and they were fairly lengthy remarks.
In full power and vigor as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, you sounded and looked like a partisan hack, complete with trademark sneers and demagoguery.
In full power and vigor as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, you sounded and looked like a partisan hack, complete with trademark sneers and demagoguery.
13
Did every nominee to the Supreme Court get a hearing under Biden?
Yep!
Did every nominee to the Supreme Court get a confirmation vote under Biden?
Yep!
Did he refuse to even allow a nominee to the Supreme Court have a hearing?
Nope!
Well, clearly he was never as partisan as the GOP are today, since what the GOP are doing is totally unprecedented and directly contrary to the Constitution of the United States!
Yep!
Did every nominee to the Supreme Court get a confirmation vote under Biden?
Yep!
Did he refuse to even allow a nominee to the Supreme Court have a hearing?
Nope!
Well, clearly he was never as partisan as the GOP are today, since what the GOP are doing is totally unprecedented and directly contrary to the Constitution of the United States!
3
And if the election results in the status quo, a Democratic White House and Republican Senate, does the Supreme Court wait another four years, or however long it takes, to keep Justice Scalia's seat safely in conservative hands? This election-year argument is nothing more than a last-ditch power grab, and if Senate Republicans have to try a new one next year, they certainly will.
7
In that case, the Senate had better never take a formal recess (which they have to do at least for a couple weeks every two years between Congressional sessions) because if they do take a recess, the President is authorized to make a recess appointment (as President Eisenhower did in October 1956, just 3 weeks prior to election day, when he appointed William Brennan to the Supreme Court).
The GOP will then either have to hold hearings and a vote, or that person gets to sit there for two years.
The GOP will then either have to hold hearings and a vote, or that person gets to sit there for two years.
Some people go into government to govern. Some go into government to acquire power. In this case the two are mutually exclusive.
Here, we have an experienced vice president making a logical, rational argument of the constitutionally mandated duties of Senate. The mere act of making such an argument reveals how insane this situation is. All of the Republican Senators that are refusing to do their jobs don't need a lecture about what their responsibilities are. They already know what they are and know them well.
They know exactly what they are doing and how corrosive and demeaning their actions are to the nation. They don't care.
They don't care because they are not the least bit interested in governing. They are solely interested in acquiring power. Already, lawsuits against several big corporations are being settled out of court because they know without Scalia, they stand to lose. This is the power the Republicans are so afraid of losing.
They are not interest in fair hearings. They want to win hearings. That means they want a stacked court that strongly adheres to rightwing politics. Justice is never served when judicial outcomes are predetermined by politics and ideology.
That's what this battle is about and the recalcitrant GOP Senators are just doing what they came to Washington to do. Acquire power. Governing? That's the other sides problem.
Here, we have an experienced vice president making a logical, rational argument of the constitutionally mandated duties of Senate. The mere act of making such an argument reveals how insane this situation is. All of the Republican Senators that are refusing to do their jobs don't need a lecture about what their responsibilities are. They already know what they are and know them well.
They know exactly what they are doing and how corrosive and demeaning their actions are to the nation. They don't care.
They don't care because they are not the least bit interested in governing. They are solely interested in acquiring power. Already, lawsuits against several big corporations are being settled out of court because they know without Scalia, they stand to lose. This is the power the Republicans are so afraid of losing.
They are not interest in fair hearings. They want to win hearings. That means they want a stacked court that strongly adheres to rightwing politics. Justice is never served when judicial outcomes are predetermined by politics and ideology.
That's what this battle is about and the recalcitrant GOP Senators are just doing what they came to Washington to do. Acquire power. Governing? That's the other sides problem.
58
Fine sentiments, but GOTV! Without a Senate majority our next president will be unable to get confirmation for a rational and intelligent upgrade from Scalia to the Supreme Court. That concerns me greatly, since many of the most vocal supporters of Senator Sanders do not seem inclined to continue their involvement in progressive politics if their candidate does not succeed--"the art of the possible" is foreign to them. Shame on them.
You'd think Joe Biden would keep his mouth shut and let people think he is a hypocrite rather than open his mouth and prove that he is one.
In the key passage of Biden's 1992 speech, Biden referred to the "full throes of the election year" and the "political campaign season" as making it inappropriate for the Senate to hold confirmation hearings.
Does anyone doubt we are in the full throes today?
Since the New York Times has failed to publish Biden's original remarks, let me quote that passage. Biden stated:
"The senate too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until ever — until after the political campaign season is over."
In the key passage of Biden's 1992 speech, Biden referred to the "full throes of the election year" and the "political campaign season" as making it inappropriate for the Senate to hold confirmation hearings.
Does anyone doubt we are in the full throes today?
Since the New York Times has failed to publish Biden's original remarks, let me quote that passage. Biden stated:
"The senate too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until ever — until after the political campaign season is over."
13
There is a big difference between delaying confirmation hearings until after the presidential election (as VP Biden advocated at the time) while still allowing the sitting president to nominate a candidate, and allowing that candidate full hearing and consideration -- and what our current Republican senators intend, which is to completely deny President Obama his right to nominate a candidate and give what is his rightful duty to the next elected president.
One idea seeks to avoid political wrangling and one seeks to deny a duly elected President the opportunity to do the job we elected him to do.
One idea seeks to avoid political wrangling and one seeks to deny a duly elected President the opportunity to do the job we elected him to do.
3
Right - after the campaign season was over. Meaning Bush's appointee would have been considered in Nov and Dec. Why is that so hard for people to understand? This is not even close to what Republicans are doing now, which is vowing to never consider an Obama appointee.
1
Whatever one thinks of either the president, his nominee or his opponents in the Senate – this cannot be taken out of this equation: when a senator Mr. Obama tried to do EXACTLY what opposition senators are trying to do today. Senator Obama tried block Justice Alito via a filibuster. And there are ample videos of him making his case as to why he wanted to filibuster Alito (AND videos of Hillary Clinton making the case for Democratic senators blocking the Republican nominee).
Mr. Biden, for you, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to say, "Uh, I regret it", pretend it never happened, or go to conveniently say, "Well, is different _this time_", and then cry wolf, is the utmost hypocrisy. This is a case of "do as I say, don't do as I do" in all it's glory.
Mr. Biden, for you, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to say, "Uh, I regret it", pretend it never happened, or go to conveniently say, "Well, is different _this time_", and then cry wolf, is the utmost hypocrisy. This is a case of "do as I say, don't do as I do" in all it's glory.
12
So, if the Democrats had been such obstructionists, why is Alito sitting on the Supreme Court today, by the way giving Republican donors gifts like the Citizens United ruling?
25
It's harm to the country that Alito was not blocked from confirmation, as subsequent events have shown.
3
There's a big difference between filibustering a particular nominee and announcing that no nominee will even be considered. I will say I think the filibuster is horribly undemocratic and should be abolished, but that's another issue.
23
While the passage in the US Constitution is very specific giving Congress the authority to "Advise and Consent" and giving the President authority to nominate a Supreme Court Justice, nowhere in the Constitution does it read, imply or state that Congress "must" legally acknowledge a President's selection for the position.
At best the current Republican leader's are probably seen by many in the center, and left to center as "obstructionists" , there are probably equally as many people agreeing with Senator McConnell in not holding any Congressional nomination hearings until after the 2016 Presidential Election.
Clearly the Congressional Republicans have the upper hand in this matter and if President Obama nominates a person, McConnell has several options to feel out Obama. Either McConnell can outright say no, or perhaps stall for awhile then hold hearings that could be stretched out until the election is near and then depending on who is then elected Republicans can either vote yes if the person is moderate to center or vote no if the nomination is too liberal.
So perhaps the Obama Administration should keep things subtle for a while and stop taking actions like this Op-ed by Vice President Biden. Do they really thing by attempting to sway public opinion on this matter will cause a change of heart from McConnell?
At best the current Republican leader's are probably seen by many in the center, and left to center as "obstructionists" , there are probably equally as many people agreeing with Senator McConnell in not holding any Congressional nomination hearings until after the 2016 Presidential Election.
Clearly the Congressional Republicans have the upper hand in this matter and if President Obama nominates a person, McConnell has several options to feel out Obama. Either McConnell can outright say no, or perhaps stall for awhile then hold hearings that could be stretched out until the election is near and then depending on who is then elected Republicans can either vote yes if the person is moderate to center or vote no if the nomination is too liberal.
So perhaps the Obama Administration should keep things subtle for a while and stop taking actions like this Op-ed by Vice President Biden. Do they really thing by attempting to sway public opinion on this matter will cause a change of heart from McConnell?
3
Democrats do not have the law on their side. The entire point of this argument is to score political points and/or do political damage.
2
Dear Mr. Vice President, Republicans have lost their way because they lack a moral compass mostly due to because a sick demeanor of demanding power for the sake of power, and as such, they hate democracy. They hate President Obama and could care less about the Constitution or democratic precedent and good governance (tradition). You might just retire and get a new gig on a beach somewhere, maybe Anguilla.
2
Amazing, readers get to comment. Well Vice President Biden maybe if you and the president and house leadership had not sat on your hands the last seven years allowing the right to control the conversation we wouldn't be in this spot. But I guess the Democrats felt the GOP could destroy itself without your help. Were you only thinking of the political class forgetting about your countrymen? Seems like it to me. When it comes down to political fact you and the Democrat team compared to the right's team there is not much to inspire hope or anything good. Just more crony capitalism that includes a free ride for the wealthy. You seem like a good man. I extend my invitation for you to speak up for the bottom half of the country.
1
Go to span, google Biden, and listen to just about any speech he gave. the press may not cover what he says ( unless they see it as a gaffe" but Biden has been speaking out all along.
10
In regard to the Republicans stand that the people must decide- not the President with the consent of the Senate as dictated by the Constitution, I would like to point out that these same Republicans are in an absolute uproar about the Trump run for President because the Republican voters in the "People" are voting for him.
Hopefully the Democrats will trumpet ( no pun intended) this fact to the general public.
Hopefully the Democrats will trumpet ( no pun intended) this fact to the general public.
26
Thank you VP Biden. We sure are going to miss you.
127
Draft Biden! If Secretary Clinton founders, Biden is the obvious choice with Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren for Veep.
3
Thanks to Joe Biden for taking the time to refute the talking points of the Republican Senate.
From my perspective, the irony of the whole impasse over a replacement for Scalia is that I'm not convinced Mitch McConnell even believes what he is advocating: that is that the American public should weigh in on the choice through their votes in the November election.
The first press coverage I saw suggesting that Obama should not offer a nominee came not from McConnell, but from Ted Cruz, several hours prior to McConnell expressing any opinion at all. In other words, the Republicans are making this a partisan issue by allowing one of their candidates for president to drive the agenda of the Senate in a way that is clearly contrary to, if not the letter, the spirit of the Constitution.
Further, I can't help but think that a strict originalist like Justice Scalia would be the first to object to the gamesmanship of the GOP in naming his replacement.
From my perspective, the irony of the whole impasse over a replacement for Scalia is that I'm not convinced Mitch McConnell even believes what he is advocating: that is that the American public should weigh in on the choice through their votes in the November election.
The first press coverage I saw suggesting that Obama should not offer a nominee came not from McConnell, but from Ted Cruz, several hours prior to McConnell expressing any opinion at all. In other words, the Republicans are making this a partisan issue by allowing one of their candidates for president to drive the agenda of the Senate in a way that is clearly contrary to, if not the letter, the spirit of the Constitution.
Further, I can't help but think that a strict originalist like Justice Scalia would be the first to object to the gamesmanship of the GOP in naming his replacement.
11
Sadly, Scalia was no originalist or he wold not have been part of the Citizens United decision which may destroy our once proud nation.
8
Agree except for your Scalia reference. He'd be on the Republican side on this. Politics aways trumped the Constitution with that "strict originalist."
1
Mr. Vice President, I am confused. Please help me. The Republican majority in the Senate has already given its advice: do nothing until there is a new President. That means that the next President will nominate Justice Scalia's successor. Secretary Clinton has stated publicly that she thinks Barack Obama himself would make a great nominee, and I imagine that Senator Sanders feels the same way. At this stage the Republicans have little hope of winning the Presidential election, and that means that Barack Obama will indeed be the nominee. My confusion is that I thought the Republicans did not like Barack Obama. Why then are they setting him up for a position on the Supreme Court?
25
Joe Biden would be a great Supreme Court Justice.
4
The know-nothings are imperious to common sense and decency. In fact, they have been rewarded for it.
9
Thank you for that, Vice President Biden.
Let us hope it causes some in the Senate to pause and consider a different course.
Let us hope it causes some in the Senate to pause and consider a different course.
39
Hopefully this Op-Ed piece is also published in what Republicans consider 'their' newspaper of record, and not only in one of the 'liberal' media', where it's simply preaching to the choir.
Those who support republican senators refusal to uphold their oath of office are the audience this piece needs.
Those who support republican senators refusal to uphold their oath of office are the audience this piece needs.
8
The people who read that other paper are convinced that Obama is a communist, Muslim, Kenyan enemy of America. I read their comments on that site all the time. It's no use trying to tell them anything that contradicts the garbage they hear from Rush and Rupert.
Joe, the Senate has advised the President that they will not consent to anyone he nominates. They clearly wish to wait for the upcoming election is over. That was your position as well as Chuck Schumer's position when the shoe was on the other foot. As a matter of fact, you know very well that if the shoe was on the other foot you would take the same position or stance that the GOP is taking now. There is an old saying: "What goes around comes around". Get it now?
10
NYChap, You clearly have not read what VP Biden has written here. His 1992 speech, to which you seem to be referring related to a potential nomination by President Bush I. This was a few weeks before the political conventions. This is different from a nomination by President Obama some 8 months before he is to leave office. In every other case where the President nominated a candidate prior to the summer before the President finished his term, the nomination was acted on by the Senate. The Republicans argue that the voters should have their input and choice after a presidential election. Well, the people have had their choice and voted for Obama twice. He is still the President and will remain so for about 8 months, in spite of widespread Republican refusal to accept him as an authentic President.
17
Actually, President Obama has another 10 months in office -- until mid-January 2017.
I am not in agreement. There isn't any time limit in the constitution. It will obviously take a long time to get this important position filled. I think it will be filled by early next year. Just one man's opinion. No rush, we just want to be sure that it is done right if that is possible. If Hillary Clinton is not indicted and she wins the Presidency she will make your choice.
Please ask the President if he would consider nominating himself for the vacancy. He'd make a great Justice.
Thanks.
Thanks.
7
Sorry Joe, I love ya, but you have been around too long and taken too many contrary position to have the moral high ground here. You said what you said on the floor of the Senate when the shoe was on the other foot. Regards to the NYT for placing the video of that speech in the middle of your comments here today.
18
Good luck, Mr. Biden, with your plea for fairness and sanity.
repubs have not shown either of those two in recent memory. And my memory stretches back several decades.
repubs have not shown either of those two in recent memory. And my memory stretches back several decades.
10
This refusal to do work and blame it on Pres. Obama is just one more example of the racist obstruction to Pres. Obama by republicans. Trump is the perfect icing on the republican farewell cake!
23
So Mr. Biden said no senate action until AFTER the election season. Republican leadership says no senate action until AFTER Mr. Obama's term ends. That's a material difference worth noting: the former suggests a delay of a constitutional responsibility the latter a complete dismissal of a constitutional responsibility by fiat.
5
Actually it appears to be a distinction without a difference. Unless you are utterly partisan.
7
Not acting on a nomination at all is just like acting on a nomination later. Got it.
"If they love the Senate as much as I do, they need to act."
Sadly, Vice President Biden, that is the problem. They do not love the Senate. They do not love any aspect of government. In fact, they consider it the root and stem of all evil. It is an endless, self-fulfilling prophecy which Tea Party congressmen have down to a science: do everything possible to keep government from functioning, and then use the non-productivity of government as justification to slash and burn every aspect of it....well, except for their paycheck, vacation time, health insurance, and retirement plan. They'll keep those. But the rest of it is too broken to save.
What these serial obstructionists DO love, however, is the Constitution. No, not the real one, but the mythical one that states we are all entitled to own military-grade rocket launchers and that establishes Christianity as the founding philosophy of the nation. We have all heard Ted Cruz brag about how he memorized the Constitution as a teenager and can recite it from memory. If Obama and Biden are going to get a justice confirmation hearing - and I sincerely hope they do - then we need to frame this discussion in terms of this founding document that Republicans claim to love so much. Eventually, the hypocrisy of violating the Constitution will be unable to sustain itself and the GOP might, just might, be forced to actually accomplish something.
Sadly, Vice President Biden, that is the problem. They do not love the Senate. They do not love any aspect of government. In fact, they consider it the root and stem of all evil. It is an endless, self-fulfilling prophecy which Tea Party congressmen have down to a science: do everything possible to keep government from functioning, and then use the non-productivity of government as justification to slash and burn every aspect of it....well, except for their paycheck, vacation time, health insurance, and retirement plan. They'll keep those. But the rest of it is too broken to save.
What these serial obstructionists DO love, however, is the Constitution. No, not the real one, but the mythical one that states we are all entitled to own military-grade rocket launchers and that establishes Christianity as the founding philosophy of the nation. We have all heard Ted Cruz brag about how he memorized the Constitution as a teenager and can recite it from memory. If Obama and Biden are going to get a justice confirmation hearing - and I sincerely hope they do - then we need to frame this discussion in terms of this founding document that Republicans claim to love so much. Eventually, the hypocrisy of violating the Constitution will be unable to sustain itself and the GOP might, just might, be forced to actually accomplish something.
622
The Republicans prefer having a notion of permanent political power for their party, no matter what the consequences for the nation.
We've seen this before in Occupied Europe, when Vidkun Quisling, Marshal Pétain, and Pierre Laval betrayed their nations and their nations' interests to collaborate with the evil that looted their nations.
We've seen this before in Occupied Europe, when Vidkun Quisling, Marshal Pétain, and Pierre Laval betrayed their nations and their nations' interests to collaborate with the evil that looted their nations.
Dead on.
do everything possible to keep government from functioning, and then use the non-productivity of government as justification to slash and burn every aspect of it....well, except for their paycheck, vacation time, health insurance, and retirement plan."
Let's add their primary lust: their grandiose position in it all.
do everything possible to keep government from functioning, and then use the non-productivity of government as justification to slash and burn every aspect of it....well, except for their paycheck, vacation time, health insurance, and retirement plan."
Let's add their primary lust: their grandiose position in it all.
Senate Republicans are engaging in a sense of obstructionism that has become all too common in recent years.
It is the President's duty to nominate a Justice, and it is the Senate's duty to give that nominee a fair hearing and a timely vote. If Senate Republicans have such high admiration for the Constitution, they should act in a timely manner.
It is the President's duty to nominate a Justice, and it is the Senate's duty to give that nominee a fair hearing and a timely vote. If Senate Republicans have such high admiration for the Constitution, they should act in a timely manner.
15
I agree with Joe Biden. The Senate should interview the nominee, conduct hearings and vote on the nomination. They can vote him or her down. For most nominees that this President is likely to put forward, a vote not to confirm is probably appropriate. Having said that, the hypocrisy of the Democrats is overwhelming. Biden's explanation for his 1992 comments is certainly not very compelling. The obstructionist in chief, Harry Reid, has absolutely no basis on which to denounce the Republican strategy. Reid practically invented obstructionism. The Democrats initiated the Supreme Court confirmation mess with their rejection of Robert Bork. What goes around comes around.
8
Tim,
Republicans recently set an all-time record for blocking (Obama's) judicial nominees: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/22/harry-rei...
Here's what Norm Ornstein of American Enterprise Institute says about Republicans obstructive tactics:
"... Filibusters were used not simply to block legislation or occasional nominations, but routinely, even on matters and nominations that were entirely uncontroversial and ultimately passed unanimously or near-unanimously. The idea of a filibuster as the expression of a minority that felt so intensely that it would pull out all the stops to try to block something pushed by the majority went by the boards. This was a pure tactic of obstruction, trying to use up as much of the Senate's most precious commodity—time—as possible to screw up the majority's agenda.
As Tom Mann and I point out in our book It's Even Worse Than It Looks, this meant stretching out debate as much as possible, regularly using filibusters on motions to proceed as well as on the legislation, and insisting, after cloture was achieved, on using the full 30 hours allowed for debate post-cloture—but not using any of it for debate, just to soak up more time."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/yes-the-filibuster-i...
As for Bork, he fired Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox because Nixon told him to. He should not have been nominated.
Republicans recently set an all-time record for blocking (Obama's) judicial nominees: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/22/harry-rei...
Here's what Norm Ornstein of American Enterprise Institute says about Republicans obstructive tactics:
"... Filibusters were used not simply to block legislation or occasional nominations, but routinely, even on matters and nominations that were entirely uncontroversial and ultimately passed unanimously or near-unanimously. The idea of a filibuster as the expression of a minority that felt so intensely that it would pull out all the stops to try to block something pushed by the majority went by the boards. This was a pure tactic of obstruction, trying to use up as much of the Senate's most precious commodity—time—as possible to screw up the majority's agenda.
As Tom Mann and I point out in our book It's Even Worse Than It Looks, this meant stretching out debate as much as possible, regularly using filibusters on motions to proceed as well as on the legislation, and insisting, after cloture was achieved, on using the full 30 hours allowed for debate post-cloture—but not using any of it for debate, just to soak up more time."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/yes-the-filibuster-i...
As for Bork, he fired Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox because Nixon told him to. He should not have been nominated.
59
Reid "practically invented obstructionism?" Are you too young to remember how Republicans behaved during the Clinton admin? Do you think Gingrich was a gentleman?
3
Indeed, as someone who watched as much of the Bork confirmation process as I could (back then it wasn't wall to wall television) while there was no doubt that Bork's conservative views played a part in his rejection--a part I think it not appropriate to consider--a lot of the hearings were about his judicial temperment and other factors that made moderate senators. SIX Republicans voted AGAINST Bork's nomination. SIX. This was not just about politics, and not just about Democrats. Bork was unfit to be a Supreme Court Justice.
2
Somehow I think race is playing a much larger role in this situation. I wonder if there would be so much apposition to this appointment had Obama been white a president.
It is ridiculous that those who claims to be strong defenders of the constitution would deny this president of his constitutional duty to appoint a supreme court judge.
These men and women know full well: there is no such provision in the constitution that prevents a president from appointing a judge in his last year in office. Yet, they insist and their explanation makes no sense, it is baseless.
Somehow I think the GOP establishment is out to tear down the very fabric of this county they claim to want to protect. The hypocrisy is just too much to bear. Sincerely.
It is ridiculous that those who claims to be strong defenders of the constitution would deny this president of his constitutional duty to appoint a supreme court judge.
These men and women know full well: there is no such provision in the constitution that prevents a president from appointing a judge in his last year in office. Yet, they insist and their explanation makes no sense, it is baseless.
Somehow I think the GOP establishment is out to tear down the very fabric of this county they claim to want to protect. The hypocrisy is just too much to bear. Sincerely.
16
Obama knows the constitution better than anyone in the Senate. Biden knows the SCOTUS nomination process better than anyone in the senate. It is a sad day when partisanship is more important than the future of our country. The do-nothingRepublican senators should listen to two of their former colleagues in the White House pleading for respect of our constitutional democracy.
30
Republicans have made a conscious choice to hypocritically abandon their cherished Constitution for obvious reasons. They know their activist base, the ones who vote, love any attack on Obama, and they fear a liberal court majority (which could last for decades) far more than any temporary shame they would bring on their party.
355
"...a liberal court majority (which could last for decades)..." Debatable; Ruth Bader Ginsbury will be 83 on March 15th, Anthony Kennedy will be 80 in July, and Stephen Breyer is 77.
I agree that the Repubs fear a multi-decade liberal court more than they fear the temporary political fallout from any action to delay confirmation hearings. Particularly since there does not appear to have been in lasting political residue from Biden and Schumer blatantly playing political chess with potential nominations. I disagree that Republicans have abandoned the Constitution. The role of the Senate to advise and consent is a Constitutional one. The Framers intentionally left it open for the Senate to decide how long that process should take and even when or if they should postpone a confirmation. In fact, while politically unwise, McConnell engaged in his Constitutional duty of "advise" when he advised the president that confirmation hearings would not occur until a new president was seated. They have met their Constitutional duty.
1
Oh please. The constitution says no such thing, your self-serving interpretation to the contrary. "Advice and Consent of the Senate" can mean anything. It means the Senate defines the process. You just want to force the Republicans to hold hearings so that Democrats like Schumer, Durbin and Leahy can have their little sandbox in which to play while preening for the media and their constituents.
Liberals, who while arguing that the First Amendment, i.e. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, no longer applies to political speech, now want to interpret the constitution to say something it clearly does not say, i.e. that the constitution requires hearings on judicial nominees.
You are taking situational ethics to a new low in making that argument.
Liberals, who while arguing that the First Amendment, i.e. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, no longer applies to political speech, now want to interpret the constitution to say something it clearly does not say, i.e. that the constitution requires hearings on judicial nominees.
You are taking situational ethics to a new low in making that argument.
3
I like Biden -- and would have supported him had he run for President, particularly as an alternative to Mrs. Clinton -- but I'm afraid this rationalization of the comments he made as a Senator rings hollow. It was a political process then and remains one now, and both sides know it. Why can't the Democrats simply acknowledge it?
102
Ah, in the race to the bottom, Democrats will never catch up. They don't like mud wrestling as much.
For behavior that reminds of of mugshots, we need only look at Trump, Christie, Cruz and whatsisname. Con artist, bully, sanctimony, pride, and most of the seven deadlies all present and accounted for.
For a gentleman, you would need Obama or Biden.
For behavior that reminds of of mugshots, we need only look at Trump, Christie, Cruz and whatsisname. Con artist, bully, sanctimony, pride, and most of the seven deadlies all present and accounted for.
For a gentleman, you would need Obama or Biden.
13
I can't believe that people still aren't getting the point. Both sides, especially those at the far ends of the political spectrum, try to prevent the confirmation of justices of the opposite ideology: true. The way to do that is to hold hearings. Some nominees have withdrawn as the result of this questioning and the need to defend non-mainstream judicial views, as well as personal pressures. What we the people deserve is to see and understand better what the nominee stands for. We can weigh in during the hearings by contacting our elected representatives in the Senate and expressing our desire for a yea or nay vote on the nominee. That is the process.
What the GOP senators are afraid of is that Obama's nominee will be a reasonable, experienced, prudent human being who demonstrates regard for the law and especially for justice as it is administered upon real people. This is certainly the case with Jane Kelly, with her compelling life story that shows a commitment to justice even in the face of the unsolved attack on her that may have been job-related.
Republicans don't want to hold a hearing because they don't want us to see the nominee and form our own opinion of his or her fitness. As with choosing their candidate for president, the party elite prefer to decide everything and force it upon us.
By all means, senators should vote against a nominee for any reason of their choosing. But there must be a hearing, not merely a few dictating what can and cannot happen.
What the GOP senators are afraid of is that Obama's nominee will be a reasonable, experienced, prudent human being who demonstrates regard for the law and especially for justice as it is administered upon real people. This is certainly the case with Jane Kelly, with her compelling life story that shows a commitment to justice even in the face of the unsolved attack on her that may have been job-related.
Republicans don't want to hold a hearing because they don't want us to see the nominee and form our own opinion of his or her fitness. As with choosing their candidate for president, the party elite prefer to decide everything and force it upon us.
By all means, senators should vote against a nominee for any reason of their choosing. But there must be a hearing, not merely a few dictating what can and cannot happen.
9
Because Democrats have NEVER done what Republicans are now doing.
Republicans (lying, as they seem to do whenever they speak these days) claimed Mr. Biden's comments in 1992 were the same as they are doing today. But if you actually read or listen to Mr. Biden's comments, not only does he acknowledge that it is a political process (that's the very reason he suggests in 1992 if an opening were to occur, wait until after election day to name a nominee), he also clearly assigns responsibility to name a nominee to President George HW Bush!
Contrast that to today's GOP demanding the current President, with far more time before election day, absolutely not name a nominee at all!
Why can't apologists admit what Republicans today are doing is literally unprecedented in U.S. history?
Republicans (lying, as they seem to do whenever they speak these days) claimed Mr. Biden's comments in 1992 were the same as they are doing today. But if you actually read or listen to Mr. Biden's comments, not only does he acknowledge that it is a political process (that's the very reason he suggests in 1992 if an opening were to occur, wait until after election day to name a nominee), he also clearly assigns responsibility to name a nominee to President George HW Bush!
Contrast that to today's GOP demanding the current President, with far more time before election day, absolutely not name a nominee at all!
Why can't apologists admit what Republicans today are doing is literally unprecedented in U.S. history?
6
Thanks to the NYT for letting him speak. I am tired of hearing the mainstream media parroting Mitch McConnel and his nonsense about the so-called Biden-rule. Enough of "both sides do it". What the GOP are doing is unprecedented.
38
Dear Mr. Vice President,
This Congress isn't a real Congress. The majority party isn't a real party. The GOP, as it is today, is not a political party that has, as a mission, the best interest of the American people. This Congress, were it to fulfill its duty, would do so only perfunctorily. It would hold hearings, question President Obama's nominee, and reject him or her.
This Congress hasn't been a functioning body ever since the GOP took over leadership. We need to acknowledge that openly and publicly. Let President Obama make his choice of nominee and let whomever wins the Democratic nomination promise to nominate that person again.
Which brings me to this election and the behavior of the DNC. It is disgraceful. The GOP is finally imploding. Democrats need to take stock of their own problems and listen to voters. Low turnouts in primaries are a warning shot across the bow of a party whose leadership is lopsidedly neoliberal and intent on grabbing power that rank and file voters are unwilling to hand over. It isn't too late to do the right thing. Demand Debbie Wasserman Schultz' resignation. Fix the DNC's problem before it is too late.
These are volatile times and voters across the nation are angry and afraid.
---
www.rimaregas.com
This Congress isn't a real Congress. The majority party isn't a real party. The GOP, as it is today, is not a political party that has, as a mission, the best interest of the American people. This Congress, were it to fulfill its duty, would do so only perfunctorily. It would hold hearings, question President Obama's nominee, and reject him or her.
This Congress hasn't been a functioning body ever since the GOP took over leadership. We need to acknowledge that openly and publicly. Let President Obama make his choice of nominee and let whomever wins the Democratic nomination promise to nominate that person again.
Which brings me to this election and the behavior of the DNC. It is disgraceful. The GOP is finally imploding. Democrats need to take stock of their own problems and listen to voters. Low turnouts in primaries are a warning shot across the bow of a party whose leadership is lopsidedly neoliberal and intent on grabbing power that rank and file voters are unwilling to hand over. It isn't too late to do the right thing. Demand Debbie Wasserman Schultz' resignation. Fix the DNC's problem before it is too late.
These are volatile times and voters across the nation are angry and afraid.
---
www.rimaregas.com
79
Rima, are you talking about super-delegates? You must know that it was superdelegates who tipped the nomination from Clinton to the "upstart" Obama in 2008 (whom I had supported since his 2004 speech at the DNC convention).
They are there to make sure the candidate will be the most popular and electable. If Bernie is the position that Obama was in 2008 after all the primaries, I'm sure he will get the nod. I swear to you that they have not crowned Clinton -- if that were so, Obama wouldn't be President now.
Bernie could have chosen to run as an independent. He still can. But he ran as a Democrat, and agreed to the DNC rules. It's up to each candidate how to campaign. Bernie started with much less preparation. That's a handicap, but it's not the DNC's job to prop him up. Obama planned for years before he ran a brilliant focused campaign. I know it's not what you want to hear, but it's the truth. Hopefully Bernie will come through for you.
They are there to make sure the candidate will be the most popular and electable. If Bernie is the position that Obama was in 2008 after all the primaries, I'm sure he will get the nod. I swear to you that they have not crowned Clinton -- if that were so, Obama wouldn't be President now.
Bernie could have chosen to run as an independent. He still can. But he ran as a Democrat, and agreed to the DNC rules. It's up to each candidate how to campaign. Bernie started with much less preparation. That's a handicap, but it's not the DNC's job to prop him up. Obama planned for years before he ran a brilliant focused campaign. I know it's not what you want to hear, but it's the truth. Hopefully Bernie will come through for you.
Dear Rima;
"You don't protest your own side." Sixties activism wisdom from Bill Press in response to the takeover of the podium by activists in Seattle some months back at a Sanders speech.
We Dems aren't perfect but we have been on the wrong side of power for three decades r more. We need to build a 50 state strategy to actually try to compete all the way down the ticket. Short of that there is no real change on the horizon. Just more arguing and blocking maneuvers.
IMHO
"You don't protest your own side." Sixties activism wisdom from Bill Press in response to the takeover of the podium by activists in Seattle some months back at a Sanders speech.
We Dems aren't perfect but we have been on the wrong side of power for three decades r more. We need to build a 50 state strategy to actually try to compete all the way down the ticket. Short of that there is no real change on the horizon. Just more arguing and blocking maneuvers.
IMHO
7
It's hardly the DNC or Ms. Schultz' fault...
Bernie Sanders is supposedly inspiring new and excited voters! Yet, the voter turnout in Democratic primaries isn't especially noteworthy. Less than in 2012, far less than 2008...I don't know who Bernie's exciting, but it is NOT voters!
By contrast, Donald Trump, for all his problems, IS providing the GOP with literally record primary participation in all but one state thus far! Apparently, there are a lot of Americans of rightwing viewpoints angry with the RNC and its leadership, and they're showing it by getting out and voting for Trump.
Democrats? If they were angry with the DNC, they'd be voting for Sanders in record numbers. They're not...
Bernie Sanders is supposedly inspiring new and excited voters! Yet, the voter turnout in Democratic primaries isn't especially noteworthy. Less than in 2012, far less than 2008...I don't know who Bernie's exciting, but it is NOT voters!
By contrast, Donald Trump, for all his problems, IS providing the GOP with literally record primary participation in all but one state thus far! Apparently, there are a lot of Americans of rightwing viewpoints angry with the RNC and its leadership, and they're showing it by getting out and voting for Trump.
Democrats? If they were angry with the DNC, they'd be voting for Sanders in record numbers. They're not...
3
Vice President Biden, thank you for taking the time to own your past words and explain your thinking then and now. It shows the real difference between a politician and a statesman, and we need more statesmen.
For the Senate Republicans to hold the Supreme Court hostage through their act of sedition is the greatest affront to the institution of justice. Their position is untenable. It is my deepest hope that those obstructing listen, remember the role of justice, and shed their hypocritical position.
For the Senate Republicans to hold the Supreme Court hostage through their act of sedition is the greatest affront to the institution of justice. Their position is untenable. It is my deepest hope that those obstructing listen, remember the role of justice, and shed their hypocritical position.
225
Mr. Vice President.....please don't disturb the United Seditionists of America in their latest act of sedition.
It takes a lot of right-wing concentration to destroy a perfectly good country, and nothing destroys a country better than Republicans deep in groupthink doo-doo.
It takes a lot of right-wing concentration to destroy a perfectly good country, and nothing destroys a country better than Republicans deep in groupthink doo-doo.
296
It is a bit too late for your plea to VP Uncle Joe B since he already let that cat of the bag... I'm just wondering if Obama gave Joe "consent" to write this Op-ed ....
4
@MDCooks8
If memory serves correctly, "VP Uncle Joe B" is not known for doing writing of his own...
If memory serves correctly, "VP Uncle Joe B" is not known for doing writing of his own...
2
As Antonin Scalia would have (I hope) said, Mr. Biden is correct: we should do what the Constitution actually says and what the Founders clearly intended. The President nominates a candidate for Supreme Court Justice. The Senate advises -- which means, meet with the President and talk). And the full Senate ultimately votes on the nominee. The votes will then be on the record, so that the American people can indeed weigh in when the legally required presidential and congressional elections arrive next November.
238
You don't understand Justice Scalia's legacy. He was in favor of limiting the power of the Supreme Court as it is the least democratic branch among the three.
Accordingly, where the President is poised to appoint a Justice who would empower a majority of Justices to simply make up new rights -- unsupported by the words of the Constitution -- rather than defer to the elected branches, Justice Scalia would most certainly agree with the popularly elected Senate majority in opposing the President in this instance.
Accordingly, where the President is poised to appoint a Justice who would empower a majority of Justices to simply make up new rights -- unsupported by the words of the Constitution -- rather than defer to the elected branches, Justice Scalia would most certainly agree with the popularly elected Senate majority in opposing the President in this instance.
3
As Scalia would tell you, the Constitution does not require the Senate to hold hearings, merely to Advise and Consent, which they can do in *any* manner they choose per the Constitution. I suggest you read it. The full Senate is not required to hold a vote. In fact, Obama himself attempted to prevent that from happening with his filibuster of Alito. It is quaint how defensive of the Constitution those on the Left become and how carefully they hew to the actual words of the document when it suits them.
10
Robert, the Senate didn't say it wouldn't confirm liberal judges, which is within its rights. It said it would not meet, hold hearings, vote on or confirm ANY NOMINATION made by this President.
They refused unconditionally, without having any idea whether a nominee would "make up new rights" or not. Scalia made up new rights himself -- no justice has ever found that corporations have the same rights as actual citizens prior to this Court. Nor does any justice get to dictate the future composition of the Court, based on what it might do in an unknown future.
I think Scalia would follow the language and original intent of the appointment clause, andctell the Senate to do its job. The rules apply all the time, not just when they favor your side. If we can't agree on that, our government will eventually fall like a house of cards.
They refused unconditionally, without having any idea whether a nominee would "make up new rights" or not. Scalia made up new rights himself -- no justice has ever found that corporations have the same rights as actual citizens prior to this Court. Nor does any justice get to dictate the future composition of the Court, based on what it might do in an unknown future.
I think Scalia would follow the language and original intent of the appointment clause, andctell the Senate to do its job. The rules apply all the time, not just when they favor your side. If we can't agree on that, our government will eventually fall like a house of cards.
7
It's a constitutional duty, it's an established precedent, it's an obligation of the senate, it's a smart image to show the world, it's is full faith in the American promise of a democracy focused on governing and the people's voice, it avoids treason and complications for the nation's highest court. The Senate should receive the President's nomination, hold hearings and vote in regular order and put the nation before the ideology and shenanigans of a party behaving as if it rules rather than governs in partnership with the President!
394
The Dems. (Kennedy and Biden) started the tradition of trashing the Preseident's nominee. E.g., Robert Bork - the most qualified SCOTUS nominee not to be approved by the Senate.
Pay back bro. Be consistent. Take what you dish out. Man up.
Pay back bro. Be consistent. Take what you dish out. Man up.
8
... and it's not going to happen.
2
reply to Walter Rhett: While true; one will only "partner" with another deemed as an equal and we already know the GOP has never believed Barack Obama was an "equal".
7
The Vice President of the United States is also named as tha presiding officer of the Senate, and I don't understand how he is removed from authority by the rules.
Why can't the President of the Senate control the agenda?