or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › The Ted Cruz Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Ted Cruz Thread - Page 45

post #661 of 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Woah. Biden comes out against naming a new nominee until after the election.

ETA: I was going to ask how to set the video to start at a specific time, but I seem to have figured it out.

Not surprisingly, turns out there was more to that speech that changes the context. Biden was lamenting Bush not involving the Senate in the appointment process and selecting too extreme a nominee.

“I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate,” he said. “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.”


Considering Biden let the nomination go out of committee in the first place, pretty much kills using that as anything other than an out of context gotcha. It's still political weaseling, but the usual and expected sort. Big difference between "plz select a more moderate candidate" and "we're going to reject anyone." Especially given the timing difference.
post #662 of 1000
You're absolutely right that it was just political weaseling. So the non sequitur that follows about there being some "big difference" because of said weaseling is laughable.
post #663 of 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

You're absolutely right that it was just political weaseling. So the non sequitur that follows about there being some "big difference" because of said weaseling is laughable.

lol. 

 

Ataturk - "I'm wrong, but but but (frantically searching the page) you're kinda wrong too!!!"

post #664 of 1000
I wasn't wrong about anything, because whether Biden qualified his arguments with "But, if the president was to take the unprecedented step of letting the Senate choose the nominee, by all means let him do it" because he and everyone else in the world knew it would never happen, just like everyone knows Obama would never let the GOP senate pick his nominee.
post #665 of 1000

That's not what Biden said at all though... did you even read the transcript/listen to what he said?

post #666 of 1000
And it isn't even true, as the "subsequent comments" from Biden were taken out of context by his apologists:

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/431789/biden-denialism
Quote:
Yes, Biden did make those additional remarks, but he also preceded them by explaining he was discussing “how [the nomination] process might be changed in the next administration, whether it is a Democrat or a Republican.” He further added that he was describing what should occur after “this next election,” particularly if such an election were to produce divided government. And lest there be any confusion about what Biden was talking about, he began his speech by noting he planned to address both “the question of what should be done if a Supreme Court vacancy occurs this summer” in addition to “four general proposals for how . . .the nomination and confirmation process should be changed for future nominations.”
post #667 of 1000
post #668 of 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

You're absolutely right that it was just political weaseling. So the non sequitur that follows about there being some "big difference" because of said weaseling is laughable.


In what way is "We're going to reject without consideration any possible nominee you present" equivalent to conventional election season political weaseling?


You understand that Biden was the judiciary chair at the time, right? He was the one that put Thomas through for a vote in the first place. It's ridiculous to use that one line as precedent for refusing to consider any nominee. Biden was trying to score political points. His actual actions are exactly what the Democrats want to see happen now. Vet the nominee in committee, put him up for discussion on the floor, and then have a vote.


And 11 Democrats voted to approve Thomas, not including Biden.
post #669 of 1000
Maybe you missed the post exposing the Biden quotes you're touting as being taken out of context? Biden did in fact say he wouldn't consider any nominee that year, after all.
post #670 of 1000
And yet he did.

Keep swinging dude, eventually you'll hit something...
post #671 of 1000
No, he didn't. Thomas was nominated and confirmed in 1991, the year before the election and the year before Biden gave that speech.

Sheesh. You guys don't bother to verify anything you post, do you?
post #672 of 1000

"

In fact, just 10 minutes after calling for temporary inaction on Bush’s candidate, Biden actually promised to consider a moderate Supreme Court nominee.

“I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate,” he said. “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.”

 

"

 

note that 'consult' does not mean, as your said earlier 'let the senate choose', but rather let the senate interview and properly vet the potential picks.

 

As Chairman, Biden repeatedly confirmed Bush’s judicial nominees during the 1992 election season. In the second session of the 102nd Congress, “the Senate confirmed more nominees, 11, to the courts of appeals that year than in any other presidential election year in United States history,” holding hearings “on district court nominees every month from January to September; court of appeals nominees received hearings in every month from February to September.”

post #673 of 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

No, he didn't. Thomas was nominated and confirmed in 1991, the year before the election and the year before Biden gave that speech.

Sheesh. You guys don't bother to verify anything you post, do you?

No, you're right about the date. I mixed up the context, they were referencing the previous year's Thomas appointment fight in light of an entirely hypothetical vacancy that never occurred.


The fact that it was about a hypothetical, and he said they'd consider a moderate (hypothetically) still makes it obviously distinct from overtly refusing to consider anybody in a case where there's an actual vacancy.
post #674 of 1000
Amusing that you're still bandying about that false argument, less than a couple hours after posting this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by venividivicibj View Post

That's not what Biden said at all though... did you even read the transcript/listen to what he said?

So, did you actually read what Biden said?
post #675 of 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Amusing that you're still bandying about that false argument, less than a couple hours after posting this:
So, did you actually read what Biden said?

Because you're not getting it into your mente

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › The Ted Cruz Thread