Which of Biden's proposed SCOTUS picks do you favor?

[Conager]

He intends to be POTUS and insists that if selected, he should choose RBG's replacement.

As the former chairman of the judiciary committee he should be well versed in the process. He invented "Borking," so he should understand the sorts of choices to put forward if the Senate is held by either his party or the opposition.

McConnell made the 2016 election a referendum on who should select Scalia's replacement. (Spoiler alert, voters entrusted Trump and a Republican Senate for that role, even in a post-Reid nuking the filibuster on judges world.) Trump stepped up and named his list of potential nominees for the voters to decide is he was the one that should choose. He's done the same in anticipation of this election cycle.

Biden's selections?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Admirable deflection attempt.
Doesn't quite work, though.


#HeTriesSooooHard
#LookeeMeAJ!

 

[Conager]

Seems a reasonable query.

Biden wants to select the next Supreme Court Justice. Says voters should decide. Decide, based on what, if he doesn't have a proposal?

The Notorious RBG was not getting any younger prior to her unfortunate demise. Her "seat" is vacant, now. Trump and Cocaine Mitch are prepared to replace her and have given the opposition every opportunity to peruse the potential nominees.

Has Biden not considered "his" selections yet? When might he let voters know whom he would select, you know so the "voters can decide," as he suggested.

Who has Rob on this year's Secret Santa List? He could use a dictionary. It's well known he doesn't know what "ascription" or "rent-free" means. Today he needs help with "rationalization" and "deflection."

In fairness to Rob, most of his responses that are not lifted from elsewhere consist of some auto-response selections that he cuts and pastes in, whether it's germaine to the discussion at hand or not. He might not have actually read the OP.

 

[Saint_Ann]

Biden would be a puppet president. He wont be selecting anything.

 

[Conager]

I was trying to be polite and afford the Dems the dignity of pretending Biden's mental faculties remaining are sufficient to make a pudding selection unaided, but since you bring it up-

Why haven't his handlers generated a list for him to nod vacantly towards?

On a related note: do you think Hillary Biden. . .I mean Jill Biden's sudden interest in fashionable footwear is a sly nod to Imelda Marcos' ascension to the Presidency?

 

[phrodeau]

Eleven.

 

[Conager]

Good of you to acknowledge that thanks to Harry Reid's nuking of the filibuster on judges (and Schumer's pledge to completely eliminate it if he becomes the majority leader) there is no impediment to seating, say, Amy Coney Barrett (despite the dogma living with in her.)

Biden has not formally announced his plan to nullify the voter's will that Republicans bring originalism to the Court at this point in history.

I would like to see his handlers prepare a statement for him to read that if elected, and given a Democrat Majority Leader thst he intends to pack the court. I think that is a fantastic, get out the <right> voters message!

So, 'Fro- where can a voter find a list of potential justices that Biden is considering for the tenth and eleventh justices? You know, the point of the thread.

 

[SpeareChucker]

For whatever reason, Fro-DOH! has convinced himself that he is one clever guy...






... even though his bumpersticker business failed.

 

[icanhelp1]

He intends to be POTUS and insists that if selected, he should choose RBG's replacement.

As the former chairman of the judiciary committee he should be well versed in the process. He invented "Borking," so he should understand the sorts of choices to put forward if the Senate is held by either his party or the opposition.

McConnell made the 2016 election a referendum on who should select Scalia's replacement. (Spoiler alert, voters entrusted Trump and a Republican Senate for that role, even in a post-Reid nuking the filibuster on judges world.) Trump stepped up and named his list of potential nominees for the voters to decide is he was the one that should choose. He's done the same in anticipation of this election cycle.

Biden's selections?

Maybe Stacey Abrams? As revolting as that pick would be!

 

[Conager]

Oh, lord. Yes, please!

You raise in interesting tangent here. Given that the cisgendeted, straight, white, nominee for president had lots of trouble trying to find a black woman as a running mate and settled for an Indian/Jamaican he would have to make his list "diverse" which we already know lacks a lot of depth.

Democrats are great at protecting minority districts and promoting complete idiots of color like Maxine Waters, but were are their "Sharp, good-looking (That's story-book, man!!) with no Negro dialect unless they want to. . ." Blacks after Obama?

They don't have a Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Walter Willians, Ben Carson, or Herman Caine on team Dem.. . .and the have to find a female version.

 

[Sean]

Hillary. Because the wailing and gnashing of teeth would be side splittingly funny.

 

[Conager]

Great pick. Be great to have her on the ballot again!

Tell Biden's people, would you? I don't see her name yet on Biden's non-existant list.

 

[icanhelp1]

Hillary. Because the wailing and gnashing of teeth would be side splittingly funny.

She was a thread away from being disbarred during the Watergate scandal, and then again there's Whitewater, only a fool would suggest HRC, BUT THEN AGAIN IT'S SLEEPY jOE!

 

[Sean]

She was a thread away from being disbarred during the Watergate scandal, and then again there's Whitewater, only a fool would suggest HRC, BUT THEN AGAIN IT'S SLEEPY jOE!

You mean Whitewater that Republicans spent years and millions of dollars investigating and found fuck all? That Whitewater?

 

[Rightguide]

Remember his words:

Speaking in 2016, Biden was unequivocal:

“I made it absolutely clear that I would go forward with the confirmation process, as chairman — even a few months before a presidential election — if the nominee were chosen with the Advice, and not merely the Consent, of the Senate — just as the Constitution requires.”

“Article II of the Constitution clearly states, whenever there is a vacancy in one of the courts created by the Constitution itself — the Supreme Court of the United States — the President “shall” — not “may” — the President “shall” appoint someone to fill the vacancy, with the “Advice and Consent” of the United States Senate.

“And Advice and Consent includes consulting and voting. Nobody is suggesting individual senators have to vote “yes” on any particular presidential nominee. Voting “no” is always an option, and it is their option. But saying nothing, seeing nothing, reading nothing, hearing nothing, and deciding in advance simply to turn your back — before the President even names a nominee — is not an option the Constitution leaves open. It’s a plain abdication of the Senate’s solemn constitutional duty. It’s an abdication, quite frankly, that has never occurred before in our history.”

 

[Rightguide]

He intends to be POTUS and insists that if selected, he should choose RBG's replacement.

As the former chairman of the judiciary committee he should be well versed in the process. He invented "Borking," so he should understand the sorts of choices to put forward if the Senate is held by either his party or the opposition.

McConnell made the 2016 election a referendum on who should select Scalia's replacement. (Spoiler alert, voters entrusted Trump and a Republican Senate for that role, even in a post-Reid nuking the filibuster on judges world.) Trump stepped up and named his list of potential nominees for the voters to decide is he was the one that should choose. He's done the same in anticipation of this election cycle.

Biden's selections?

It would be nice if he'd release his list, but he hasn't:

https://www.breitbart.com/2020-elec...ortlist-complicates-fight-over-ginsburg-seat/

 

[Conager]

Maybe it's on his fridge next to the grocerylist.

Has anyone reminded him to check the fridge, under the "Cornpop" magnet?

 

[icanhelp1]

You mean Whitewater that Republicans spent years and millions of dollars investigating and found fuck all? That Whitewater?

Hate to break the news to ya but HRC been sewing the seeds of unethical behavior as early as Watergate when she was working as a junior staff attorney for the house judiciary during the Watergate hearings.

 

[Conager]

You mean Whitewater that Republicans spent years and millions of dollars investigating and found fuck all? That Whitewater?

Better or worse than the Mueller witchhunt in search of a crime?

As SheCan'tHelp*You* pointed out Hillary is a master at obstruction going all the way back to Watergate. She's been at it about your entire lifetime.

 

[FGB]

Remember his words:

Speaking in 2016, Biden was unequivocal:

“I made it absolutely clear that I would go forward with the confirmation process, as chairman — even a few months before a presidential election — if the nominee were chosen with the Advice, and not merely the Consent, of the Senate — just as the Constitution requires.”

“Article II of the Constitution clearly states, whenever there is a vacancy in one of the courts created by the Constitution itself — the Supreme Court of the United States — the President “shall” — not “may” — the President “shall” appoint someone to fill the vacancy, with the “Advice and Consent” of the United States Senate.

“And Advice and Consent includes consulting and voting. Nobody is suggesting individual senators have to vote “yes” on any particular presidential nominee. Voting “no” is always an option, and it is their option. But saying nothing, seeing nothing, reading nothing, hearing nothing, and deciding in advance simply to turn your back — before the President even names a nominee — is not an option the Constitution leaves open. It’s a plain abdication of the Senate’s solemn constitutional duty. It’s an abdication, quite frankly, that has never occurred before in our history.”

YET! hide and watch...

"Demonize, Minimize and Marginalize"

 

[Sean]

Better or worse than the Meller witchhunt in search of a crime?

As SheCan'tHelp*You* pointed out Hillary is a master at obstruction going all the way back to Watergate. She's been at it about your entire lifetime.

Ah. So no evidence but you KNOW she's guilty. The fact that there's no evidence PROVES it!

 

[Conager]

Ah. So no evidence but you KNOW she's guilty. The fact that there's no evidence PROVES it!

Aactually there was evidence, no one disputes the straw buyers were witnessed by none other than HRC. No one disputes that the project went belly up. That isn't what I'm referring to, though, there is definitely evidence of obstruction of justice in that investigation and everytime an investigation intersects with HRC.

You know the very thing that the Dems just tried to impeach Trump for when they're wasn't actual obstruction.

 

[icanhelp1]

Ah. So no evidence but you KNOW she's guilty. The fact that there's no evidence PROVES it!

The evidence that she deleted E-mails is as plain as the nose on your face, but when the DOJ is in the tank that allows you to get away with 2 crimes, obstruction of justice and willful dereliction of duty by prosecutorial malfeasance! We all know Comey took one for the team.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Ol' Honest Joe had a secret Covid plan that would have
prevented every singe death, but he would not share it
unless we ran out and pre-elected him...

I'm pretty sure he has a super-secret list of nominees
that we have to elect him to see.

He learned that working with President Obama
and Speaker Pelosi...

 

[SpeareChucker]

The evidence that she deleted E-mails is as plain as the nose on your face, but when the DOJ is in the tank that allows you to get away with 2 crimes, obstruction of justice and willful dereliction of duty by prosecutorial malfeasance! We all know Comey took one for the team.

*chuckle*

The same contingent that knew the DOJ was above and beyond the fray then,
know, for a fact, that it is in the bag now...


*hic*


:thud: