Biden’s ‘92 rule: No lame-duck nominees
Party rhetoric reverses in current election year

By Stephen Dinan and Tom Howell Jr. - The Washington Times - Updated: 9:21 p.m. on Monday, February 22, 2016
It may be Vice President Joseph R. Biden who dooms President Obama’s hopes of reshaping the Supreme Court and picking a replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia after Republicans unearthed a 1992 speech in which then-Sen. Biden said it was “not fair” to let a lame-duck president make such an important decision.

Mr. Biden, who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time, was laying down a marker against President George H.W. Bush, saying once the “political season” had started, the president should back down and wait until after the election.

Mr. Biden went so far as to say that Mr. Bush shouldn’t even bother to nominate anyone, much less have the Senate approve the pick — exactly the stance Republicans are now taking toward Mr. Obama.

“These are the Biden rules,” Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican who now chairs the Judiciary Committee, said Monday as he recounted the Biden speech on the Senate floor.

The attack comes as Republicans are stiffening their spines after a wobbly start to the political jockeying after Scalia’s death Feb. 13.

“One would have to go back more than a century to find a scenario where a president’s nominee for the Supreme Court was confirmed by the opposition party in the Senate when the vacancy occurred during an election year,” said Sen. Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican. “I’m not about to break new ground in the Senate, particularly when any nominee could so drastically shift the balance of the court.”


The death of the high court’s most forceful and consistently conservative justice has created an opening for Mr. Obama, who, if he were to win confirmation of a committed liberal justice, could send the bench careening to the left.

But standing in his way is not only a committed Republican opposition, which controls the Senate, but Democrats’ own long history of words and deeds that suggest they would not have approved a Republican president’s pick if circumstances were reversed.

The White House has already had to say Mr. Obama now regrets taking part in Democrats’ 2005 attempt to filibuster Justice Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. — the first time a partisan filibuster was ever launched against a Supreme Court nominee.

Mr. Biden’s comments cut even deeper, with the former senator saying in his 1992 speech that not only does the Senate have the right to reject nominees, but presidents shouldn’t even try to send one to Capitol Hill in the middle of an election.

“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,” Mr. Biden said in his 90-minute speech, which was so long it spanned 15 pages of the Congressional Record. “That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process.”

So Box - based on the video that was posted - is in agreement that Biden said that the Senate HAS THE RIGHT to oppose the president's nominee to the Supreme Court.  
The Washington Times piece that I posted proves that Biden, when he was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, would  NOT take up consideration of a president's nominee to the Supreme Court during a presidential election year.   Thus, the now Republican controlled  (thank God) U.S. Senate is operating completely within not only its Constitutional right but within the Biden Rule by refusing to consider a presidential nominee to the Supreme Court until after the presidential election.

That doesn't mean that Obama can not nominate someone.  It just means that the nomination will just "sit on ice."

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

So Box - based on the video that was posted - is in agreement that Biden said that the Senate HAS THE RIGHT to oppose the president's nominee to the Supreme Court.  
The Washington Times piece that I posted proves that Biden, when he was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, would  NOT take up consideration of a president's nominee to the Supreme Court during a presidential election year.   Thus, the now Republican controlled  (thank God) U.S. Senate is operating completely within not only its Constitutional right but within the Biden Rule by refusing to consider a presidential nominee to the Supreme Court until after the presidential election.

That doesn't mean that Obama can not nominate someone.  It just means that the nomination will just "sit on ice."

Remember when Obama was first  elected and the Rabid Right stated...
WE HOPE HE FAILS, even if it meant that the USA would also fail.
The obstructionism continues.

Quoted from Box A Rox

The obstructionism continues.

      

Obama once said that "elections have consequences."  That was how he justified pushing his agenda during his first term -- even when public opinion opposed the course that he was taking.  
Well, the folks elected a Republican majority to run the U.S. Senate (thank God) and the consequence of that election is that the Senate disagrees, legitimately, with the course of action Obama wants to take.  This is still a democratic republic.  Congress is NOT obliged by anything in the Constitution or any law to merely "rubber stamp" everything that the president wants,  In fact, Congress would NOT be doing its Constitutional duty if it just acted as a lap dog for the president.  
Obama and the shrill, sycophant voices of Pelosi and Tonko seem to think that everyone in Congress and across the country should bow to every wish of Obama.  They go so far as to label anyone who disagrees with Obama (or them) as racists and other derogatory terms.  Well - that is NOT how this nation was designed to work.  Blind, unquestioning submission has NO place in a democracy.  Blind, unquestioning submission has NO place in American civic life.  Debate and disagreement is VERY much needed in a democracy.  Debate and disagreement is VERY American.  

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Obama once said that "elections have consequences."  That was how he justified pushing his agenda during his first term -- even when public opinion opposed the course that he was taking.  
  

ELECTIONS DO HAVE CONSEQUENCES!!!

Take the election of Ronald Reagan... Who then nominated Justice Scalia to the supreme court.
Had Ronny nominated another justice, the outcome of the GORE V BUSH vote may have gone to
the candidate who ACTUALLY WON THE ELECTION BY HALF A MILLION VOTES!

DVOR seems to value "PUBLIC OPINION" except when that PUBLIC OPINION elected a democrat
by a margin of 500,000 votes.

ELECTIONS DO HAVE CONSEQUENCES... Take for example the 2008 & 2012 Election and Re election
of BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.  The consequences of that election is that Obama nominates a
replacement for Justice Scalia.

Of course if the senate refuses to do it's job... in spite of OBAMA'S election and reelection (the
will of the people) then we will have to wait for President HILLARY to nominate Scalia's replacement.