kurtster wrote: 
I got a couple F-bombs ready to go, but first, look up the word "pragmatic" and tell me you understand it. You can't. Your brain is squirmin' like a toad. I'll type slower so you can maybe keep up: Biden is saying a nomination in the 3rd quarter of an election year would be a circus: A distraction from the important business of choosing the president. So his pragmatic conclusion (sorry for that big word again)(you looked it up, right?) is that the appointment should happen after the election. But certainly before the president leaves office. He was not in any way suggesting the appointment be left for the next president to make. 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
So let's look at the quote one last time, shall we ?

 “It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed.”  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. That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution. Then Senator Joe Biden, June 25, 1992

 Just what is going on in this quote ?  This is a very deliberate advance written statement, not from the hip.  It is concise.  I am only dealing with the actual words in the quote, not my opinion.  You are adding your opinion and spinning it your way.  Where do you find the sliding scale you refer to ?   I'll give you another shot at reading comprehension.  Hint ... the word "conclusion" ... 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 

Now, that may be worth watching!   

 Beaker wrote: 
Easier to never click it again. I don't have any adblockers going either... it was not a Flash issue; I know what those updaters look like.
 
So someone on FB shared an article and man, I have to check URLs. Different article, but on the same site. Total lockup from some scam ad. updater247.com or something like that. Right. 

 kurtster wrote:   
You're the one who thinks it's a valid point no matter when it's applied. Islander and I are pointing out that it's a sliding scale. How early? How long before an election is a long enough time to pass your "let the next person choose" rule?
 
Anyway: Biden was not saying Bush shouldn't choose. He was just saying Bush shouldn't force the senate to hold hearings during the heat of an election season; they'd get short shrift. The assumption being that as soon as there was an appointment, the senate would do its fucking job no matter what. Compare and contrast with today's senate.
 
And really. You want to roll the dice that Trump is really going to win? Or the GOP can pull its collective head out and get behind someone who can beat Hillary? Hillary may implode but as much damage as she's taken, hey lookit: she's still here. Not many people are thrilled about that but nominate Cruz and see how she does. She'll frickin' curb-stomp his smirky face and appoint Bill. The Cat.  Honestly, Obama's going to nominate someone pretty centrist, just to make the delay tacticians look stupider. You have 3 possible outcomes: Obama's centrist (wait & see who it is before you decide, if you want), the GOP's choice or Hillary's choice. Quite a risky move to bank on the GOP winning. Choose wisely. Don't look to the GOP for guidance.

General Information

How are Supreme Court Justices selected?
The President nominates someone for a vacancy on the Court and the Senate votes to confirm the nominee, which requires a simple majority. In this way, both the Executive and Legislative Branches of the federal government have a voice in the composition of the Supreme Court.

Are there qualifications to be a Justice? Do you have to be a lawyer or attend law school to be a Supreme Court Justice?
The Constitution does not specify qualifications for Justices such as age, education, profession, or native-born citizenship. A Justice does not have to be a lawyer or a law school graduate, but all Justices have been trained in the law. Many of the 18th and 19th century Justices studied law under a mentor because there were few law schools in the country.

• The last Justice to be appointed who did not attend any law school was James F. Byrnes (1941-1942). He did not graduate from high school and taught himself law, passing the bar at the age of 23.
• Robert H. Jackson (1941-1954). While Jackson did not attend an undergraduate college, he did study law at Albany Law School in New York. At the time of his graduation, Jackson was only twenty years old and one of the requirements for a law degree was that students must be twenty-one years old. Thus rather than a law degree, Jackson was awarded with a "diploma of graduation." Twenty-nine years later, Albany Law School belatedly presented Jackson with a law degree noting his original graduating class of 1912.

Konservative ikon...

via

 islander wrote:
The Senate can conduct the hearings on a schedule of its choosing. The hearings can straddle the election if need be. There is absolutely no reason to wait, but if there were they could drag their feet all they like, filibuster the approval hearings, or reject the nominee outright with all the usual grandstanding and character assassination,

This is all partisan rah-rah dressed up as solemn patriotism. Can't see how anybody involved thought we wouldn't see thru it.

ScottFromWyoming wrote:
 islander wrote:

Its not my words, they are Biden's.  Spin away ...

Oh and on the website ...  I searched the entire quote and got only 4 results on Google.  The link was the only one of the four that I could find a date and that came from the time stamp on the C-SPAN video.  Just so that it could be verified that I was telling the truth about the date.  I shudder to use The Blaze for anything unless its my only choice.

Oh and it didn't crash my Chrome, but maybe because I'm on a PC, not an Apple ... 

 kurtster wrote: 
When hasn't it been underway? That's a shitty metric.
 
The page you linked crashed Chrome with its un-ignorable bogus Update Flash dialog it threw up, so I'm not going back to cut/paste a quote, but clearly, Biden was saying to put off the appointment until after the election so as not to have the hearing/circus distract from the business of electing a new justice. He was not saying not to make an appointment at all, only to wait until after the election, then the senate would have 2 months to hold their hearings. Of course that was a tactic to influence the pick*, but it's a far cry from just saying the president should let an entire calendar year pass without appointing anyone. 
 
*By allowing only 2 months for hearings, the president would need to select someone likely to skate thru the hearings or risk having the appointee shot down and leaving the pick to the next president. Clearly Biden knew that if the president nominated someone in June, the senate would have to hold hearings on that candidate before the election. On the surface he was trying to avoid that melee and that's a good point, but the current senate majority promises nothing but all melee all the time no matter what. Because they suck. If you weren't clear on that part. The sucking.

 kurtster wrote: 
The political season never ends. Using this definition we will never have another nominee. 

I guess I could see a limit somewhere pretty much at the election. Even then I'd say on November 1, the President is the president and he gets the nomination. The Senate can reject the nomination when the hearings roll around the following year and the new sitting pres would get to name a nominee at that point. Or, the senate could confirm if the nominee is worthy (which I'd say is a 99% probability), and then the letter of the constitution has still been followed. 

Biden/Shumer/Cruz/Rubio/EVERYONE who has said the president should not make a nomination are wrong.  They are simply playing politics and hoping for an emotional call that goes their way.  This is bad form from both sides when they do it.  

 kurtster wrote: 
tx!

 meower wrote: 
It was June 25, 1992.

This part is key though ...

  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. 

 The political season is clearly underway now as well.

 sirdroseph wrote:

 

 

what month was this? One of the stories I found has him referring to "in the next few weeks" or "the end of the summer"

which makes me think it was more like June July as opposed to February.

“It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed.”  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. That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution. Then Senator Joe Biden in 1992

 

 

I happen to disagree with Senator Biden and think the President should do as the Constitution states and put forth a nominee in a reasonable amount of time.

 steeler wrote: 
Yea I get that, but like you said there is a balance and the bullshit side is winning big time.

 steeler wrote: 
Like Biden ?

Or that the Cambridge police acted stupidly ? 

 kurtster wrote: 
Since they were not adversaries, then no. Look at it this way: would you want Obama at your funeral? At what point would "it's the Office not the Man" be overshadowed by the fact that you really don't like the Man?
 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Really ?   I don't get my politics through TMZ.

How about it would just be another non event ?

 sirdroseph wrote: 

A rather slippery slope, though.  For example: There is a diplomatic component to the job.  A President makes public statements about certain foreign policy events while there are back channels being worked.  The public statements often are carefully crafted, and concise; broad strokes rather than details. Does not mean they are false.  Typically, one does not want the President making incendiary public statements unless one believes in following, say, the approach of North Korea or that of some of the Aytatollahs in Iran. 

In sum, nuance is a necessary part of the job. A big part.  Saying whatever comes into one's head, on impulse, may be applauded as being ultra-honest, but otherwise not at all advisable under most circumstances.  That is why we hear people talking about one acting "presidential" or not acting presidential.  It is kind of an "Alice-in-Wonderland" thing to maintain that we want someone who is without nuance.