1992 : Biden Said Bush Should Not Make An Election Year SCOTUS Nomination

In 1992, Joe Biden said that Bush should follow the practice of the majority of his predecessors, and not make an election year SCOTUS nomination. And if he did make a nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should not schedule hearings.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to 1992 : Biden Said Bush Should Not Make An Election Year SCOTUS Nomination

  1. omanuel says:

    Thanks for this reminder.

  2. Mrs. Powell: “Well, Doctor, what have we got?”
    Benjamin Franklin: “A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.”

    A September 17, 1787 encounter outside the Philadelphia Independence Hall at the close of the Constitutional Convention, as recorded in the undated diary note of Dr. James McHenry, a Maryland delegate and a Signer of the Constitution

    Franklin was prophetic in his terse reply. As a people, we have not been good at the “keeping” job. The enemies of a constitutionally limited government have been on a long and victorious march ever since the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

    Today, there are few places where this inability to understand and appreciate the concept of a constitutional republic with clearly defined restrictions on governmental power is more visible than in Boulder, Colorado, a university town of supposedly well-educated people. Over three decades, I’ve listened to self-described “liberals” and “progressives” prattle again and again about democracy and progress. It is a rare occasion that one of these talkers can actually explain the difference between a pure democracy and a constitutional republic as intended by our Founders.

    A few days ago I quoted Mencken’s sarcastic democracy definition to a group of “progressives” and I didn’t get any pushback. All I got was blank looks. From the reaction, it was clear they didn’t know who he was and they certainly didn’t know what he meant by his derisive wisecrack. They were—with all their college degrees and Huffington Post and The Daily Show-derived understanding of the world—exactly the “common people” Mencken was talking about. In the following discussion they made it clear that what they want is “social justice” and “progress”, and by golly, government can give to them. They were excited about the opportunity that Obama will nominate another “progressive” Justice so that the Supreme Court can play a better role in this project.

    I pray that I can hold onto my strength and resolve to never give up but I expect that the American people will keep getting it “good and hard”.

    ”Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.”

    H. L. Mencken

  3. ristvan says:

    And he will give the same advice to Obama and Mitchell and Grassley now. NOT.

    • Ted says:

      But you don’t understand. 1992 was different. Bush was a REPUBLICAN. We can’t have crazy extremists like that picking supreme court justices. Such important nominations should only be made by intelligent, rational, centrists, like Obama, or Clinton, or Sanders. People who can represent the whole country, instead of just a tiny group of evil, brain washed simpletons.

      All this talk about waiting until after the election is a perfect example of why His Majesty should pass an executive order cancelling the election, and making him emperor for eternity.

      (if the senate gives him this pick, the court might just find that executive order to be constitutional)

      • RAH says:

        I well remember how intelligent and rational the democrats were when Clarence Thomas was up for confirmation. The mere mention of that mans name today will still drive every progressive and racist black into near mouth frothing convulsions of rage.

  4. RAH says:

    The democrats and their press are going to do all they can to get it done but it ain’t gonna happen. The next president could very well end up appointing three or four new justices counting the replacement for Scalia. The two others would be filling slots currently held by the two most leftist judges on the court.

    Still it is very entertaining to watch all the hypocrits bray.

  5. Here are two effective antidepressants, from the therapists at Instapundit:

    I’m sure, in Biden’s defense, he probably plagiarized those words. He could also correctly argue that since he’s been wrong on everything before, why would he have been right then?
    Coming up: Biden uses the “Uncle Leo Defense” regarding his 1992 comments.

  6. ristvan says:

    Note that just hours later, the NYT has picked up and run with this same story. They did not credit RealScience or Tony Heller for having dug it up earlier.

  7. Andy DC says:

    It seemed that until 1987 that the Supreme Court nomination process was a bipartisan procedure and that if the President’s choice was reasonable, he had no problem getting nominated. That all changed with the rejection of Bork, a very reasonable judge, who was rejected for purely ideological reasons.

    • A lot of things were bipartisan in the past. Then the Democrats declared “bipartisan” to mean “go along with whatever we, the Democrats, want” and the Republicans said “okay”. Not sure if it was cowardice on the part of the Republicans or that the Republicans were really Democrats who ran on the opposite ticket because the Democrat ticket was full. Hard to say. At this point, there’s virtually no evidence there is a need for “bipartisanship” since there’s really only one party.

      • Ted says:

        The term you’re looking for is “neoconservative.” While that word has become a universal but meaningless pejorative, similar to “racist,” it has an actual definition. A neoconservative is a pre-Johnson type democrat, who didn’t go along with most of the social changes made to the party’s platform in the 60’s. The neoconservatives have held most of the power in the republican party since at least Bush Jr. was elected, probably earlier. The country is currently being run by the new democrats, and the old democrats. The traditional republicans (Eisenhower, Pat Buchanan, etc.) have no meaningful national representation anymore. I think that’s a big part of Trump’s success. While not a traditional republican, he’s certainly not a neoconservative either. And republican voters are long since disgusted with neoconservatives.

        To anyone who thinks I’m making this up, please describe how John Kennedy and Bush Jr. differed, in terms of policy. Tougher than it sound, isn’t it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *