Oh Dear – Video Surfaces of Joe Biden Demanding NO SCOTUS Appointments In Presidential Election Years…

Well, if the White House is going to try and present a Supreme Court nominee this year – they are first going to have to figure out how to get around this uncomfortable prior positioning of Joe Biden:

biden window

…(Sigh) I’m always getting called in here for something. It’s like the principal’s office….

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Dear Leader - Creepy POTUS Worship, Dem Hypocrisy, Election 2016, Joe Biden, Supreme Court, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

75 Responses to Oh Dear – Video Surfaces of Joe Biden Demanding NO SCOTUS Appointments In Presidential Election Years…

  1. Redheart says:

    But these guys have no shame….so….what difference does it make?

    Liked by 5 people

    • KBR says:

      Looks like the media will have to dust off the “crazy uncle Joe” meme again and eat crow for recently suggesting that “Biden the wonderful” might run for POTUS and save the democrat party due to Hillary’s email crime spree.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Concerned Virginian says:

      And this just in, on Drudge:
      “Obama Cracks Joke About Scalia’s Death”
      redirects you to http://www.infowars.com/ article.

      Like

    • vermontave says:

      You’re right. No shame.

      Here’s my take on what the Obama Administration has in store for the outcome of this Presidential election.

      Scalia is dead — pillow over face. Ok, didn’t see that coming, but there it is. We’re thinking: Oh, Obama and Hillary have manufactured a political “lever” out of thin air, they are going to use the new SC appointment to influence indy and liberal voters: “Do you really want a conservative majority on the court? You must make sure your Representatives and Senators sign off on whomever the President appoints this year!”

      So let’s say Reps and Senators approve whomever Obama appoints — say, an apparent moderate. Trump can transcend that, right? He’s Mr. Shine, right?

      But we’re not accounting for the fact that the Obama administration will be running the Federal Elections Commission through the end of this year. The administration already knows Hillary doesn’t stand a chance in hell in a legit general election. So, it plans to rig the vote count — who’s going to call the Obama Administration on it? The FBI? They run that too lol? The media? HA — Good Joke lol.

      When Republicans raise a beef, Congress will be in a turmoil and the matter will get kicked across the street to the Supreme Court (because the US really NEEDS a President, like ASAP) and the SC Court can decide, right? It’s done it before, right?

      And, of course, when that happens, the “moderate” SC Justice the Republicans have approved will turn out to be a liberal wolf-in-sheep’s clothing and, in a reversal of the Bush vs Gore in 2000, side with the liberal majority, i.e. Hillary will “win” just like W. Bush in 2000.

      Two things conservatives:

      -If you’re a serious conservative, make d@mn sure Obama’s appointment doesn’t get approved. I don’t care if he appoints David Duke as the next SC Justice. Obama’s administration will probably even have THAT guy programmed to roll liberal when the time comes. So make sure the confirmation results in NONE. ZERO. NADA, i.e. DO NOT APPROVE THE OBAMA SC APPOINTMENT!!! Make sure it’s a STALEMATE in the SC until mid-2017.
      -IF you’re a serious conservative make d@mn sure that you have an eye on the Federal Elections Commission this time out. Count on the fact that Obama’s people will MONKEY with the counts like the US was a freaking banana republic. It is NO JOKE. Conservatives will lose this Presidency, if they do not keep their eye on the outfit keeping an eye ON THE NUMBERS. The mainstream media will pile on and say: “Hillary wins it.” OK? That’s the future unless you, conservatives, make it otherwise.

      If you don’t, can’t say I didn’t warn you.

      Like

    • CountryClassVulgarian says:

      Does anyone really expect demonrats to have shame? These people are born sans shame boxes.

      Like

  2. burnett044 says:

    to joe…

    Liked by 15 people

  3. joshua says:

    Hey Joe….this is a Big F*ing Deal here, right?

    Liked by 3 people

  4. crimsonfisted says:

    This is golden. And you ain’t seen nothing until Trump decided to run, as far as bitter.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. beaujest says:

    And this dunce destroyed Paul Ryan in their debate !

    Liked by 4 people

    • tz says:

      Speaking ill of the speaker? Agreed.

      This is something else we can tell Cruz supporters – What are you doing about your congressmen and senators, particularly if they are RINOs? Cruz himself should demand Ryan’s and McConnell’s resignation (for lying, or does everyone do it so excuse the Cruz), and that they retire along with all those who voted for Ryan as speaker.

      One of the reasons I can dismiss Glenn Beck’s more lucid moments is that he was one of the big forces behind dumping Bonior. Now he wants everyone to forget that’s where we got Ryan and the Omnibus.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Bart Manson ✓ᴺᵃᵗᶦᵒᶰᵃˡᶦˢᵗ says:

        that they retire along with all those who voted for Ryan as speaker.

        That’s every Republican in the House except 10:

        David Brat (R-VA)
        Curt Clawson (R-FL)
        Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
        Paul Gosar (R-AZ)
        Walter Jones (R-NC)
        Thomas Massie (R-KY)
        Bill Posey (F-FL)
        Randy Weber (R-TX)
        Daniel Webster (R-FL)
        Ted Yoho (R-FL)

        Liked by 1 person

    • CountryClassVulgarian says:

      I’m no fa of Ryan but Biden did not destroy him in the debate. I found Biden’s behavior during that debate simply pathetic.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Notmeagain says:

    Pfft. That was then and it might have been a Republican. This is now and it might be a Democrat.

    Like

  7. sahm2016 says:

    “It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court Nominee must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process.”

    Joe Biden is the gift that keeps on giving. All the GOP Senators should do, when asked a question about the SCOTUS vacancy, is quote Biden.

    Liked by 4 people

  8. Marc Johansen says:

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Trust No One says:

    Yes. “I agree with Vice President Joe Biden as he said ….. And then quote him.” Done.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. TheTorch says:

    Oh YES! Biden the gift that keeps on giving… 🙂

    Liked by 3 people

  11. kinthenorthwest says:

    Biden is not the first Democrat to say this.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. IMO says:

    Obama Cracks Scalia Death Joke

    POS thinks he’s funny.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. JAS says:

    Postponing the appointment until after the elections would be a huge benefit for we the people for a very obvious reason, namely our present POTUS. That said there will be times when the shoe is on the other foot. What’s good for the goose… kind of thing.

    I don’t believe there is anything in the Constitution that tells Presidents to put nominations on hold in an election year. And, although I loathe the thought of the POTUS appointing someone before the end of his term I will stick with the Constitution “for better or for worse”. I have the utmost disdain for people that like to “interpret” or worse, ignore the Constitution.

    Like

    • bulwarker says:

      I fully expect Obama to nominate someone, as he should as POTUS (although the Senate needs to table it). What will be interesting is who he chooses and how that person lines up with Clinton. You know she’ll be asked whether she would honor Obama’s choice even if it’s pushed off while he’s in office.

      Liked by 1 person

    • kathyca says:

      Which part of the Constitution are you referring to and, if it’s the “shall nominate” part, what do you make of this:

      Nearly every jurisdiction has held that the word “shall” is confusing because it can also mean “may, will or must.” Legal reference books like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no longer use the word “shall.” Even the Supreme Court ruled that when the word “shall” appears in statutes, it means “may.”

      Bryan Garner, the legal writing scholar and editor of Black’s Law Dictionary wrote that “In most legal instruments, shall violates the presumption of consistency…which is why shall is among the most heavily litigated words in the English language.”

      https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/plain_language/articles/mandatory/

      Liked by 1 person

      • JAS says:

        Even the Supreme Court ruled that when the word “shall” appears in statutes, it means “may.”

        That would be the “interpretation” part.

        Like

        • kathyca says:

          Gotcha. I was kind of surprised to see that ruling since I was always taught that shall means must.

          Like

          • moogey says:

            :0) Kathy – give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and give unto God what is God’s. – separation of church and state even in terms of language.

            For those who believe in the 10 commandments, when given the law, it stated, ‘Thou Shalt Not’ – in other words, we Must Not.

            For those who believe in suppressive government, when given the law, it stated ‘thou Shall’ – in other words, we May. (because it enables their agenda for a world court)

            Like

          • JeremyR says:

            Well, its opposite is shalt, and it means don’t ever F@#%ing try it. As in Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
            So to me, shall means you’d better or else.

            Like

          • JAS says:

            With the caveat that English was not always my first language, my understanding of our English language in terms of “shall” and “must” is as follows:

            Shall and must are both obligation to action modifiers, the action being “do” or its negation. Both prescribe an obligation to act (or not act). The difference is that shall obligates an action in reaction to something in the future, whereas must obligates an action to something in the past or present. Must obligates immediacy of action. Example:

            “You shall follow the order” means that you will do so in the future when the order applies.

            “You must follow the order” means that you will do so immediately because the order has already been issued, either in the past or in the present.

            Must implies immediate necessity of action and should be used in those circumstances. You would not use “shall” in this sentence: “You must eat (now) or you will die.”

            Applied to the Constitution, “shall” was used correctly by the framers because the usage in question was in reference to an obligation to act in response to a future event.

            “A lawyer’s tools of his trade is the twisting of words” :).

            Like

            • kathyca says:

              I think that’s a very accurate description of the usage of must and shall. I disagree, however, that the tool of a lawyer’s trade is the twisting of words. To the contrary, lawyers are trained to use words very precisely, just as you have described the distinction between these two words. There is nothing lawyerly about finding that the word shall means may. The real problem is that too many lawyers do not have integrity in the application of the law as their first priority 🙂

              Liked by 1 person

              • Cornell, John says:

                The problem of course is that this is a political squabble. Parsing the language of the Constitution matters most when the matter will be adjudicated buy a court. A court will not touch this one. So that the most anyone can do is try and use the language of the Constitution to bolster their political positions.

                Like

              • JAS says:

                “The real problem is that too many lawyers do not have integrity in the application of the law as their first priority :)”

                And I agree with you. The purpose of the end quote was purely satirical and I should have used the /s modifier. My apologies:).

                Like

  14. mo says:

    Joe Biteme, career parasite politician extraordinaire.
    Poster boy for what the Founders ‘Did Not Want’ as a representative of the people..

    Liked by 2 people

  15. The Boss says:

    McConnell is too much of a coward to do anything with this gift from Uncle Joe.

    Like

    • TheFenian says:

      Yep. This little clip is victory, but victory is too much to expect and they’ll rush through whoever is nominated, especially if it’s a young muslim or young radical.

      Gosh I hate Rebubican politicians.

      Like

  16. wasntme says:

    IDK. biden says it should wait until after the election, or the campaigning season. That still leaves over 2 months in between the election and when Trump is sworn in.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. labrat says:

    What’s the Senate forecast for next year? How are those races looking? How likely is it that the R’s keep the Senate? Does anyone follow this stuff?

    Like

    • owentt says:

      Democrats will likely gain the seats in WI (Johnson) and IL (Kirk). (+2 D)

      The Democratic seat in NV (Reid) is competitive and the seat in CO (Bennet) could be if the Republicans find a credible nominee. Both states went for Obama twice and have strong pro-choice majorities in presidential years. (+0-2 R)

      And the Republican seats in NH (Ayotte) and FL (Rubio) are very competitive. Those are the two seats most likely to swap on Supreme Court controversy; they’ve been blue twice and have heavy pro-choice majorities in presidential turnout so if the new nominee isn’t confirmed, it’s going to be wall-to-wall battering against the Republican which most voters will agree with. (+0-2 D)

      OH (Portman) and PA (Toomey) are competitive seats where Obama won twice but which are not heavy pro-choice majority in presidential years. If the Supreme Court seat becomes an issue, it will hurt the Republican but not too much and one or both could survive. Still, they are blue leaning seats in presidential years and Toomey is very conservative and unlikely to survive in any case while Portman has to be somewhat favored. (+0-2 D)

      Also, AZ (McCain) and NC (Burr) lean Republican but have unreliable incumbents. Especially in AZ, McCain doesn’t appeal to Trump Republicans at all since he hates the First and Second Amendments and loves illegals. Rubio would be even worse in AZ for McCain as there will probably be a marijuana initiative that will win by large margins putting even the presidential race in question (Rubio openly hates localism and federalism and marijuana). And Democrats have a good candidate in AZ in Rep. Kirkpatrick that can take advantage if McCain slips. (+ 0-2 D, but probably none)

      Democrats need four seats to tie and five to take control. Between 3 Jan and 20 Jan 2017 Biden and Obama are still in office and the new Senate is already in power, so four D pickups mean that the new nominee will be pushed through even if Trump is elected. And Democrats could easily gain up to six.

      The Republican senators will be able to see that holding up the judge will hurt them constantly in their Fall races. And that the Obama judge will be pushed through in Obama’s lame duck period anyway when they lose. So I predict that as soon as primaries are over, Republican senators will cut their losses and confirm Obama’s nominee.

      Don’t worry, though. Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy will all be over 80 next year. The next president will really be able to put a stamp on the Court.

      Oh, this is a good resource: http://www.270towin.com/2016-senate-election/

      Like

    • 1hear2learn says:

      But we all know it means nothing because how many times do we have Obama on video saying if you like your healthplan, you can keep your healthplan… if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period? Oh, and most plans will go down $2500 per year!!! Their words mean nothing. Not just dems either. Will never support amnesty, or legalization then co sponsors a bill for legalization.

      Liked by 1 person

      • 1hear2learn says:

        And, I’m sure there are pundit quotes all over the place now saying need to nominate and get a hearing that previously said, it should be left until after the election. Again, vice versa also for the R’s.

        Like

  18. don welch says:

    no problem for a pos like obama.

    Like

  19. JeremyR says:

    Sundance, this is really a double standard here. If Donald Trump can change his mind on an issue, why can’t Joe? Besides the fact that his “mind” consists of three wires and most of George Soros left hand.

    Liked by 1 person

    • TheFenian says:

      Way to support your team JeremyR.
      Cruzbot ? Or one of the Rubio gang ?

      Like

    • moogey says:

      A Government Senator whose stance can have global ramifications and enact law on 393 million people must answer to the people. A Private Citizen who changes stances affect no one but themselves.

      Or do expect that all private citizens must never change their stances or opinions over a 7 decade period, but all Government Senators & officials should be able to change their minds willy-nilly regardless of what they say?

      Oh right, double standard. What a ridiculous comment.

      Like

  20. Planet8788 says:

    I thought only Republicans were this dumb… Hold the hearings… drag them out… and then shoot down the candidate… Don’t tell everyone you’re an ass.
    But ol Joe could never be outdown.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Reblogged this on Exposing Modern Mugwumps and commented:

    Ahahahahhahaha, the plagiarist himself who can always put not only one, but both feet in his mouth!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Liked by 1 person

  22. elena19501 says:

    Rachel Maddow explained very good situation with Cruz troubles on MSNBC

    Like

  23. elena19501 says:

    I guess after Trump “brands” people “low energy”, “liar” – they are DONE.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. Pinkie says:

    I am Shocked, shocked I tell you that there’s politics going on here.

    Now that we have had a good laugh at the expense of Uncle Joe, let’s remember what actually happened.

    Thurgood Marshall, appointed by Democrat LBJ and the most liberal member of the Court had retired.

    George HW Bush declined to take chairman Biden’s advice and nominated Clarence Thomas to replace Marshall

    The judiciary committee hearings were must see TV, but the nomination was reported out and the democratically controlled Senate confirmed.

    Like

  25. cycle1 says:

    As soon as stuff heats up in this not-nominating-until-after-election battle, the Republicans should just run commercials over and over on tv with clips from o’l lunch-bucket joe’s above video. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander….

    3 letter word baby: J-O-B-S (yeah now I know why that guy had to cheat to get through college).

    Like

  26. 1stgoblyn says:

    Where is ole Uncle Joe lately anyway? I need his advice on my shotgun purchase. /s

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s