Biden Says He Won’t Release Supreme Court Nominee List Before Election

[Honeyman]

"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, 'Let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,' " he said in 2016 shortly after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. "And you could use my words against me and you'd be absolutely right."

Graham repeated the sentiment in October 2018 in an interview with The Atlantic's editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg. "If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait till the next election."

That’s crystal clear. Cut and dry. Indisputable. Why? Graham gave us instructions.

Not in the trumpet world though. 2+2 = 17.

[Rate This]

"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, 'Let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,' " he said in 2016 shortly after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. "And you could use my words against me and you'd be absolutely right."

Graham repeated the sentiment in October 2018 in an interview with The Atlantic's editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg. "If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait till the next election."

That’s crystal clear. Cut and dry. Indisputable. Why? Graham gave us instructions.

Not in the trumpet world though. 2+2 = 17.

And that’s on a good day.

[Matt]

No, there isn't.

[Rate This]

No, there isn't.

No there isn’t what? A good reason for the hypocrisy here? On this we agree.

When a guy says we shouldn’t do something quote me and use it against me then by god that’s instructions. He fucked up. Watch that fancy montage of all of them saying it. There is no excuse.

[Matt]

*Cough* Grand Old Hypocrites *Cough*

https://mobile.twitter.com/ProjectLinco ... frame.html

Go ahead and explain all these guys saying this... I won’t hold my breath.

There is no way they can justify it, RT. The hypocrisy is indisputable. It's just power over principle.

100% agree with your statement that the Democrat senators that were insistent on pushing a lame duck President's nominee through have now switched course!

10 months vs. 44 days.. big difference.

No there isn't, especially after the bullshit dog and pony show you guys put Kavanaugh through two years ago. The rules changed after that pathetic display. Now the standard bearer of your party is a dementia-riddled pussy who won't provide a list and won't even say he would stop a court packing scheme.

[Rate This]

*Cough* Grand Old Hypocrites *Cough*

https://mobile.twitter.com/ProjectLinco ... frame.html

Go ahead and explain all these guys saying this... I won’t hold my breath.

There is no way they can justify it, RT. The hypocrisy is indisputable. It's just power over principle.

100% agree with your statement that the Democrat senators that were insistent on pushing a lame duck President's nominee through have now switched course!

10 months vs. 44 days.. big difference.

No there isn't, especially after the bullshit dog and pony show you guys put Kavanaugh through two years ago. The rules changed after that pathetic display. Now the standard bearer of your party is a dementia-riddled pussy who won't provide a list and won't even say he would stop a court packing scheme.

The Kavanaugh hearings are irrelevant here. Don’t change the subject and try to distract with that nonsense. The question at hand is whether the McConnell rule should be upheld. Without a full senate vote to change the precedent it should stand. That’s how it’s supposed to work. If the Senate Parliamentarian is asked by Democrats and agrees they need 60 to get past it. The Democrats have options here.

As a matter of record 44 days is both very fast to get a nominee through and also unprecedented... when it’s happened before they waited until after the election to even nominate someone.


A court packing scheme is perfectly legal. They could make all the federal judges from each circuit a justice and draw a random 9 from a pool for each case if they wanted to. The number of justices is set by statute... it can be any size.

[Rate This]

A court packing scheme is perfectly legal.

Only in Libostan. Just imagine that Screamin' and Howlin' if the Republican were to do that !!!

It’s still constitutional.

So would clipping their wings and saying the Supreme Court May not strike down laws. Judicial review is a precedent and court size is a law.

[Matt]

This would be irrelevant if Harry Reid had listened to Lindsey Graham 7 years ago and not taken the nuclear option. Oh well!

[Rate This]

This would be irrelevant if Harry Reid had listened to Lindsey Graham 7 years ago and not taken the nuclear option. Oh well!

You will not directly address the clear hypocrisy of Lindsay Graham will you? It’s in black and white and has nothing to do with lame ducks or Harry Reid or anything else you are dredging up.

[Rate This]

Yeah, ole (D) Franklin Roosevelt tried it and got.........No Where.

So what.

[Matt]

This would be irrelevant if Harry Reid had listened to Lindsey Graham 7 years ago and not taken the nuclear option. Oh well!

You will not directly address the clear hypocrisy of Lindsay Graham will you? It’s in black and white and has nothing to do with lame ducks or Harry Reid or anything else you are dredging up.

Hypocrisy of Lindsey Graham??? I already explained that before the Lindsey Graham statement you are referencing, there was ANOTHER Lindsey Graham statement about Harry Reid taking the nuclear option and reducing the cloture vote requirement for judicial nominations from 60 to 51. Well, the chickens have come home to roost on that one.

After enduring nearly 4 years of a presidential term with the opposition throwing everything at him because they couldn't accept that he beat a despised old hag and the way the left treated Justice Kavanaugh, I really don't give a fuck what Democrats have to say on the matter. Couple that with the threats of packing the court and getting rid of the electoral college, and well, its clear that they don't deserve to be in a position of power.

[Honeyman]

This would be irrelevant if Harry Reid had listened to Lindsey Graham 7 years ago and not taken the nuclear option. Oh well!

You will not directly address the clear hypocrisy of Lindsay Graham will you? It’s in black and white and has nothing to do with lame ducks or Harry Reid or anything else you are dredging up.

Hypocrisy of Lindsey Graham??? I already explained that before the Lindsey Graham statement you are referencing, there was ANOTHER Lindsey Graham statement about Harry Reid taking the nuclear option and reducing the cloture vote requirement for judicial nominations from 60 to 51. Well, the chickens have come home to roost on that one.

After enduring nearly 4 years of a presidential term with the opposition throwing everything at him because they couldn't accept that he beat a despised old hag and the way the left treated Justice Kavanaugh, I really don't give a fuck what Democrats have to say on the matter. Couple that with the threats of packing the court and getting rid of the electoral college, and well, its clear that they don't deserve to be in a position of power.

Thought you were better than bedet, UP, trollife, and the other right wing fools here, Matt. You are...but that's like saying you are sexier than Rosie O'Donnell. Sad that as the election gets closer, you lose your morals and defend the indefensible.

https://lincolnproject.us/news/accountable/

[Rate This]

This would be irrelevant if Harry Reid had listened to Lindsey Graham 7 years ago and not taken the nuclear option. Oh well!

You will not directly address the clear hypocrisy of Lindsay Graham will you? It’s in black and white and has nothing to do with lame ducks or Harry Reid or anything else you are dredging up.

Hypocrisy of Lindsey Graham??? I already explained that before the Lindsey Graham statement you are referencing, there was ANOTHER Lindsey Graham statement about Harry Reid taking the nuclear option and reducing the cloture vote requirement for judicial nominations from 60 to 51. Well, the chickens have come home to roost on that one.

After enduring nearly 4 years of a presidential term with the opposition throwing everything at him because they couldn't accept that he beat a despised old hag and the way the left treated Justice Kavanaugh, I really don't give a fuck what Democrats have to say on the matter. Couple that with the threats of packing the court and getting rid of the electoral college, and well, its clear that they don't deserve to be in a position of power.

So that’s a concession by you on the point. What he said in 2016 is irrelevant for some technical reasons you pulled out of your ass that he said in 2013 so we’re Supposed to ignore the second one entirely because of the nuclear option. Noted.

You could be an upstanding person and address how Graham is saying “Put it on tape, if Trump is in office and it comes up in an election year we should wait. Use it against me.” And how the hypocrisy is a question of logic not of partisanship. He clearly said it. Cut and dry black and white. Instead you pull a TC Talks. Good going guy.

[UP906]

Go ahead and use it against him if you choose.

Four years of Dem shenanigans may have changed his mind though.

Too bad, so sad.

[Rate This]

Go ahead and use it against him if you choose.

Four years of Dem shenanigans may have changed his mind though.

Too bad, so sad.

A card laid is a card played. He is a man without a single principle. A good fit for Trump.