Joe Biden Says Amy Coney Barrett Appointment 'Not Constitutional'

  • Thread starter Thread starter KMC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sounds like Biden. I’ve never thought of of him as being someone honest.
 
Maybe someone should send him a copy of the Constitution, along with some other Dems I can think of.
 
For many years, Biden was the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is likely that he actually means something when he says the nomination is unconstitutional, even if it is not what you understand when you hear it.
 
There is nothing unconstitutional about the nomination. A sitting president has the duty to present a nominee to the Senate for appointment to the Supreme Court. President Trump is a sitting president. The Senate is still the Senate.

All the run around and huffing from the left comes from the fact they know it is constitutional and there is not one thing they can do about it. NOT ONE THING.
 
Best thing I’ve read today, even though you might have been sarcastic.

Yeh, those progressive FMs who wrote it.
 
Last edited:
Dovekin said:
For many years, Biden was the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is likely that he actually means something when he says the nomination is unconstitutional, even if it is not what you understand when you hear it.
Click to expand...
I understand what the constitution says.

From Article 2, section 2
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,
Click to expand...
So far, we know he has the power and shall nominate judges for the Supreme Court. The constitution clearly says so.

We also know that the Senate has the role of advice and consent.

Trump is president. The Senate still consists of those elected. None of the terms have expired.
So, even if “It is likely that he actually means something when he says the nomination is unconstitutional”, what he means isn’t in the constitution.
 
by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint

What I was thinking of is the role of the Senate, which is to advise and consent. This is more than just having the Senate vote, it describes an active engagement with the “elder statesmen” in the Senate. This institutional role of the senate is something committee chairmen used to defend fiercely.

The point is that he may have a different view of what the Constitution means after 30+ years as a Senator than you or I have.
 
Dovekin said:
For many years, Biden was the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is likely that he actually means something when he says the nomination is unconstitutional, even if it is not what you understand when you hear it.
Click to expand...
Would-be Senator Biden and the Mormon approve of this message.
 
Last edited:
Dovekin said:
by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint

What I was thinking of is the role of the Senate, which is to advise and consent. This is more than just having the Senate vote, it describes an active engagement with the “elder statesmen” in the Senate. This institutional role of the senate is something committee chairmen used to defend fiercely.

The point is that he may have a different view of what the Constitution means after 30+ years as a Senator than you or I have.
Click to expand...
The senate, right now, is constitutionally fulfilling its roll. They also constitutionally filled that roll in 2016.
Biden won’t tell us much, but maybe he can explain how it isn’t constitutional.
 
Good point, but he has spent his whole career in politics. I believe he took his first political office the year after graduation.

However, I will rescind or amend my post if still possible in light of him having a degree.

I agree with the person who said he simply doesn’t understand the Constitution. I also believe that some underling wrote his script and he accepted it at face value because his brain + whatever tiny amount of legal knowledge he retained aren’t up to critical thinking.
 
Last edited:
He was admitted to the Delaware Bar in 1969, and to the Senate in 1973. As a Senator he was involved in writing and implementing the laws, including overseeing appointments to the Supreme Court by Presidents of his own, and opposing, party.

He knows and understands the process for nominating someone to the Supreme Court. He certainly knows more about it than I do, enough that I am not going to say “he is wrong.” I do not understand what he said, but I do not know enough to say it was meaningless.
 
I’m certainly not going to say that Biden knows more about the Constitution than I do, or many, many of the lawyers in Washington do, including the woman his party is trying to keep off the bench with whatever they can dredge up because they don’t have a good argument. He may know how to get a piece of legislation through Congress, but that’s not the same thing as knowing the law, which is one reason why we need federal courts in the first place, to correct legislators when they often err.

His son the State AG was the legal mind in the family, not Joe.

One of the first things one learns as a lawyer is that there are an awful lot of people with law degrees and bar admissions and very poor knowledge of the law. In fact, given the way the US churns out attorneys, most of them fall in that category.
 
Last edited:
This sounds more like a frustrated political statement and the result of (albeit legal) partisan political games being played rather than a real critique of the constitutionality. I don’t know what could be construed as unconstitutional here, but I’d be interested to hear him expand on it.

And I think posters who’ve seen me post on politics before know I’m not someone who froths at the mouth over democrats.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top