> Let's also remember what that VP Biden (as a Senator in 1992) stated about Justices in an election year (no). Yes, let's try to remember, since you have appa

> Let's also remember what that VP Biden (as a Senator in 1992) stated about Justices in an election year (no). Yes, let's try to remember, since you have apparently forgotten: > "Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself. >"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, 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. >"Some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose in the Senate — to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. So, yeah. I mean, you can argue that he wasn't saying it in good faith, and that if a Justice had resigned or died and if Bush had taken Biden at his word to consider his nominee after the election, that when Bush lost the election and if he put forward a nominee at that point, that Biden would have gone back on his word (which, I'll remind, was a matter of public record not a private agreement or anything). You can make that argument, and since none of that actually happened and I can't peer into Biden's soul - there is not much I can say to refute it, such is the nature of pure supposition. But, Biden made that speech much closer to the election, and was speaking in hypotheticals as well. Summarizing his argument (which I happen to disagree with myself, btw) as being equivalent to what most GOP Senators are saying now where they are not going to consider any Obama nominee no matter what, ever (not to mention that they had plenty of time to do so before the "election season" for Senate office) rises well above mere disingenuousness - it is a straight-up lie and you either know it or you're a fool. Now, there are Senators in the GOP who are calling to consider Garland during the lame duck. Good for them, though it would be nice if they would say it a little louder. Also they are not, as far as I know, in the majority (in saying it - I have no doubt the Senate will move to confirm Garland if Hillary wins the election, though whether Garland withdraws his name at that point will be very interesting to see).