years. judge garland is a victim of timing. the biden rule. in the last year of a presidency after you start the primary season for picking a new president it s been the tradition in the senate to let the next president pick and i thought it would be clinton. president trump won. i didn t think he would. but what i ll do is fight for his nominee. he s one of the finest men to ever search on the bench and what they re saying about him upsets me. nancy pelosi said if you breathe air and drink water this man s against you. i pushback when president trump says things inappropriately against garbage and not one person has satisfied one thing about neil gorsuch. i hope the democrats will regain their sensibilities here and not take this fine man who s lived a noble life in the law and trash him the way they re doing and
going to have an opening they thought in the last year of his term that a republican was going to retire from the court. here is what joe said, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on the supreme court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. if someone steps down, i would highly recommend the president not name someone, not send up a name, if bush did send someone up, i d ask the senate to seriously consider not having a hearing for that nominee. so in 1992 joe biden, the chairman of the judiciary committee said, once the campaign season is afoot, let s let the next president pick. i thought it made sense then, i
chairman of the judiciary committee said once the campaign season is afoot, let s let the next president pick. i thought that made sense then, i believe it makes sense now. judge garland is a fine man. he was well-qualified. but the next president, in my view. should replace scalia because he died in february after three primaries had started a week before the south carolina primary. and to everybody who holds that boos judge gorsuch, you re not persuading me at all. matter of fact, if you can t understand this is a qualified nominee, then you re not listening. if you don t understand that elections matter, then you don t understand america.
in 1992 he told the last year of bush 41 do not send a nominee over here if somebody retires, the election season is full blown. to my democratic friends, you re manufacturing this issue, there is no doubt in my mind that if the shoes were on the other foot you would have done what we do and said since the campaign season is afoot, we ll let the next president pick. garland was a good pick, i expected clinton to be nominating somebody but it did not work that way. twice i voted for qualified nominees. this man is beyond qualified, unanimously qualified, rating by the american bar association. not to vote for him is not revenge, you re more worried about your basis to vote no i got the crap braeten out of me when i voted for soeto mieor and
should people be concerned about a militarization? it s something that has come up. he s fond of generals. it s rare in washington to find bipartisan support for president pick. democrats and republicans who are supportive of trump and those who are not praising the pick. this is a widely respected person. i hope that a lot of people are more skeptical of trunk , skeptical of trump, james: if you are the state department and you are butting heads over policy issues or initiatives and it s going to be adjudicated by the national security advisor who is supposed to be the person who collates the views and goes to the president. should you feel comfortable that these generals are going to be