Biden gave us Clarence Thomas

[Hawkowl]

I want to hear what people think about Biden's chairmanship of the judiciary committee, and how he at first refused to interview Anita Hill. Then when seven women members of the House stormed in and demanded he admit her testimony, he proceeded to televise the hearings. Of course, he argued Hill's testimony was irrelevant, true or not, to the confirmation of Thomas.

As chair, Biden could have killed Thomas' confirmation. Instead, he allowed his confirmation, and in fact further embittered the vindictive Thomas, which arguably, directly led to the stolen election of 2000 and the SC coronating the chimperor.

What do people think? How do Biden's supporters justify this?

[Captain Hilts]

1. You have a MAJOR typo in your message. Yes, I'd like to hear Biden's take on this. nt

[Hawkowl]

2. Holy crap. Thanks. nt

[ginchinchili]

94. Read John Nichols' endorsement of Biden in latest edition of The Nation

Biden voted against Thomas, but like too many of our politicians your heading is dishonest and misleading. I also notice you fail to mention anything about the several bad nominees that Republicans made to the Supreme Court that Biden led the charge to stop, and succeeded. I hate dishonesty. That's why we're in Iraq and why 70% of Americans thought Saddam was behind 9/11. Dishonesty kills.

If people don't have access to a copy of The Nation, check out their website or read the post "Joe Biden" posted by gateley. John Nichols says himself in the article that he's not one to give endorsements to presidential candidates, but for Joe Biden he's made an exception.

[Peregrine Took]

3. Excellent post. I forgot how much I hated Biden back then. I still can't stand

him. I'll never forget those hearings. I wish they could be run again.

[youthere]

4. Biden voted NO on Thomas.

and if anyone is actually interested in looking into the issue, as opposed to simply attempting to smear a candidate, the NY Times had a couple of good articles on it:

\http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE4D6163DF932A15753C1A967958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/B/Biden,%20Joseph%20R.%20Jr.

and here:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE6D71E3EF932A25753C1A967958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/B/Biden,%20Joseph%20R.%20Jr.

[William769]

5. You are correct.

[beaconess]

8. He voted no - AFTER he screwed up the nomination in his Committee and let it go to the floor!

The OP is exactly right. He wasn't just a lone senator - he was CHAIR of the Committee that considered the Thomas nomination and he completely screwed it up.

If he's the nominee, I will certainly fully support him. But I will not vote for him in the primary, partly for that reason.

[Hawkowl]

9. Yes, but he didn't stop the nomination.

The Senate judiciary chair has the power to not schedule a vote. Without a committee recommendation, the nomination never gets to the floor. In fact, presidents generally consult with the chair, BEFORE, offering up a nomination so as to avoid an embarrassing smackdown.

By allowing the vote, and then voting no, he abdicated his power and responsibility and simply tried to cover his ass.

This is relevant now, because this is exactly the strategy employed by Reid and Pelosi. They allow votes to happen, indeed they schedule the issues and the votes, then allow them to proceed so they can point their fingers at the evil W. Bush and scream "it's all his fault". This is particularly infuriating with the Iraq War, where congress could withhold funding.

The latest egregious example of this strategy is the Mukasey nomination for AG. Leahy could've killed this nomination and scored major political points with the base. Instead he abdicates his power, allows the confirmation to continue, and votes no to cover his miserable, cowardly, machiavellian ass. He's willing to inflict this AG on us merely to gain some supposed political advantage.

So has Biden changed and become a man of principle? A Senator with a spine? Or does he remain a disingenuous, double talking politician, who refuses to use his power to defend the constitution.

[beaconess]

12. Don't forget Southwick, which Reid scheduled for a vote because Trent Lott asked him to.

"The chairman of the Judiciary Committee and I have stated on a number of occasions that on controversial judicial nominations that we're not going to move on those until the minority tells us that's what they want to do. One of those nominations is Judge Southwick. We – that matter was reported out of committee some time ago. Both Senator Leahy and I have said that when the Republicans tell us they want to move to that, we would do that."

Harry Reid - Thursday, October 19, 2007. Southwick was confirmed the following Wednesday.

It's good to know that the Republican minority is dictating the majority's schedule.

Nice going, guys.

[Debi]

44. The vote was sent to the Senate w/out a recommendation from the Committee

on a 7-7 vote - only one Democrat voted for Thomas (and it wasn't Biden).

You would have preferred an abuse of power by Biden? Deciding for the entire Committee and the entire Senate whether or not Clarence Thomas should be a Supreme Court Justice? Biden already had made it clear to the Committee and to Thomas that he would not be receiving Biden's support.

Blame the 11 Democrats who voted for Thomas for him ending up on the Supreme Court. Not the one who refused to abuse his power.

[beaconess]

55. Biden was the CHAIRMAN of the Committee

He wasn't just one of 100 senators. He had the power to keep that nomination from moving forward and he failed to even try. He was warned early on about the Anita Hill problem and he should have gone into closed session to hear the concerns. Had he done so, it is very likely that the nomination would have been withdrawn. Instead, he ignored it and didn't deal with it until AFTER he had finished the hearings and word got out about Anita Hill. STILL Biden said her claims were irrelevant to the nomination and he tried to push forward with a vote without dealing with it at all. But the public outcry grew and he was forced to deal with it.

And then he made a circus of the whole thing, allowed Anita Hill to be treated like a piece of trash in his own Committee room while he held the gavel. He permitted the indignant Clarence Thomas to rail against the "high-tech lynching" on primetime television, sat like a potted plant while the Republicans on the committee smacked Anita Hill around, and then refused to let all of her witnesses to offer testimony supporting her story.

By the time this fiasco ended, many Democrats had been cowed by Thomas' lynching language. Civil rights groups begged Biden to delay the Committee vote to give them time to mount a grass roots lobbying effort targeted at the Dems who had gotten scared by Thomas' lynching language - an effort necessary to counter the White House's full court press. He refused and went ahead with the vote as scheduled, virtually ensuring that Thomas would be confirmed.

You can whitewash it all you want, but Biden screwed this whole thing up and we're still paying for it.

[Debi]

59. So you believe Biden should have acted like the GOP does today

and abused his authority. Got it. Funny, what we as Democrats are trying to move away from you are angry at one man for not doing. Crazy. You obviously believe this is a fatal flaw for Joe Biden, the ability to govern rather than dictate. I see no reason to continue to feed your flames.

[Hawkowl]

65. Fundamental misunderstanding of the legislature

Senate chairman have always acted this way. They are enormously powerful. And they should be enormously responsible. Simply playing Pontius Pilate and making a public display of washing your hands does not absolve a chairman from his leadership role.

Thomas was patently unqualified. He was not recommended by the American Bar Assn. and he ended up without a rec from the committee! A chairman should not even bring it to a vote if the committee can't give him a rec.

And his treatment of Anita Hill was an insult to all women. I was a grassroots organizer in Chicago at the time, and this event led directly to the defeat of the incumbent Alan Dixon in the PRIMARY by Carol Mosley Braun, who was subsequently the first African American woman Senator.

I would like to hear from him that it was a mistake and he would do it differently. That's all.

[beaconess]

69. Who said anything about abusing his authority?

How would going into closed session to hear Anita Hill's claims or allowing her witnesses an opportunity to testify or not rushing a Committee vote be in any way equivalent to GOP tactics?

[Froward69]

102. your words to disprove your point.

"going into closed session",is "equivalent to GOP tactics". they did it all the time. Anita hill was public, for a reason. if the hearings were held in closed session, I believe you would now be complaining about that. unlike Hillary or Edwards. you can't have it both ways.

[cuke]

88. There is no abuse of authority in allowing the women to testify

it was an abuse of authority to not allow them to testify

[murbley40]

60. Me thinks:

It dosen't matter, no matter what Biden can and will do you do not like him we get that. I also bet that for as many of you who feel this way for this reason there are those who don't.
You use whatever excuse you can come up with, I don't need an excuse to support Joe Biden . His record on the whole and his positions and work he is now accomplishing are why I support him. He is a good man. He is no where as vindictive and vicious as you try to make him sound. He has a good record on women's issues. It is a matter of record. You can interperet the Thomas thing anyway you want,dosen't make it so.

[Hawkowl]

62. On the contrary

I have stated that I merely want an explanation and would he now do things differently. I do not hate him, but I think the Thomas hearing was a monumental debacle and he was in charge of it. It is his most visible exercise of political power under nation wide scrutiny and he botched it (IMO).

Don't you agree that it was his greatest mistake?

[jgraz]

15. Another indication that the voting record stat is bullshit

Biden was the key player in Thomas' confirmation. If he had decided that Thomas would be rejected, Thomas would have been rejected. Period. Instead, he allowed Thomas to take Thurgood Marshall's seat on the court. Simply despicable.

[Debi]

45. That is not true, Biden made it clear from the beginning that he opposed

Thomas.

[Think82]

75. a "key player" in confirmation? HE voted NO. Not sure how that makes hima key player in confirming

I'd talk to the 11 dems who voted "yes" to confirm, as Thomas passed by 4 votes.

[blm]

6. Who gave us Bush2, Roberts and Scalito?

Ever think about that? I do.

[mtnsnake]

36. I don't know about Roberts & Scalito, but thanks to John Kerry we got Bush2!

[blm]

39. We got Bush2 in the 90s. Did you wake from a coma in 2005 and think he just took office?

If you believe that Bush1 should not have been held accountable and should have been allowed to strengthen and turn into Bush2, then say so.

[mtnsnake]

42. Bush2 came to us via Kerry's brutal loss to that moron in 2004. Wake up yourself. lol

[blm]

46. Bush2 was direct result of BushInc regaining its power in the 90s. Pretend all you want

kids, no one with half a braincell believes that Bush2 popped up in 2004.

[JenniferJuniper]

7. I've never forgotten

how he treated Ms. Hill with utter disdain. Typical member of the boy's club.... who cares what the silly little lady is complaining about. She's wasting our time.

He'd never get my vote because of it. And I suspect other people have memories just as vivid.

[DURHAM D]

16. Absolutely - I watched every minute of Biden's circus hearings.

I will never forgive him.

I just got off the phone with a friend who lives in the southwest. He happened to have dinner with three women last night - all Republicans and all in their early 60s. All they wanted to talk about was the primary. None of them are very involved politically. Each of them had watched the debate last week (the first one for all of them) and they were livid about the way the boys had all acted toward Hillary - the pile on thingie. They did not discuss issues - they just discussed the gang up. And then, surprisingly, they related it to the Anita Hill "Whore of Babylon" hearings (not my words). Not a one of them would know who Joe Biden is but the new "gang bang" (not my words)touched that nerve.

All of them have decided to vote for Hillary - not because they are all about her positions but because they are pissed at inappropriate male behavior continuing in the same old way.

[beaconess]

18. Wow - that's really interesting.

[DURHAM D]

27. Here at the DU -

we get very involved in policy issues. Probably 70-85% of the voters makes their decision on impressions - not policy.

The simple dynamic of 6 or 7 guys (plus media males) against one female is creating a new feminist dialog that is flying under the radar.

[gateley]

32. Interesting point about voters making their decisions based on impressions -

I'd never thought of it that way. Food for thought and a little self review. I love DU - I feel like I'm always learning and growing!

And this is NOT a snark post - it's an honest compliment and thank you! :hi:

[goodgd_yall]

96. I've posted that same thought

several times. I like to stick to facts rather than impressions, but, sadly, those who aren't interested in politics on a regular basis (only every presidential election year and then only superficially---"I just don't like ____. I don't know what it is.")account for a larger portion of the vote than voters who pay attention to candidates' actions and words.

[gateley]

20. Biden didn't join the gang bang during the debate - he refused to. On this

particular point it's unfair to lump him in those who did. I know it's not the topic of this thread, but it's an example of how people unfairly attribute others' behavior to people to whom it factually doesn't apply.

[DURHAM D]

21. He was the referee. n/t

[Hawkowl]

23. I beg to differ

Senator Biden was in THE leadership position of those hearings. It was up to him to televise or not televise. Up to him as to who could and could not testify. Up to him as to who got prime time and who got minimal TV time.

He is now asking for a promotion. He is competing for an elevation to a power of unprecedented magnitude. How he wielded, or refused to wield his power as Senate judiciary chairman, can be taken as a fair prognostication as to how he would use the vast power of the presidency.

In my judgment, he allowed the smearing of Anita Hill, and was therefore complicit in this travesty. An analogy would be if a police officer in Alabama in the 60's witnessed and allowed to continue the assault on a "colored" person which resulted in a grievous injury. Yes, perhaps he did not participate or encourage, but he did turn a blind eye and allow the event to happen. And before you suggest this is mere hyperbole, I would ask you to remember those hearings, and if you are too young, to consult with those who do, or better yet, find the tapes of these and view them yourself.

[youthere]

24. Gately was referring to the last democratic debate...

in response of accusations that Biden joined the "gang-bang" of Hillary Clinton.

[DURHAM D]

29. Sorry - my mistake. n/t

[youthere]

31. No problem,

I just wanted to clarify.

[gateley]

28. I was responding to the post about the poster's friend's grandmother's group impression

that all the men had ganged up on Hillary during the NH debate. It isn't fair to Biden to be viewed as one of the perpetrators. It's an uncomfortable example of how we (all of us) make judgments based more on emotion than on fact a lot of the time.

But hey -- good post! Very well stated and presented, even though I'm on the other side! :toast:



EDIT - spelling. Again.

[Froward69]

103. I view it a totally diffrent way

Biden voted NO on Thomas. Anita hills testimony was to garner that NO vote. from more than ONE senator. Biden was subdued in his questioning of her. never letting the Republicans crucify her as they surely would have.

insofar as who is to blame for bushyboy. I lay the blame where it belongs. KATHERINE HARRIS, and JEB BUSH! Both saw to it that Florida's election was as slanted as could be. When I complain about it I remember that if it weren't for those two. 1) the issue would have never made it to the supreme court. 2) 50,000 voters would have not been denied. 3)

[Debi]

25. Yes, but the Clinton campaign put him in her 'cry me a river' video

to smear him. The part of him in the video was actually Biden complimenting Clinton! She needed to tear him down though, the same way her supporters are attacking him here.

[JenniferJuniper]

30. Unfair? To Biden?

Bull. Biden's heart clearly bled for Clarence Thomas and his civil liberties. He - personally - was utterly dismissive of Anita Hill and her civil liberties. And never mind that her claims should have prompted serious questions about the character of an individual who was up for a life time appointment to the highest court in the country.

I don't care how he actually ended up voting. That vote was both political and completely meaningless in the end. By passively allowing that circus to go on the way it did, Biden is directly responsible for Thomas and we know what Thomas is responsible for.

[youthere]

34. JenniferJuniper..gately was referring to the last democratic debate,

and the accusation that Biden joined in on the pile-on on Senator Clinton.

[Think82]

49. your friends...

are ill-informed, and the basis upon which they are selecting Hillary (because she got "gang-banged") is ridiculous. It's that kind of mentality that gave us George Bush. CLinton had a bad debate, now she's playing the victimized woman. Can't have it both ways. We're picking a president.

[Think82]

51. He stopped Bork from being confirmed, and voted NO on Thomas.

I kind of think he didn't want to let the harrassment thing be the reason people voted NO, but rather it be a more substantive debate. My impression. Thomas came out of committe with no reccommendation, then 11 dems voted to confirm him afterwards, which I think is surprising. Biden has long been an advocate of women's rights. He's the author of the Violence Against Women's act, and recently authored a program whereby abused women can get access to volunteer lawyers. I think the fact that Thomas was confirmed are further riling people's dissatisfaction with the way the hearings were handled. And if Biden enabled Thomas, why does thomas spew such hatred for Biden in his new book?

It was also twenty years ago. Pay attention what Joe is saying now. He's head and shoulders above the rest of the field, imo.

[beaconess]

56. I hear what he is saying now. And I saw what he did then.

What he's saying now still does not make up for what he did then.

[Think82]

66. So...

having come up to the only viable solution for Iraq (which got 75 votes), being a leader on international issues from Iran to Russia to Pakistan, proposing great new policies for crime, infrastructure, Violence Against Women, the environment, healthcare, being a distinguished chair of the FR committee, doesn't make up for him letting Thomas get out of committee and voting NO on Thomas twenty years ago?

[beaconess]

78. It doesn't make it up enough for him to get my vote in the primary.

[Think82]

82. Just mo, I think your grudge is getting in the way...

of electing the best candidate we have, imo. 35 years in the Senate, you are not going to be perfect. Have you read his Iraq plan? Have you watched the debates?

[beaconess]

90. I don't think he's the best candidate for many reasons. And yes, I am very familiar with Biden and

his record. Probably more so than most people.

You have every right to feel the way you do about him. I just disagree with you.

[Think82]

99. thread for you to read...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3699108&mesg_id=3699108

[MiniMe]

100. Thomas spews hatred on everybody in the book

Talk about playing the victim.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[youthere]

22. Interesting.

I find it interesting that the repukes feel the same way about him for his awful treatment of Thomas.

http://race42008.com/2007/11/07/biden-for-democrat-nominee/

[youthere]

10. As a Biden supporter, I'm proud he voted NO to confirm Thomas...

and thoroughly pissed at the 11 Democratics who voted YES. Remember he was confirmed by a vote of 52-48...Subtract those 11 democratic YES votes and there would have been no Thomas.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00220#position

[beaconess]

13. Why aren't you pissed that he showed absolutely no leadership and

not only let the hearings turn into a circus, he didn't lift a finger to try to keep his nomination from getting out of Committee?

[youthere]

38. Would it really matter?

I'm not into the "flamefest over my candidate thing". So you hate Joe for the Thomas hearings..I can spend hours trying to defend or justify how Biden handled himself and I doubt it's going to change your mind any more than you will change mine. I don't see his handling of it the same way you do, and what's more, even if I did, there are some things that I 'm willing to look past in favor of what I feel I have to gain with Biden in the whitehouse. I don't expect my candidate to be perfect, if I did, I'd never vote for anyone.

[beaconess]

52. If you're going to respond to my post, please do not mischaracterize what I said . . .

I did not say I "hate" Joe Biden nor am I engaging in any kind of flamefest. In fact, I said that if Biden is the nominee I will support and vote for him. But I will not vote for him in the primaries, partly for the reason.

So, what's the problem?

[youthere]

53. No problem here...

I thought I was being clear that I'm not arguing....if I came across snarky I do apologize. I was trying to make the point (albeit poorly) that there's probably not much I could say about Biden that would convince you to support him (talking primaries here). The Thomas hearings are a very important issue to you and I can respect that. For me, I just don't have the same perception of those hearings that you do, so it's not holding me back from supporting him in the primaries.

[beaconess]

77. I understand n/t

[Hawaii Hiker]

95. Makes me sick to my stomach to see

all the Democrats that voted for Thomas - absolutely disgusting, :puke:

Thanks Southern Democratic senators - for nothing....

[beaconess]

98. It was sickening - but one of the reasons for this was that Biden rushed the vote

over the STRONG objections of civil rights organizations and others who were organizing a grassroots effort to heavily lobby the Southern senators to vote no. Many of them voted yes because they were hearing from their white constituents who supported Thomas on the one hand while at the same time, they were scared to death of alienating their black constituents by voting against a black Supreme Court nominee. And remember, the White House machine had gone full tilt and pulled out all the stops, sparing no cost or person to strong-arm these Senators.

Given all of this, it was absolutely imperative that they hear from black constituents telling them to PLEASE vote no - that it was ok to vote against a black man. But it takes time to generate that kind of lobbying effort in the pre-email/internet days (not a lot of time, but a couple of days) and, even though Biden was BEGGED to hold off for a day or two to enable the grassroots to do their work, he went right on and scheduled the Committee vote, which virtually ensured that Thomas would eventually be confirmed.

So, yes, those 11 Senators definitely bear a large share of the guilt, it doesn't let Biden off the hook for his malfeasance in this whole episode.

[redqueen]

11. Why would he not kill that confirmation?

Why refuse to interview Hill?

This stinks.

[enough]

14. I always thought it was Specter who gave us Clarence Thomas.

But that may just be my Pennsylvaniacentrism speaking.

[beaconess]

17. Specter was terrible - but he was only a member of the Committee

not even the ranking member. Chairman Biden gave Specter - and Simpson and the others - free reign to rake Anita Hill over the coals while he sat there as if he was helpless to do anything about it - and then did nothing to try to rehabiiltate her.

And while he scheduled Anita Hill to testify during the day, he allowed Clarence Thomas to return to the hearing that night and give his "high tech lynching" speech right in the middle of primetime so that all of America could see his righteous indignation. Throughout the weekend, he allowed a parade of Anita Hill haters to testify against her, turning the process into a smear job against the witness rather than an inquiry into the behavior of the nominee. At the end of the weekend, he refused to hear from all of Hill's corroborating witnesses, claiming that there wasn't enough time.

Biden's performance in these hearings was absolutely shameful. While many others participated in the witch hunt, Biden alone had the power to curtail it, to ensure that Hill's allegations were heard and that she was treated with respect and dignity, and that Thomas not be able to bully his way out of Committee. Not only did he fail to do these things, he actually made matters worse.

I was there, saw all of it, and will never forget it.

[enough]

68. Thanks beaconess, you are bringing it all back.

[BootinUp]

19. This was a big deal to me. nt

[gateley]

26. First of all, we Biden supporters don't need to justify any of Biden's actions.

Biden is responsible for his actions - good or bad.

And if these alligations are accurate, then I'd like to hear Biden's response to these particular questions, too.

What bothers me about this entire debate, though, is that the Biden that is portrayed in this thread isn't the Biden I believe the man to be. It just doesn't jibe with his long standing fight in support of women. The dichotomy is what makes me think there may be something we're missing here. If I felt that this was a valid example of who this man IS, I wouldn't be supporting him. It's that simple.

I grant you this is an emotional issue and it's understandable that feelings regarding this are so passion-filled.

I'm looking for a transcript because I honestly want to see for myself what transpired. Ideally I'd like to see a tape of the proceedings - does anyone know if something like that is available?

I've seen Biden's explanations about some of the points you cite, but I'm guessing posting those wouldn't go far in encouraging you to research further or consider his actions from a different viewpoint. But remember, there are two sides to every story.

And for those of you who "have always hated him", well...

So, I'm on a quest to learn for myself anything factual I can regarding this event. As I said, his record so strongly supports women that such behavior just doesn't make sense...

And please DO post if anyone is aware of any tapes that may be available. Thanks.

[itsrobert]

33. Please don't attack the Democratic Candidates

The mods have spoken.

[DangerDave921]

35. Ancient History

Also, how was Biden supposed to know the future?

Lastly, I've never been a big fan of scuttling a nominee in committee who is qualified. I do believe the Constitution gives the president the right to appoint justices (with advice and consent, I know). I believe the history of that clause was to prevent outright incompetent people from being appointed, e.g., the president's drunken brother as a family favor. To sink a guy based purely on political disagreements is problematic because it becomes a tit-for-tat game that whoever runs the committee is going to scuttle the nominee from the opposting party.

I'd like to see a more fair way of selecting justices. Maybe on a revolving 20-year term instead of this for-life junk. I'm also not in favor of justices staying on the bench into their 80's.

[Hawkowl]

37. Are you serious?

You are arguing that Clarence "never says a word aloud from the bench" Thomas is QUALIFIED? Have you read legal opinions of his opinions? They are considered ludicrous and have no basis in law. The American Bar Association gave him an unqualified rating for the nomination. How do you define qualified? Not only that but he had a history of sexual harassment allegations and yet, he was installed at the EEOC. It was considered an inside joke by the Reagan administration.

I remember these hearings as if it were yesterday. There is no spinning out of this.

All I want to know is, has Biden changed? I would accept an apology and move on.

[youthere]

41. I would invite you to look at him more closely and make that decision for yourself.

I believe he's more qualified than any other candidate, but I'm a Biden supporter, so of course I feel that way. If there's any way that I or any other Biden supporter can help you find information about him, or answer questions, we'd be more than happy to help.

[gateley]

47. Please see my post #26. I'm not making a judgment on whether

not he actually needed to change until I see for myself what transpired during the hearings.

But for the sake of argument, if the impressions you hold are accurate and his behavior was how it's been portrayed, my personal belief is that Biden WOULD apologize - sincerely - if he felt his actions had been less than fair.

[DangerDave921]

48. More broad

I didn't say Thomas was qualified. I was getting into a broader discussion of scuttling nominees in committee. The thrust at the time was not really his qualifications but his RW bent. I was saying that I don't agree with scuttling nominees on the basis of political leanings. Ginsburg was confirmed with flying colors, as she should have been.

I have to admit - I'm not really sure of Thomas' qualifications from a legal standpoint. He was a federal judge, wasn't he?

I guess we'd have to open up a discussion as to what it means to be qualified to be a supreme court justice. Not everyone comes from being a judge. So what do you think being qualified means?

[bunkerbuster1]

104. Nobody could have anticipated that enabling the appointmen of a resentful, bitter 43-year-old

sexist creep like Thomas to the SCOTUS might create difficulties for decent people down the road?

It's old news, true, but I remember those hearings, and Biden's ineffectiveness, like it was yesterday.

Mind you, I like a LOT of what Biden is saying on the campaign trail. He's probably the most rational-sounding, articulate candidate when it comes to foreign policy--he's positively slick that way.

But just as I have reservations about (say) Edwards based on his crappy 2004 VP debate performance, I reserve the right to curb my enthusiasm for Joe based on this.

(And then there's that whole bankruptcy bill thing, but that's another thread...)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

40. Biden probably didn't want to block a black nominee, though he was willing to vote against him.

That's not an excuse, just an explanation. Thomas has no business on any federal bench, let alone the SCOTUS.

Biden's an old-school liberal and I suspect that Biden really was influenced by not wanting to be responsible for procedurally blocking a black nominee, even an unqualified one.

A clear error on his part, IMO.

[youthere]

43. The rest of the committee not wanting to filibuster I believe also...

played a part..that's if I remember correctly.

[beaconess]

57. I don't want a Judiciary Committee chairman who is afraid to block a black nominee

if that nominee is an anti-civil rights, right wing judge who is poised to take a lifetime seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Stop Cornyn]

50. Biden has given us LOTS of shitty judges. Biden voted for Judge Sykes on the 7th Circuit (Hillary

and Edwards were opposed), Biden voted for Judge Cook on the 6th Circuit (Edwards, Dodd, and Hillary were all opposed), Biden voted for Judge Smith on the 3rd Circuit (Dodd and Hillary were opposed).

Biden has performed fairly poorly on the judicial committee, but he's worse on abortion and worse still on bankruptcy.

[gateley]

58. Another Biden supporter! Welcome! We get it. You don't like him. Peace. nt

[Stop Cornyn]

61. A candidate's votes are totally fair game; it's not like I made fun of his cackle or his haircut.

[gateley]

63. I totally agree with you and that's actually how I learn alot. nt

Edit - Removed a hysterically funny retort to something in your post, then realized you hadn't said what I thought you had. :7

[youthere]

64. it was the hair thing...right?

I was getting ready to jump on that too.

[gateley]

87. Yeah - we must be a little sensitive on that issue! :-)

[sampsonblk]

67. Biden has never been taken seriously in my house since then

He's good on some things. But he's not reliable enough to be president. And the Clarence Thomas thing. He really did not serve us well that time.

[Think82]

71. "good on some things"

like which? I don't think I've ever seen you mention anything "good" about Biden. Care to enlighten? since you are so eager to talk about the "bad things?"

[Steely_Dan]

70. Why Did You Post This In The First Place?

I find that the gratuitous bashing of fellow candidates very disturbing.

You initiated this post. It is not in response to another poster. It appears to be for the expressed purpose of bashing Joe Biden. We understand that you do not support Mr. Biden. Believe it our not, those of us that do support him know that not everyone on this board will. This is not news to us. I can only conclude that you initiated this post to discourage people from supporting him. Isn’t that a bit divisive and unnecessary? Was this your purpose?

I did not arrive at Joe Biden lightly as a supporter. I looked at all of the candidates, their records and what I believe we need most for this country over the next ten years. Do I agree with everything Joe Biden has said or done? Of course not. I don’t think you can spend 35 years in public service without making your fair share of gaffs and miscues. I try to look at the overall record.

I would not disrespect fellow board members by bashing the candidates that they passionately support. If I were to criticize another candidate, I would at least make it about something more recent and ensure it addresses more current issues.

Just a thought.

-Paige

[Hawkowl]

73. No Sir.

I'm not bashing. I am asking a question regarding his record. It is on national video. Did you watch the hearings? I have not said I hate him or I won't support him.

What you wish to do in your posts you are welcome to do. Primaries are a vetting process. All issues need to be addressed in the primaries, so we have the strongest candidate to face the real enemy. If people's passions can't handle the reality of a candidates record, I'm sorry.

[Think82]

76. So...

who do you think is the strongest candidate? You seem to be pretty gung-ho about criticizing biden form the amount of posts you've made on this thread.

[Hawkowl]

79. Too early for a "strongest" candidate nt

[Think82]

85. hmmm...

Well, you seem to be doing a lot of criticizing. It would be interesting to see what positive qualities you are looking for in a candidate, and whom you might be thinking of. If we are really going to have a discussion about who to nominate, your criticisms (which have some validity, even if they are too frequent) are only PART of the discussion. You need to balance it out otherwise it seems like you are just bashing a candidate you don't like.

[gateley]

89. I've asked in two threads if there is footage available. Are you saying there is?

If so - can you direct me in the right direction? I didn't see the hearings as they were occurring, so I really want to see what it is people are referring to in regard to Biden's treatment of Anita Hill. Thanks.

[goodgd_yall]

97. Gateley---I'm looking into that

But meantime, here is a link to written transcripts:

http://etext.virginia.edu/users/yitna/

[Think82]

74. Well said!

[Steely_Dan]

80. A Fine Line...

Part of your post:

As chair, Biden could have killed Thomas' confirmation. Instead, he allowed his confirmation, and in fact further embittered the vindictive Thomas, which arguably, directly led to the stolen election of 2000 and the SC coronating the chimperor.

What do people think? How do Biden's supporters justify this?

--------------

I suppose I'm sounding a bit defensive...and I really don't mean to. I would hold the same position concerning any candidate.

There is a fine line between "bashing" and looking at a candidate with a critical eye. If I saw your post on the wrong side of that line, then I take back what I said.

However, when you read the final part of your post, it is hard (at least for me) to see it other than bashing...basically blaming Biden for "coronating" Bush. You might as well imply that he is a Bush supporter.

And read some of the responses....Some saying to the effect: Gee, I didn't know that. I'm not supporting him!

Yes, I watched the Thomas hearings and I was not pleased. But I also remember the Bay of Pigs and I don't measure John Kennedy by that one event.

Finally, I would like to believe that people who frequent this board are the kind of voters that will research each candidate (as I have done) and arrive at their own conclusions.

Sorry, if I misunderstood your post. No worries.

-Paige

[Hawkowl]

81. No problem

To clarify, I don't hold Biden responsible for the coronation of Bush. That is simply a result of unintended consequences. Hopefully, he has learned from the experience and he will view future actions in a more "worst case scenario" type of way. I would like him to demonstrate a more hard hitting approach to rethuglicans.

I've posted elsewhere, that perhaps a filibuster of Mukasey could be an excellent way for him to stake his claim to being the standard bearer against this corrupt administration AND the defender of the constitution.

[Steely_Dan]

83. I Read Your Post

Just now I happened upon your other post..the one you refer to. I completely agree. I think it is great idea...and a way to move towards the top tier without tearing down another candidate.

-Paige

[renegade000]

72. Definitely valid concerns

I suppose my defense of Joe Biden would be that even if you believe Biden performed poorly as the chairman of the Judiciary committee, surely you don't think Biden as President would nominate someone like Thomas to begin with?

In my opinion, it is impossible to defend the record of someone who has served 34-years in the Congress, especially in the quite collegial atmosphere of the Senate, to ideological purists. Congressmen compromise, cut deals, and try to get along with each other. It just sits with me the wrong way that other candidates are somehow 'more pure' and desirable because they simply haven't served as long in Congress and have made fewer controversial votes or decisions.

Quite frankly, if you are looking for the 'purest' candidate, you should look in to Kucinich.

[ginchinchili]

84. If I recall correctly, it's the president who chooses the SC nominee.

I also recall that Biden voted against him. Beyond that, he was doing his job. Just because Bush skirts the Constitution doesn't mean everyone should.

Worried about Sen. Biden stealing votes from your candidate? You should be. He's the most qualified candidate for the office of the POTUS, and I believe that's what it's all about. And his momentum is growing. Bummer for you, eh.

[Hawkowl]

86. Sorry, don't have a candidate.

Read the entire thread and address the issue. He either addresses it now or later. I simply want the strongest candidate possible and don't think the country can afford another rethuglican. Rah-rah cheer leading isn't going to cut it this time.

[conservdem]

91. Is this the worst thing you can point to about him?

Please post your top three reasons you do not like him. I would like to learn why some here might not want him.

I am supporting him. His actions re Thomas have little or no impact on my decision.

[JerseygirlCT]

92. Well, in one sense, Hill's testimony WAS irrelevant

We shouldn't have had to get to that to know that the man was completely unqualified for the job.

IOW, even the most basic review of his qualifications should have tossed him before we even got to issues of character.

[JerseygirlCT]

93. I blame Lieberman, myself

His namby-pamby, shuffling around, not sure what I'm going to do nonsense until it was too late, and he could vote NO safely.

[MiniMe]

101. And this is why it is difficult for any long time Senator to get elected President

Not that this is what you are doing, but the right used this very effectively against Kerry. "Kerry votes xxx times against (fill in the vote of your choice), without mentioning any of the other things that may or may not be in the bill. Its like the first Iraq funding bill, and the I was for the $80 billion before I was against the $80 billion. He was for the $80 billion for the troops before Halliburton was given a huge no-bid contract as part of that funding making it a different bill altogether. Its hard to live in a world where almost every word they utter is a matter of public record. I doubt that very many of us could stand up to that kind of scrutiny.