4159
()
posted ago by TBTGXOR ago by TBTGXOR +4159 / -0
Comments (71)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
-2
joemalarkey -2 points ago +1 / -3

probably because Merrick Garland wasn't admitted when there was almost a year to go until the election, so it was fair to think that's how the supreme court works now.

5
NotProgCensored 5 points ago +5 / -0

The constitution says nothing about denying confirmations during election years.

1
joemalarkey 1 point ago +1 / -0

so you're saying it's OK to deny confirmations during election years (so it shouldn't have been done in 2016) or that it isn't OK to deny confirmations? Or are you saying since it's not in the constitution we can do whatever we want and consistency and precedent doesn't matter?

2
Staatssicherheit 2 points ago +2 / -0

Do you seriously think Obama couldn't have talked Collins or Lisa Murkowski into voting for Garland? Merrick Garland was not seated on the Supreme Court because there was bipartisan support against his nomination. They thought Hillary was going to win for sure.

1
booblitchutz 1 point ago +1 / -0

Man, fuck Garland. The democrats have time and time again shown they have zero interest in honorable actions. They pull shady shit constantly and have for decades. They haven’t stopped fake crying over Garland yet and they never will, but they’ll fuck over the Republicans endlessly without a moment of self awareness.