Serious (non-sarcastic) question for TDW: what was the justification for not moving forward with a hearing/vote on Garland, other than whoever's in control of the Senate controls the process?
I'm kind of okay with the "thems da rules, cupcake" argument (aka elections have consequences), but want to be careful. I don't want to be hypocritical when arguing with those reeeeeeeeing now. Especially because I don't want it thrown back at me years later if/when the Ds control the Senate.
President Obama was in his second term, and was on his way out of office, regardless (lame duck). Is that the basis for holding "advice and consent" for eleven months? Why not just have the vote (and deny the nomination) - was it as simple as "don't even risk it, since they didn't have to" ?
That's exactly what I was looking for, right there:
History supports Republicans filling the seat. Doing so would not be in any way inconsistent with Senate Republicans’ holding open the seat vacated by Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. The reason is simple, and was explained by Mitch McConnell at the time. Historically, throughout American history, when their party controls the Senate, presidents get to fill Supreme Court vacancies at any time — even in a presidential election year, even in a lame-duck session after the election, even after defeat. Historically, when the opposite party controls the Senate, the Senate gets to block Supreme Court nominees sent up in a presidential election year, and hold the seat open for the winner. Both of those precedents are settled by experience as old as the republic. Republicans should not create a brand-new precedent to deviate from them.
Serious (non-sarcastic) question for TDW: what was the justification for not moving forward with a hearing/vote on Garland, other than whoever's in control of the Senate controls the process?
I'm kind of okay with the "thems da rules, cupcake" argument (aka elections have consequences), but want to be careful. I don't want to be hypocritical when arguing with those reeeeeeeeing now. Especially because I don't want it thrown back at me years later if/when the Ds control the Senate.
President Obama was in his second term, and was on his way out of office, regardless (lame duck). Is that the basis for holding "advice and consent" for eleven months? Why not just have the vote (and deny the nomination) - was it as simple as "don't even risk it, since they didn't have to" ?
if dems ever control anything again we are all dead or in a gulag
the president's party must also control the senate. that did not happen w/garland....these pols want to pretend it's otherwise.
Thank you!
That's exactly what I was looking for, right there: