Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What is there to explain? The Republican majority had already made up their mind that they weren't going to vote for Merritt Garland. Which is why the Republicans were all lockstep behind not holding the hearing.
Had there been Republican defectors, they could have joined the minority and demanded the hearing.
The real question is why the Republicans didn't want the hearing if they were already going to vote no?
You did say precedent, that doesn't amount to precedent.
The only thing that we really know is that the committee refused to allow a vote to go to the floor, didn't even have a hearing. If they were in such lockstep as you say they would have put it to the floor for a vote and won, obviously that wasn't the case. A few senators blocked his appointment. If Garland went to the floor for a vote they would have had little reason to reject him and if they did so it would be on their record.
Quote:
If you think the politicization of the Supreme Court only happened after Garland, you haven't been paying attention.
Do you remember Antonin Scalia at all? Citizens-United? Etc.
Almost every major Supreme Court case in the last decade has been decided 5-4. Including same-sex marriage, gun-rights, political contributions, Bush v. Gore, Obamacare, and many many more.
Get off your high-horse, none of this is new.
We are speaking to approval of supreme court justice appointments not decisions, but when you look at cases like Citizens United there was already a right wing bias to the court. Close decisions do not necessarily amount to political but what we have now are lobbyists like the Federalist Society heavily involved in selecting justices.
The Democrats are now basing their entire agenda on long-disproven lies. I suppose we can't blame them, since the truth is not on their side.
We keep hearing, in regard to confirmation hearings for Garland, Democrats wailing that the Republicans should have given them "what is rightfully theirs" and held hearings.
Unfortunately for the Dems, they had done enough to anger their constituents, that those constituents voted them out of the majority in the Senate. So they no longer had the votes in the committees they wanted.
"What is rightfully theirs" is what the voters decided they should have. You got a problem with that?
Basically, the Democrats blew it.
Elections have consequences. One of them is that, if you lose, you can't dictate what the Senate does any more.
McConnell has been Washington’s #1 obstructionist since November 2008, and the main reason bipartisanship is dead and politics has become so toxic in our country.
McConnell has been Washington’s #1 obstructionist since November 2008, and the main reason bipartisanship is dead and politics has become so toxic in our country.
Barak H. Obama --- "I have a pen and a phone". He cared not a whim about working with the opposing party. A real "my way or the highway" kind of a guy.
Don't blame the current environment only on the R party.
"250 odd years NO POTUS was EVER denied the right to appoint someone to the SCOTUS.
NEVER not once."
Thus your argument is balls, BS intended to try to cover up the crime."
HINT, NO PRESIDENT "APPOINTS". They NOMINATE. Obama DID NOMINATE Garland.
NOW, whose "argument is "balls"?
GREAT Post.
George W Bush tried to put his cleaning lady on the Supreme Court and she was rejected. (props to Bill Maher for this comedy gold). So it's been both sides.
Garland wasn't going to get a chance to be on the court until after the election of 2016 was decided. Merely following the Biden Rule of 1992, democrats. You have not a thing to complain about.
Obama was the divider. Remember his "Elections have Consequences". And "I have a Pen and a Phone". Guess he didn't realize that would come back to haunt him.
Read up on how much of the swing was in favor of the Republicans under Obama. Obama was in his last lame duck year (10 months till election which included a recess). The American people for voting that many Republicans was a repudiation of Obama in his last year as a way to say "Get Lost". So whether he deserved a hearing, I dunno, but it was Obama that created such a huge polarization which led to the Republicans also acting similarly.
Barak H. Obama --- "I have a pen and a phone". He cared not a whim about working with the opposing party. A real "my way or the highway" kind of a guy.
Don't blame the current environment only on the R party.
WRONG. McConnell and the GOP agreed on the night of Obama's inauguration that they would oppose anything and everything, large and small, that Obama supported, as a way to make him a one term president. They had no intention in working with Obama on anything and that has been documented numerous times.
Newt Gingrich is the one that first escalated the battle between the parties but McConnell amped it up big time and now, there is no way this country will ever work together again. Seriously, there is no way to put the genie back in the bottle. Merrick Garland was the match and now, now president will every have a SCJ appointment without also controlling the Senate.
Just watch. And when Republicans complain, we can show all the times people like Ted Cruz and Richard Burr said they would not approve ANY SCJ appointment for Hillary's entire term and beyond if she won the election. The Ted Cruz rule.
Obama was the divider. Remember his "Elections have Consequences". And "I have a Pen and a Phone". Guess he didn't realize that would come back to haunt him.
Read up on how much of the swing was in favor of the Republicans under Obama. Obama was in his last lame duck year (10 months till election which included a recess). The American people for voting that many Republicans was a repudiation of Obama in his last year as a way to say "Get Lost". So whether he deserved a hearing, I dunno, but it was Obama that created such a huge polarization which led to the Republicans also acting similarly.
You should go back and read up on McConnell's statements and the obstruction he faced. At the beginning of his term he reached out to republicans to compromise, it was a waste of time. The year 2010 was a very bad year, ongoing recession, unemployment, bad economy, the Tea Party and of course its the presidents fault.
Barak H. Obama --- "I have a pen and a phone". He cared not a whim about working with the opposing party. A real "my way or the highway" kind of a guy.
Don't blame the current environment only on the R party.
That’s a complete lie. Obama tried bipartisan approaches many times, and Borhner was the only one willing to work with him, which is why he lost his speakership.
Senator Voinovich came out on record about McConnell, since he was retiring and no longer had to play politics
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
