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.
I thought the Republican thought was that in a presidential election year, the NEW president winning in November should get to nominate for any vacancy. Didnt they ignore Obama's nominee BECAUSE it was an election year. Or does that only apply to Democrat presidents?
I believe the point was that it was KNOWN the POTUS would be different, since Obama was in his 2nd term.
I mean, McConnell put off a "Dem" nominee, right? That means he was Majority Leader of the Senate, in 2016. Which means the Republicans had the votes to vote "No" and deny his appointment. Right?
And in fact, with 1/3 the Senate up for re-election in 2016, it was a calculated gamble by McConnell. He might not have held the majority after 2016. Right?
See, I was opposed to it because while there is an arguable position (known change of POTUS, fairly close to the change, the next one should have the nominating power), it was about politics, sure. So why not just keep it "political", have his hearing, and vote him down?
Would you exit stage right (or left) or run out the calendar?
After pardoning everyone Dems came after in the course of RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA......
Scorched Earth against the Democrats.....
Declassify every shred of classified data that could possibly hurt Hillary, the Obama administration and congressional Dems.
I believe the point was that it was KNOWN the POTUS would be different, since Obama was in his 2nd term.
I mean, McConnell put off a "Dem" nominee, right? That means he was Majority Leader of the Senate, in 2016. Which means the Republicans had the votes to vote "No" and deny his appointment. Right?
And in fact, with 1/3 the Senate up for re-election in 2016, it was a calculated gamble by McConnell. He might not have held the majority after 2016. Right?
See, I was opposed to it because while there is an arguable position (known change of POTUS, fairly close to the change, the next one should have the nominating power), it was about politics, sure. So why not just keep it "political", have his hearing, and vote him down?
And Hillary could have won and appointed someone much more to the left than Garland.
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.
