ADVERTISEMENT

Romney Sides With McConnell On SCOTUS

Heard today that 17 nominations have been made in the final year of a President's term, including Obama's. The "abuse of power" and "unconstitutional" accusations being made by Democrats is ridiculous. Even Ginsburg agreed that a confirmation of a SCOTUS should be made when it was Obama making it.

Unconstitutional is a stretch certainly. I'll quibble on abuse of power however, because to me that often means it's technically legal, just not supposed to be used that way.

Had Mitch held hearings on Garland in '16, I'd have zero arguments about filling RBG's seat now. But Mitch clearly stated he wouldn't b/c it was an election year and the people should have their say. Now we have the same circumstance and strangely that rule is no longer relevant. He was technically within the rules to not hold hearings on Garland, that doesn't mean it was right. To me, that's an abuse of the power he holds as Senate Majority Leader.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dekhawk
Unconstitutional is a stretch certainly. I'll quibble on abuse of power however, because to me that often means it's technically legal, just not supposed to be used that way.

Had Mitch held hearings on Garland in '16, I'd have zero arguments about filling RBG's seat now. But Mitch clearly stated he wouldn't b/c it was an election year and the people should have their say. Now we have the same circumstance and strangely that rule is no longer relevant. He was technically within the rules to not hold hearings on Garland, that doesn't mean it was right. To me, that's an abuse of the power he holds as Senate Majority Leader.
Like I said in another post, it's all about politics. A senator has a memory of about two seconds. Democrats are just as bad for griping about it now when they supported it in Obama's final year.
 
Like I said in another post, it's all about politics. A senator has a memory of about two seconds. Democrats are just as bad for griping about it now when they supported it in Obama's final year.

Democrats now are simply arguing for consistency. It's total hypocrisy to proceed with a nomination less than 2 months out from an election after blocking a nomination entirely 4 years earlier that was 9 months out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dekhawk
Democrats now are simply arguing for consistency. It's total hypocrisy to proceed with a nomination less than 2 months out from an election after blocking a nomination entirely 4 years earlier that was 9 months out.
You can't seriously say that with a straight face can you? I mean, the hypocrisy of both sides is consistently on display. At least be able to see that and acknowledge it.
 
Heard today that 17 nominations have been made in the final year of a President's term, including Obama's. The "abuse of power" and "unconstitutional" accusations being made by Democrats is ridiculous. Even Ginsburg agreed that a confirmation of a SCOTUS should be made when it was Obama making it.
Not one was made anywhere close to 40 days out. And the Senate has just 8 working days to confirm. That is an insane timeline.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sober_teacher
Like I said in another post, it's all about politics. A senator has a memory of about two seconds. Democrats are just as bad for griping about it now when they supported it in Obama's final year.
You are wrong. There is zero precedence for anything like this. See my above post.
 
You can't seriously say that with a straight face can you? I mean, the hypocrisy of both sides is consistently on display. At least be able to see that and acknowledge it.

How are the Democrats being hypocrites here? 4 years ago the Garland nomination was blocked because Mitch said you can't hold a confirmation hearing during an election year. Now, with another opening during an election year, they are insisting that the McConnell Rule be applied again.

Had Mitch held hearings on Garland in 2016, even if only to vote No on him, Democrats would be being hypocritical by saying no hearings at all this year.
 
Maybe Mitt is just waiting to give a McCain 'thumbs down' when the moment comes.

interesting theory. He could always vote no on the candidate, but say that a vote is required and thus respecting the constitution. I wonder if he wanted to sort of give himself a way out in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pinehawk
ADVERTISEMENT