Whichever party is in power with create and exercise whatever new “principle” helps their party win.
You’re right. EACH party (it’s not really something at the individual level) will use whatever fits them best.
That’s what I’ve been saying.
Pretending this is something new to the GOP is just naivete. (Or deliberate dishonesty.)
You and I have no power at all to change this. All we can do is lash out at each other (if we so choose) to blame it on the other (as if one or the other has any complicity in it at all). And I’m not looking to go there.
I blame politicians for being hypocrites and unethical. I don’t care which side. I get upset when people try to justify hypocrisy and a lack of ethics on end results and allegiance to whatever party they belong to.
McConnell seems to be a bit more crass of an example than usual.
You said and I quoted “There is no precedent for filling the seat when the WH and Senate are different parties at the end of a President’s second term.”
Justice Kennedy is the precedent.
Feel free to move the goal-posts once you have been shown incorrect. Any other conditions you want to add?
Filling as in the entire process. It always has been when the vacancy occurs? That is what I endlessly debated several years ago and has always been my target.
But it opens up long before that. I could care less when the final vote actually takes place. The precedent I’m talking about is when the vacancy actually takes place. With Scalia the vacancy took place in Obama’s last year of his second term with a GOP controlled Senate. With Powell, the vacancy took place in Reagan’s 7th year.
If a person agrees with the current politics of McConnell, specifically completely changing his stance on late term SCOTUS nominations, I believe it reflects poorly on them as an individual. Questions?
I’ve been a Republican since I was first able to vote in 1978. I’ve complained many times on this board about McConnell’s dereliction of duty in regards to inaction on the Garland nomination. The Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent (which means they can vote to reject, not rubber stamp). It does not give the majority leader the power to make summary decisions for the entire Senate.
We’re supposed to be better than the DEMs. McConnell acted like a DEM with an (R) after his name.
.
.
.
…^^^^
The Biden principle was never actually put into practice when the Ds held the Senate. There were no vacancies in 1992. The first cynical use was by McConnell with Scalia vacancy. There was also a context to Biden’s speech, namely that the Senate had already rejected two Bush I’s appointments, forcing him to nominate more mainstream people.
