McConnell and Co SCOTUS hypocrisy confirmed

[WorldWatcher]

@dderatz

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.

And just for clarity, what Biden called for in the speech was to not nominate a replacement during the weeks between the party conventions and the election and that votes for a SCOTUS replacement take place after the election in November.

He did not call for a vacancy to be left open for over a year based on who the nominating president was.
.
.
.
.^^^^

[Smyrna]

@party-free

If you’re confused, it’s because you chose to believe that there was such a thing as a “Biden principle” that had any weight on seating justices.

Of course the baaah baaaah baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhd sheople believed the nonsense about “Biden principle” the whole time.

The “Biden principle” would have resulted in Garland getting an up/down vote. It wasn’t followed in 2016. Baaaaaaah!

There, there, there my friend…d’ya “feeeeeel” better? OMG! Thanks…I needed that.

[Smyrna]

@highroller

Yeah, it’s the political game.

No, no, no…this surely MUST…be different?

[Smyrna]

@westaussie

It is a disgusting nonsense: the highest court in the land should be above politics.

I have a dream…

[Smyrna]

@vaard

Republicans trying to pretend they have principles and integrity in the age of trump is a joke…

I thought you’d have cheered up by now? Guess not…

[ImRightYoureWrong]

Cons be cons. Absolutely no principles.

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@SottoVoce

Accuse others of being unethical. Use that as a reason to be unethical. Take pride in being unethical. Modern Republican politics in a nutshell.

DraIN tHe sWaMP

[DougBH]

@calirepub

SCOTUS seats are never going to be confirmed if the Senate is not held by the president’s party. This is the new standard going forward. Why would a political party confirm a justice chosen by the opposing party when leaving it open is politically advantageous? Last time this was tried it rallied the base. There are no drawbacks of having fewer than nine Justices on the bench for 2, 3, or even 4 years of thats what it takes to get an acceptable president in power. The SCOTUS is to important to allow democrats to influence it’s opinions in any way.

Yes…and Democrats feel the same way about Republicans. They block vote against Republican nominees and the only reason they don’t block them successfully is because there aren’t enough of them.

One word: Kavanaugh

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@Guvnah

Pretending this is something new to the GOP is just naivete.

What McConnell did and said he will do is something new. You play the “both sides do it” game then run cover for the GOP 24/7

[SottoVoce]

So you disagree with McConnell. I guess you’re OK in my book.

[Borgia_dude]

@DougBH

@calirepub

SCOTUS seats are never going to be confirmed if the Senate is not held by the president’s party. This is the new standard going forward. Why would a political party confirm a justice chosen by the opposing party when leaving it open is politically advantageous? Last time this was tried it rallied the base. There are no drawbacks of having fewer than nine Justices on the bench for 2, 3, or even 4 years of thats what it takes to get an acceptable president in power. The SCOTUS is to important to allow democrats to influence it’s opinions in any way.

Yes…and Democrats feel the same way about Republicans. They block vote against Republican nominees and the only reason they don’t block them successfully is because there aren’t enough of them.

One word: Kavanaugh

Kavanaugh got his vote. When you have to imagine “what if” scenarios then you don’t have evidence on your side.

[DougBH]

Sure I do. It was lopsided against by Democrats. Obviously, more Democrats and Trump would not have a nominee accepted.

[madasheck]

@westaussie

What a damning indictment on the crass nature and character of McConnell.

History will not be kind to him and Republicans at large. It will be a pleasure to see that.

[Guvnah]

@ImRightYoureWrong

You play the “both sides do it” game then run cover for the GOP 24/7

That is a deliberate falsehood.

[westaussie]

It shouldn’t be a dream, it should be a fact.

[westaussie]

A very spurious argument as there was a hearing and a vote on Trump’s nomination.

[Smyrna]

@westaussie

It shouldn’t be a dream, it should be a fact.

Agreed and glad you now understand how important that is.

[westaussie]

It is a FACT in Australia now.

[Smyrna]

@westaussie

It is a FACT in Australia now.

It’s a shame you expect your judges to be politicians too. Hopefully one day, they’ll set the bar higher?

[westaussie]

We have had Federal politicians appointed to the High Court of Australia from both sides of politics. The general consensus of our High Court judges are that they are apolitical.