No “they” didn’t, unless of course you mean the Senate as a body in terms of “they” and can point to the vote?
.>>>>
.>
.
.
.
.
Kavenaugh seems like a decent person and is eminently qualified.
The Senate should approve based on his qualifications, not who the President is that nominated him.
.
.
.
.
.>>>>
3 Likes
He is a big believer in the Constitution and very well read on all aspects of such.
a vote, as established in precedent since 1828 is not required to advise. how the senate tells the potus to stuff it is up to them.
Wrong
10 char
denial means nothing.
i think i’ll stick to historical facts instead of your opinion.
I haven’t stated an opinion. No precedent has been established.
your denial is nothing but opinion. i have every time in history under the same circumstances the same thing was done save once. what do you have? denial only.
No, it’s fact that the desperate attempt at painting an event that happened 150 years ago as a precedent for today is invalid.
Fact. No precedent exists for what McConnell did.
Required reading:
http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/%20NYULawReviewOnline-91-Kar-Mazzone.pdf
Should be a simple matter to show:
When a Lame Duck President in their last year was able to get their SCOTUS nominee confirmed by a Senate majority from the opposing party.
did you read that?
Obama wasn’t a lame duck. Most people don’t understand what that means.
1 Like
Anthony Kennedy, confirmed February 3, 1988 during Reagan’s last year as President when Dem’s held the majority of the Senate.
.>>>>>
1 Like
This is where the parsing starts (or rather, continues) and we get all sorts of caveats and conditions about why the “precedent” set nearly 200 years ago is the only one that means anything.
Did you? emote face
Obama was a lame duck president in his second term, as was every President before him.
lol… a study in the slimes is no more than opinion. when you have historical facts… feel free
There is no parsing. The seat was not vacated during an election year and the dem senate had already lost its Borking mind.
I should have been more clear with my criteria.
When a Lame Duck President in their last year was able to get their a SCOTUS nominee, that was nominated in their final year as President, confirmed by a Senate majority from the opposing party.
The modified criteria more accurately describes Obama’s last year in office.
Both Bork and Kennedy were nominated in 1987, in Reagan’s second to the last year. Bork was rejected and Kennedy was confirmed in Reagans last year. Thus the replacement process began almost a full two years before Reagan left office.
