Ah…
No you didn’t.
Your claim of “precedence” and your inability to identify nominees that didn’t receive hearings and an up or down vote in the last 100 years is noted.
IIRC in that tread you attempted to deflect to Biden’s comments, which was false as Biden did NOT call for no hearings and no up/down vote. His comments were to delaying hearings between the conventions and the election and then holding a vote after the election. NOT leaving the SCOTUS seat vacant for over a year.
.>>>>
I’m not referring to Biden. I’m referring to precedent of a Lame Duck President in their last year. In that discussion, 11 supposed exceptions - going back to the 1800’s were presented for debate. I spent considerable time and effort tracking each of them down and refuting each one.
ive said this before. assuming kavenaugh gets confirmed and the dems take back teh WH and senate in 2020 they should pack teh court with dems.
mcconell’s not allowing a hearing on garland set a precedent for startiwhat can be seen as a illegitimate court. confirming kavenaugh will just cement that thought. and therefore teh dems will be free to do anything to quash teh votes of any trump nominees.
so come 2020 in a democratic president and senate pack teh court with libs you wont complain…
Roe might be of some interest to some people. The process? Anyone who knows or cares about the process for approving or rejecting a judicial nominee is already enough in to politics that he doesn’t have to be energized.
Kabuki theater at it’s finest.
And you failed miserably. You had to go back to the 1800’s - LOL.
There have been multiple nominees in the last year of a presidency and you have to go back (excluding Garland) to 1883 for the last “no action” by the senate.
So to use the appeal to authority fallacy for a precedent that hasn’t existed for well over 100 years to cloak the fact that McConnell failed at his job is par for the course on justification on any statement or any action seen to support President Dennision. (And yes, Garland was not given a fair shake in the Senate in the hopes the nomination could be transferred to Trump. You can bet that if Clinton had won the election the Senate would have jumped through it’s ass to get Garland confirmed instead of Clinton making a new - left wing - nomination over the moderate that Garland is.)
.>>>>
Elections have consequences, seems like I have heard that quoted somewhere.
Good luck…I hope Trump doesn’t leave any empty seats when he leaves.
You may be right, there were a couple of girls disrupting the confirmation hearings.
And when it turns again, the Republicans could do that. How about a 400 member supreme court?
Oh I hope so.
Again, you are focusing on the minutiae or the singular. I’m talking about the construction of the narrative that goes into voter messaging and works to encourage voter turnout. I do agree with your point here. But it is not a real counter point to my belief that this confirmation of Kavanaugh will lead to even more Democratic turnout in November.
And for what it is worth, I don’t believe this court, with Kavanaugh confirmed, will lead to any changes in PP v. Casey. I would be surprised if the court even took up an abortion case that could have the potential to overturn this prior ruling. But I do believe the left will use this theme as motivation.
From what I have read, all of these protests and disruptions were pre-planned by Schumer and the Democrats over the weekend. They want to make a spectacle of all of this, as a means to motivate voter turnout in the fall. I find the approach abhorrent, but acknowledge its potential for good success.
Good gawd! What a shameless display of political idiocy! Democrats have enough documents which they probably haven’t even read while they yap for more and Grassley just shut them down and get on with the questioning for crying out loud.
It’s all a circus and political theater. And almost all Dems were already on record as voting no anyway, so why waste anyone’s time?
That tends to happen when no hearing are scheduled
You are accusing Schumer of sending girls into the Senate chamber to disrupt the US Senate?
I think they believe that the circus will benefit them in November. They are really beating the “corruption within the GOP” drums, and they seem to think that this will further that narrative for them. This plays right along with that same line of approach.
“Look, the GOP and Trump refuse to allow transparency for the lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. They are trying to trick the American public, because they are corrupt.”
I don’t agree with it, but I can see how it can work on the masses who are not active in politics like us.
You mean these ones? Could things get any stupidier?
