View Single Post
  #98  
Old 06-04-2019, 10:36 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
All this time later, I still don’t get why that’s the dividing line.

Imagine if — one by one — enough Senators had looked into the camera and said to Obama on national television, “we’ll vote against anyone you pick. Have we now made that clear? We’re telling you not to bother, since we won’t consent.” And then Obama nominates a guy, and the Senators say, “just to make sure: you get that we’re going to chuckle while going through the motions, and that the answer is going to be ‘no’, right? You’re not some dimwit hereby getting encouraged to try this a second and a third time? Because, on the off chance that you are that foolish, we’re each going to walk up to a podium to slowly and patiently explain that you were told what’d happen, and that it’s now happening, and that the answer will always be ‘no’. Maybe it’ll get through to you? No? Do you need it even slower, and in smaller words?”

The objection, years later, is that that would be so much less bad?
Yes, that would be "so much less bad", assuming there was an actual vote. That would have been a formal "advice" from the Senate, as opposed to doing nothing, which cannot be interpreted as "advising" in any way at all. Your hypothetical didn't happen. Who knows if it would have happened? McConnell chose to do nothing instead, very clearly violating the spirit of the Constitution, if not the strict letter. The Democrats should fight back with the same willingness to violate the spirit of the Constitution, but not the letter, when it might gain them some advantage.