You already wrote the above. Somewhere in between the second and third sentence you hid the issue. It is a departure from previous nominations in that it didn’t get any hearing at all. So Grassley was being extremely dishonest today in saying there has been consistency in the scotus hearings.
Well it’s about damned time. Bring forth the Lirpa!
Senator Grassley’s comment was “This timeline is consistent with how we’ve handled past Supreme Court nominations.” It was about when the questions must be submitted for the record and when the “mark-up” meeting would be held. It wasn’t some broad sweeping statement about how every single SCOTUS nominee has ever been handled.
I genuinely don’t understand why this comment is such an issue for you. I gather that you’re still sore about Garland, but he wasn’t making some claim about Garland. It was just a “hey, here’s the schedule for the next few days, and it’s not all that unusual”.
I’ll wait for the ahn-woon.
And to me that difference is more important than to you. In one, we have a hundred people expressing their opinions, in the other, we have one person imposing his opinion. I think the former is a better example of the principles of democracy that I would rather live under, YMMV.
It would only take a few republicans to vote for a rather conservative justice to have confirmed him. It was not a done deal.
It is not in any part of the senate rules as a way of making their opinions known.
Each and every one of those senators put themselves out there and voted according to their conscience. Their vote on the filibuster is a part of the record, and they will have to live with those consequences, positive or negative.
Garland was defeated by the “filibuster” of only one senator.
I’m already looking forward to the retirement of RBG or Breyer, hopefully before Trump leaves office.
I can’t stand Trump, but man, his judicial nominations make the other shit sandwich ingredients palatable.
Today I watched looney Dems accuse a woman of Mexican and Jewish ancestry of flashing white supremacy recognition signs. It was a glorious look at madness.
He wasn’t standing in opposition to the other 99 senators, or “imposing his opinion” on them. That’s not at all what it was. Senator McConnell enacted the will of the majority of the body.
I missed this, but I’d like to review it (for the lulz). Where / when did this happen?
ETA: was it the “OK” sign?
And yet, oddly enough, no link…
Jonah Goldberg! Jonah fucking Goldberg! Oh, ye gods and little fishes! And you* posted* it!
Something that is bad enough that a more moderate Republican might switch sides, of course.
OK let’s make it about the time. Grassley said he read 40,000 docs last night. He’s lying. (His lips would be too tired to speak today.)
It occurs to me that in both the Garland, and now the Kavanaugh matters, the republicans are denying the Dems their right to be part of “advise and consent.”
For Garland, turtle just decided for everyone, of either party. For K they are refusing to give relevant docs and/or refusing to allocate reasonable time to “advise and consent” for those who aren’t already decided.
Well, you can catch the tweet storm that started it:
https://twitter.com/sahluwal/status/1037045576490053632
Or check out someplace called Twitchy:
Or you can go to Townhall:
No clue who NewsOne is:
Or preferably any disqualifying act.
Ah, enacted the will of the majority. You mean he took a vote to see what the will of the majority was?
In any case, the stopping of Kavenaugh comes about not because of the politicians themselves, but due to their constituents.
People ask what is the point of the hearings, what is the point of asking for these documents that would reveal his judicial thinking? Well the point is to show it to the public. To show to the public who the senators that they elected are going to vote for. If people like my parents, who are lifelong loyal republicans, start calling their senators and telling them that they have some reservations about this character, then those senators may start to rethink their vote.
It is the public that these hearings are for, as it is the public who ultimately is responsible for the government and its actions. And it is the public who should have all of the information needed to decide if this is a man that they can support.
Actually it’s an example of how money in politics even affects the supposed impartial Judicial branch these days.
Cite?
Not at all. They’re the minority part in both cases, which typically means they’re not going to get their way. Sucks to be them.
You should have kept your conservative card and voted for him.
So, with the conservative card, you get mayonnaise on that sandwich?