Isn’t he up for reelection next year? Either put tons of resources in play to vote him out or put tons of resources in play in other senate races to take back the Senate. At any rate, I’d love to see him in either the unemployment line or sitting in the back of the bus.
There is pretty much a less than 0% chance of McConnell losing in 2020. He is from Kentucky after all and I don’t even know the last time that state elected a D to the U.S. Senate. Only retirement (not gonna happen) or the icy cold hand of Death will result in him not serving another term. And turtles can live well over 100 years.
This is a warning for personal insults. I see that you took a hiatus from 2015 to 2019 so I recommend you reaquaint yourself with the rules of this forum. Most of your posts in this thread would be better suited for the Pit, but this one stands out as warning-worthy.
[/moderating]
Answer: 1992, when Wendell Ford won a third term (Ford retired in 1998, at the end of that term). Heck, from 1973 to 1985, both senators from Kentucky were Democrats.
Hearings these days are nothing but political theater. They change very, very few minds in the Senate.
But, then, they were conceived of as political theater in the first place. Remember: before 1916 (IIRC), there were NO HEARINGS on SCotUS nominees. The President just sent a slip of paper with a name on it up the Hill, and often the Senate returned its response on that name right away (sometimes, even the same day). Indeed, on at least one occasion, if I recall my research correctly, a nominee was rejected without even holding a vote.
This changed during the Wilson Administration when he nominated Louis Brandeis to the Court. Brandeis was so “liberal” that his nomination was very “controversial” (read: the GOP got its shorts in a big bunch over it). As a result, the Senate Judiciary Committee agreed to hold hearings to allow those opposed and those in favor their opportunity to express their positions. There ended up being a four-month delay in confirmation. The final vote was pretty much split on party lines: three Republicans voted yes and one Democrat voted no. So the hearings did nothing to change anyone’s mind, really. They just allowed everyone the opportunity to “vent”, as we would say these days.
And that’s all hearings are about anyway: venting.
So I don’t mind that no hearings were held; that’s irrelevant. As far as I’m concerned, I would be perfectly happy if Senate confirmation hearings went the way of the dodo. Maybe then some actual business would get done.
What was annoying about what happened with the Garland nomination was that Sen. McConnell didn’t allow the hearings solely to avoid having a vote. This had the double advantage of not running the risk that Garland got approved over GOP leadership disapproval, and shielding certain GOP senators from a politically risky vote. Of course, as it turns out, Sen. McConnell was right in his assertion about the possibility that the election would produce a different result. But, of course, sauce for the goose is quite often not only sauce for the gander, but actually acts as a sort of base sauce for something far more elaborate in response. Thus, we have a strong movement afoot to “pack” the court if the 2020 elections produce a Democratic sweep of House, Senate and WH. Which, in my opinion, would be a Very Bad Idea.
Even worse, he was a Jew!:eek:
Little did they know that there’d be a Supreme Court entirely composed of Jews and Catholics … not to mention three women and a black man! 
Annoying? Glad you found this heinous break with a century-old norm that had been respected by both parties about as troublesome as waiting five extra minutes in the checkout lane.
The major reward, IMHO, is that he protects the more vulnerable GOP Senators from having to take difficult votes, by refusing to take up legislation that the Dems would like to force them to take sides on.
He also knows that Senators like Susan Collins need to at least pretend to be moderates in order to stay in office, so he lets them vote against the party line when he has more votes than he needs. (Although Collins is suddenly looking vulnerable, at least partially thanks to her over-the-top support of Kavanaugh last year.)
Nice headline on that link. I read it. Where’s the beef? It only had two examples: one’s some obscure blogger, and the other is probably at least partly true - Reich may have been exaggerating the connections between far right and even further right, but they’re definitely a thing.
Meanwhile, your side refuses to believe in global warming, and much of it doesn’t believe in evolution.
Are you sure he isn’t keeping the family pets caged and attached to electrodes in the basement of the Senate chamber?
I have lived 58 years, and in that time, I’ve seen plenty of things happen that deserved collective outrage.
Failing to vote on a Supreme Court nominee wasn’t one of them. I’m sorry if that doesn’t make you happy. I think you’ll find that the vast majority of Americans aren’t particularly horked off by that “heinous break”. :rolleyes:
But it wasn’t just “failing to vote on a Supreme Court nominee.” It was an intentional move in a strategy to pack the Supreme Court with conservative Republican justices. The second move happened the other day when Mitch said he WOULD fill a Supreme Court vacancy if one comes up, as much as admitting that his reason for not holding hearings on Garland “because it was an election year” was utter crap. Which of course, everyone knew at the time. Glad I could clear that up for you. Fighting ignorance and all that, ya know.
The vast majority of Americans don’t pay attention to anything.
However, the vast majority of Americans who do pay attention to this particular stuff thought it was heinous and worse. And now want revenge and retribution. We’ll be happy to remind you of why when that happens, so that you can’t have any complaints about it.
The Senate was constitutionally obligated to vote on Garland. They could have voted against him, even on purely partisan grounds: That is their right, odious though it may be. But they were obligated to hold the vote. Yes, I do think that our elected officials shirking their Constitutional obligations is pretty heinous.
I’m not sure that’s a very good metric. What things in American politics in the past 20 years HAVE ‘horked off’ a majority of Americans?
No, they were not “obligated” to vote on Garland. Not holding a vote is one perfectly-Constitutional way for the Senate to withhold its advice and consent to the President’s nominees (as evidenced by the fact that there’s no Justice Garland today). You may not like it, but there’s nothing in the Constitution that obligates the Senate to hold a vote, or even a hearing on a nominee.
Yep, dig up and defend every loophole you can find while you pave our way toward a fascist state.
To be fair, that’s debatable.
Seems that that could be fixed just by laws: the laws regarding national emergencies ultimately forced the Senate to cast a vote over Trump’s border national emergency. Presumably the next time the Dems have a trifecta, they can pass some laws requiring up-or-down votes on Presidential nominees, judicial or otherwise, with the nominees taking office if a vote isn’t held within X calendar days.