The President gets to do stuff with the consent of the Senate, just like there’s stuff that you get to do with my consent, and stuff that I get to do with your consent — and, in any of those scenarios, it seems to me that the problem would be moving forward if consent isn’t given.
I sure hope we don’t disagree about that.
Consent didn’t get the opportunity to be given or denied. The vote was not held. The majority of the Senate would have approved Garland. Consent was stolen because it was not allowed to be measured.
This has never ever happened before in our nation’s history.
You are arguing semantics. I am arguing that this was incredibly damaging to the legitimacy of the court, the concept of the consent of the governed and the idea of the will of the people. I don’t care about the semantics. Call it whatever you want. It was very bad for our country and continues to damage all of us.
Anyway, this is definitely off topic, so I’ll withdraw from the hijack at this time so we don’t further derail the thread.
I can’t find any quotes from checks article back in 1852 that he was denied because “you can’t appoint a justice in an election year”, followed by another justice being allowed to be appointed days before an election. Can you cite any info that this was the same set of circumstances?
I’ll let you have the last word now. Before a mod decides to shut down our sidetrack anyway.
All apologies; I was addressing the point that he of course didn’t get seated because the Senate didn’t, y’know, consent — not, you understand, by voting “no,” but just by dint of not voting “yes”.
Cool. I’ll continue to feel how I feel, and you do you. Agreed?
Back to the topic. No I do not think Trump should be pardoned. We can’t have certain people that are above the law in a nation of laws.