45 Senate Dems voted against Justice Gorsuch.
Then why not hold one? Hint: You know why too.
10 months before the election is a pretty wide definition of “lame duck”. About what I expect from the party of “NO! (unless wealthy donors want us to say yes)”
Given his assiduous efforts to defend the Bush-era torture and mass surveillance policies, what makes you think he should be considered as qualified?
ETA: Actually, I withdraw the question. I conceded that in your opinion, “conservative” is interchangable with “qualified.”
Nope, business as usual, the Dems did it too. In fact voting in a lame duck appointee was rare and unusual.
The only thing unusual was not having a hearing at all, but the GOp would never have voted Garland in.
Okay, now you’re just making stuff up. Forget it.
What did the ABA have to say about his support for torture? I mean, if the ABA went on record as saying “Man, this guy really saved our nation by seeking to strip civil rights from accused terrorists who shouldn’t have their day in court,” I’d really like to read that position from them.
This is far afield from the OP. Is there a reason I shouldn’t close it and send you guys to your corners to come back another day?
AFAIK, nothing.
I don’t think the ABA is an organization well-suited for making qualitative evaluations about matters of national security. Not really their wheelhouse.
What is in their wheelhouse is making (supposedly) non-partisan evaluations about judicial candidates, and in this case, they rated Justice Gorsuch as “well-qualified”, their highest rating. That may stick in your craw, but it doesn’t change the fact.
ETA: apologies, just saw the moderation. I’ll drop it.
Other than my willingness to drop it and get back to the matter at hand…?
nm
He was up for a stolen seat.
Individual-1 told Schumer he will keep the government shut down for months, even years. Including the Department of Homeland Security.
What a dumbass.
Yeah. Enough. Take a break.
A new thread might do better than a stake one.