The Senate already eliminated the filibuster for nominees apart from nominees to the Supreme Court.
Cite.
Regards,
Shodan
And six Republicans voted against Bork’s confirmation, and two Democrats voted for him. Thus proving my point : Garland is a different situation than Bork OR Fortas, because Bork and Fortas were rejected on a bipartisan basis, and got committee hearings.
In case you didn’t know, analysis is pretty much always opinion.
You might want to answer for the false assertions you made in the gerrymandering thread before trying to set yourself up as an authority on anything.
And note that Shodan is now trying to ignore my point and still has provided no evidence whatsoever for his assertions.
It’s already been explained to you - you made the assertions, it is up to you to prove them.
Regards,
Shodan
You have done nothing at all but evade. You have as yet provided no evidence whatsoever (and at this point I don’t expect that you ever will) of what the Republican base thinks to substantiate your snide accusation that I don’t know what I’m writing about.
It is common knowledge (and has been quite extensively discussed on this board, as well as cited by me from a respected media outlet) that the Garland nomination was made in order to show up the Republican obstructionism involved in not having hearings for him by providing a nominee who would theoretically be acceptable to Republicans.
And you have done nothing to disprove that beyond naysaying, providing absolutely no evidence to support anything you have said on the subject. All you have done is claim that it’s on me to disprove your statements. Sorry, that’s not how it works.
I have lost a great deal of respect for you in your willingness to use such tactics. I can’t claim that you’ve been moving the goalposts, because you’ve had no goalposts to move. Until you decide to actually, you know, substantiate your own assertions and accusations, and take any kind of an actual position other than “No, no, YOU have to disprove what I say” it’s a waste of my time. Really fucking sad.
Cite?
Regards,
Shodan
Here’s the thing. Democrats may think they know that someone is “acceptable” to Republicans. But that doesn’t mean that he is actually acceptable. Each side’s perception of the other side’s motivations and desires is very, very flawed.
If you judge it by Garland’s skating through on his previous nomination, as I pointed out, Gorsuch was confirmed before with not one Democratic objection. Does that mean that he should be “acceptable” to Democrats now?
It was more than just ‘skated through;’ Republican Senators, who would presumably be the most important in a SC confirmation, actually endorsed him previously. How many Democratic Senators endorsed Gorsuch?
Let’s see - Ken Salazar, at confirmation hearings:
“Chairman Specter, Senator Leahy, Senator Graham, and all my distinguished colleagues on this Judiciary Committee, I am very pleased to introduce to you a person that I believe will make an excellent judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Mr. Neil Gorsuch.”
I would, had I made any false assertions.
It seems that someone isn’t clear on how debates and citations work. The person making the (initial) claim has the responsibility to provide fact-based evidence in support of his assertion; it’s not up to others to disprove the assertion(s) that you make.
I think that using the word “bipartisan” when one only commands single-digit support from one party is not a useful descriptor.
Feel free to suggest alternative terminology for a less-than-party-line voting result, though it won’t challenge the obvious distinctions twixt Garland and Bork.
“Near-party-line result.”
Okay. What if we approach from the other side, “Limited bipartisan effort.”
And in any case, it’s more respectful treatment than Garland got.
Ted Kennedy on the floor of the Senate, discussing Robert Bork:
I disagree that anything remotely similar in terms of disrespect was leveled against Garland.
Nonetheless, Bork got a Senate vote. Garland was ignored not because of any argument any Senator would bother to make against him or his views, but because of who nominated him.
Yes, that’s exactly correct.
But as I have previously pointed out, Bork got a vote, and Garland got a decision; there is only a small difference there between a pre-ordained rejection vote such as was given to Bork and a pre-ordained refusal to vote at all.
I think there’s a very good chance Garland would have been voted in – several Republicans had praised him in the past. That’s why they avoided a hearing and a vote, IMO… since he might be confirmed.
If Republicans only needed their base, they wouldn’t have to lie so much. They didn’t pay a political price because they were running against Hillary. Do you really think they wouldn’t have paid a price for it if they were running against somebody like Biden.
Republicans didn’t pay a price because the Democrats used Garland as a political talking point and gave the Republicans enough rope to hang themselves. Except their predictions about the 2016 elections were waaaaaay off and no hanging occurred. If Hillary had won, she would have been able to nominate much more liberal justices than Merrick Garland. The Republicans shot the moon in 2016, and they did it with Donald Trump at the top of the ticket. The degree of difficulty on that political feat is orders of magnitude higher than anything I have ever seen in my life. You almost needed the Democrats to cooperate to pull it off (IMHO, the Democrats did everything they could do to oblige).