But for the previous obstruction of merrick garland, I believe he would be. I don’t think Democrats can derail Gorsuch on qualifications any more than the Republicans could have disqualified Garland on his qualifications.
In the senate, 6 senators breaking with the party is pretty bipartisan, neh?
Bork still got a vote. That is qualitatively different than how Merrick Garland was treated.
No. Not in my view.
Why? The Senate rejected them both. Why is the holding of a vote such a huge deal?
Does it have to be a roll call vote? Could it be a voice vote? A show of hands?
There is a difference in kind between a pre-ordained refusal to consider and a pre-ordained loss on the vote.
First of all, there was nothing pre-ordained about the loss on the vote. Second of all, rejecting garland would have had political consequences that not holding hearings at all would not have had.
OK, maybe YMMV. Can you point to another judicial nomination where more than 13% of Republicans broke with their party to reject a Republican nominee?
Personally, I think a vote is important because that is the Senate making a decision. The majority party leadership refusing to allow a vote isn’t. Yes, I’m perfectly aware there’s no rule requiring it.
The senate rejected Bork. Mitch McConnell rejected Garland.
13% of the Republican Senators voted against him. More than one in eight. This wasn’t a case of picking off one or two members for a fig leaf of bipartisanship. And two Democrats voted for him.
Words have meaning. This was bipartisan, no matter how desperate you are to defend your Republican senators from charges of cowardice or political hackery.
The first was a decision done correctly on the merits and the second was knee-jerk partisan horsehockey. :dubious: Not a small difference at all.
Under Senate Rules it is always a roll-call vote.
They most certainly are.
Now sure there are better cites, like say a page torn out of Obama’s diary for that day.:rolleyes:
Where is your cite about why he nominated Garland?:dubious:
Harriet Miers?
Also bi-partisan
Yes, votes are pre-ordained. President Dewey said as much.
I believe what Bricker was talking about is the absurdity of the idea that Schumer was in any doubt on how he would vote before the Gorsuch hearings.
If you watched any of the Bork hearings, Ted Kennedy simply read off a script his aides had prepared for him, waited for Bork to give a detailed and thoughtful answer to a loaded question, and then went on to the next question without any reference to what Bork said. Same attitude with Gorsuch from Schumer.
Regards,
Shodan
And this charade convinced 6 Republicans to vote against Bork too?
In one case (Bork), hearings were held and enough Senators did not like what came out in the hearings that they voted to reject the nomination of this particular candidate. That is how the process is supposed to work.
In the other case (Garland) one party decided that presidents of the other party are not entitled to make Supreme Court nominations so they refused to even consider ANY nominee that president might offer up.
If these appear the same to you I suggest an eye exam.
I agree. In one case it was: We don’t like this particular nominee, but if you nominate someone else, we will consider him. In the other case it was: We don’t like the nominator, and will not accept any nominee.