For some reason, every time I see this thread title, I have a mental image of one GOP senator nudging another GOP senator and whispering: “Check out the ass on that Garland guy!”
Or as bad as your reading since TWICE in this thread I said that he should be given a fair hearing.
That isn’t a rebuttal to the error you’re making in comparing two very different political stances and yet calling someone hypocritical for having different views on them.
I’m not addressing your views on the vote, so much as your charge of hypocrisy. It is in error (as several have shown.)
I don’t think it is wrong. It might have been theoretical but the Dems put forth the idea that a sitting President should not nominate a SC Justice. If you want to say the the Pubs are more extreme in the implementation then I agree with you. The hypocrisy lies in the Dems claiming that the sitting President should not be restricted from making a nomination when they first came up with the idea.
It’s the difference between saying, “Acting like that could get you punched in the nose” and actually punching someone in the nose.
And I doubt that Dems created the idea. It’s just that the GOP and Dems alike used to have enough class to not do it.
What? No love for Andrew Napolitano?
There’s often been contention and delay in getting a SC Justice approved, but none I can find where one party or the other deliberately stonewalled for nearly a year, which is what the Pubs are trying to do. And there are none I know of where one party refused to even have hearings.
Until now. You can blame the Dems all you want, saying “They jumped off the bridge first!” but it’s an excuse, and only an excuse.
Nancy Grace first.
I’m trying to wrap my head around McConnell refusing to hold hearings and have a vote. The way I see it, the following scenarios are possible.
-
McConnell knows that if a vote were held that Garland would be confirmed. He doesn’t want Garland to be confirmed so he is refusing to hold the vote.
-
McConnell knows that if a vote were held that Garland would not be confirmed. This would seem to get him what he wants.
Is the first scenario likely what is going on? If it is, that’s easy to understand. It’s the second scenario that I don’t undersand. What is he afraid would happen if a vote were to be held rejecting Garland’s nomination?
I think the first scenario is the most likely. McConnell is afraid that with the clusterfuck that is the GOP scene this year, combined with Garland’s widespread approval, will result in a vote to confirm from senators who are fearful of losing their reelection campaigns. He doesn’t have confidence that he can maintain party discipline, so he’s refusing the vote entirely.
Also, if Garland was rejected, Obama could simply nominate another person and they’d have to call another vote. By hitting the emergency brake, McConnell is trying to run out the clock and prevent the process from moving forward in any way. Kind of like when a petulant child sits on the floor of a store and refuses to budge when they are denied a toy or candy they want.
Neither one. He simply refuses to accept that Obama was elected by the American people TWICE. And it’s his job to make sure that Obama does absolutely nothing until he is gone.
None of the above. It’s simple spite. Obama wants it, so he’s against it. Nothing more to it than that.