3 ms·

This is spin, pure and simple. A cursory glance at the page you link to tells a dramatically different story than the one you're telling. John Roberts was orig

This is spin, pure and simple. A cursory glance at the page you link to tells a dramatically different story than the one you're telling. John Roberts was originally nominated to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. Then Rehnquist died and Roberts was renominated to become Chief Justice. In the case of Harriet Miers, everyone was opposed to her, including the right who called her unqualified. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102702240.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10... No one is saying that Merrick Garland is unqualified. It's a naked political ploy with no modern (or historical?) precedent.

CapitalistCartr 10y ago
Its not spin. Here's a quote when the shoe was on the other foot: "Former Democratic Senate leader Robert Byrd explained it well in a 2005 speech endorsed by then-Senator Joe Biden, among others: There is no stipulation in the Constitution as to how the Senate is to express its advice or give its consent… The Senate can refuse to confirm a nominee simply by saying nothing and doing nothing" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/04/11/can-president-obama-appoint-merrick-garland-to-the-supreme-court-without-the-consent-of-the-senate/?utm_term=.9fc431b01f59 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... Quite simply, stonewalling Merrick is more destructive partisanship, but its not without "modern (or historical?) precedent".
- hackuser 10y ago
  Whatever Byrd said, the Senate never did it before. It is a matter of fact.