3 ms·

> Worse, you'd be setting a precedent that you don't need any evidence to take down a supreme court judge nomination, which would of course carry over to politi

> Worse, you'd be setting a precedent that you don't need any evidence to take down a supreme court judge nomination, which would of course carry over to politicians as well. You mean like refusing to even have a confirmation hearing at all? We're already there.

Nasrudith 8y ago
Not to mention Robert Bork well before that even. There is no need for evidence in the first place - just like Congress can technically impeach the president for wearing an ugly tie.
- throwaway5752 8y ago
  "On October 23, 1987, the Senate denied Bork's confirmation, with 42 Senators voting in favor and 58 voting against. Two Democratic Senators, David Boren (D-OK) and Ernest Hollings (D-SC), voted in his favor, with 6 Republican Senators (John Chafee (R-RI), Bob Packwood (R-OR), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Robert Stafford (R-VT), John Warner (R-VA), and Lowell P. Weicker Jr. (R-CT) voting against him.[34]" and "On October 20, 1973, Solicitor General Bork was instrumental in the 'Saturday Night Massacre' when President Richard Nixon ordered the firing of Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox following Cox's request for tapes of his Oval Office conversations. Nixon initially ordered U.S. Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire Cox. Richardson resigned rather than carry out the order. Richardson's top deputy, Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus also considered the order "fundamentally wrong"[15] and resigned, making Bork acting attorney general. When Nixon reiterated his order, Bork complied and fired Cox." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork. Bork got a hearing. He just was unable to get approved - by a wide margin - because of his disgraceful conduct during Watergate.