7 ms·

McConnell is pretty transparent about his hypocritical political bullshit: > "Oh, we’d fill it,” McConnell told supporters in Kentucky on Tuesday when asked wh

McConnell is pretty transparent about his hypocritical political bullshit: > "Oh, we’d fill it,” McConnell told supporters in Kentucky on Tuesday when asked what he would do if a Supreme Court justice died in 2020 while President Trump was still in office > https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/oh-wed-fill-it-how-mcconnell-is-doing-supreme-court-vacancies-an-election-year/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/oh-wed-fi... edit: Am I really getting downvoted for pointing out how the current administration already said it would handle this? edit #2: Individual Republicans are declaring they're against rushing an appointment before the election (https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1307113546136784897 https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1307113546136784897).

stock_toaster 6y ago
McConnell has done more harm to the USA than any other politician I can think of in recent memory.
- tyre 6y ago
  This. Seeing trump as a cause and not a symptom or as the leading disaster for American democracy is a very common distraction. McConnell is the heart of all of it. He is nothing but an appetite for power. He’ll do anything. No morals whatsoever (and I say that neutrally, as a fact and not a moral judgement.) And he wins.
- basementcat 6y ago
  McConnell is just doing what his constituents want. Otherwise, they wouldn't have voted for him repeatedly since 1984. EDIT: One might argue that Mr. McConnell correctly anticipated the desires of the USA electorate because in November of 2016 they expressed a wish for more conservative judges in federal courts. If the voting public was outraged by McConnell's actions, one might expect they'd vote accordingly.
  - paxys 6y ago
    McConnell's constituents = half of Kentucky, so ~2 million people. Meanwhile ~40 million Californians have zero say in the process.
    - basementcat 6y ago
      That is because the people of the USA don't want the ~40e6 people in California to be able to dictate policy for the ~2 million people in Kentucky. Most Americans are perfectly okay with this because there hasn't been any serious effort at an Amendment to grant each citizen with similar amounts of power in the Senate.
      - tomjakubowski 6y ago
        > Most Americans are perfectly okay with this because there hasn't been any serious effort at an Amendment to grant each citizen with similar amounts of power in the Senate. This doesn't follow. There is no way to amend the Constitution by a national popular vote so the opinion of the majority of Americans is irrelevant to the question of any Amendment's passage. A more likely reason such an Amendment wouldn't exist is that a majority of states favor the status quo, because most states are small and benefit from their current outsized representation in government.
        basementcat 6y ago
        One of the mechanisms for beginning the amending of the USA constitution is via a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress. The USA House of Representatives assigns political power approximately proportionally to population and it has never passed any proposed amendment to proportionally elect Senators or delegates of the Electoral College. Source: Article V Edit: Corrected 3/4 -> 2/3 Edit2: I stand corrected. The Bayh-Celler proposal was passed by the House and filibustered in the Senate in 1970. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_abolition_amendment#Bayh%E2%80%93Celler_amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_abolition_am...
- tick_tock_tick 6y ago
  Harry Reid, he's the one that ruined congress by changing the rules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid
  - neverartful 6y ago
    Harry Reid was warned of the long-term consequences and he ignored them. Had Reid not pulled the 'nuclear option' the filibuster from the minority would stop the confirmation.
    - sukilot 6y ago
      That's a fantastical interpretation. Reid pulled the nuclear option to stop Republicans from refusing to do their job (approve judges). McConnell would have pulled the nuclear option himself as soon as he got the majority, regardless of what Reid did.
- worker767424 6y ago
  More than Trump? McConnell is at least a professional politician and not a washed-up reality TV heir.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- giardini 6y ago
  It's beautiful to see someone like McConnell, who understands political power and is able to use it fully and legally w/o overstepping. If Democrats had someone his equal then they would be pleased too. Please remember that luck (chance) is an important and sometimes decisive component in conflict. Today it seems the Republicans are lucky; who knows what the future will bring.
  - thirdsun 6y ago
    > It's beautiful to see someone like McConnell, who understands political power and is able to use it fully and legally w/o overstepping. If Democrats had someone his equal then they would be pleased too. Regardless of which side you're on - I don't think that's a worthwhile basis for political discourse and shouldn't be the modus operandi for what basically determines the development of a country. Then again, you're right of course - the fact that McConnell and other don't actually overstep in legal terms just shows that the rule set isn't suitable for the current political climate in a time which is shaped by disregard of norms and mutual respect.
edbob 6y ago
People are probably reacting to some combination of unnecessary partisanship and the false equivalency. McConnell stated that appointments should not be made near the end of term while the White House and Senate are split between different parties. That is not the case now, so it's hard to see how you can call him hypocritical. You can disagree, but I think you could find a more constructive way to disagree than that post.
- sukilot 6y ago
  What's more "unnecessary partisanship" then refusing to follow the Constitution because the President is of a different Party (a concept which is not part of the Constitution)?
  - dllthomas 6y ago
    > (a concept which is not part of the Constitution)? And which was very much worried about and warned against by the founders, even if they immediately fell into it themselves.
  - edbob 6y ago
    Are you arguing that the Constitution requires judicial appointments to be made within a certain time frame? Where in the Constitution are you getting that from? It's certainly not in the appointments clause, or anywhere else that I can see.

stock_toaster 6y ago

McConnell has done more harm to the USA than any other politician I can think of in recent memory.

tyre 6y ago
This. Seeing trump as a cause and not a symptom or as the leading disaster for American democracy is a very common distraction. McConnell is the heart of all of it. He is nothing but an appetite for power. He’ll do anything. No morals whatsoever (and I say that neutrally, as a fact and not a moral judgement.) And he wins.
basementcat 6y ago
McConnell is just doing what his constituents want. Otherwise, they wouldn't have voted for him repeatedly since 1984. EDIT: One might argue that Mr. McConnell correctly anticipated the desires of the USA electorate because in November of 2016 they expressed a wish for more conservative judges in federal courts. If the voting public was outraged by McConnell's actions, one might expect they'd vote accordingly.
- paxys 6y ago
  McConnell's constituents = half of Kentucky, so ~2 million people. Meanwhile ~40 million Californians have zero say in the process.
  - basementcat 6y ago
    That is because the people of the USA don't want the ~40e6 people in California to be able to dictate policy for the ~2 million people in Kentucky. Most Americans are perfectly okay with this because there hasn't been any serious effort at an Amendment to grant each citizen with similar amounts of power in the Senate.
    - tomjakubowski 6y ago
      > Most Americans are perfectly okay with this because there hasn't been any serious effort at an Amendment to grant each citizen with similar amounts of power in the Senate. This doesn't follow. There is no way to amend the Constitution by a national popular vote so the opinion of the majority of Americans is irrelevant to the question of any Amendment's passage. A more likely reason such an Amendment wouldn't exist is that a majority of states favor the status quo, because most states are small and benefit from their current outsized representation in government.
      - basementcat 6y ago
        One of the mechanisms for beginning the amending of the USA constitution is via a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress. The USA House of Representatives assigns political power approximately proportionally to population and it has never passed any proposed amendment to proportionally elect Senators or delegates of the Electoral College. Source: Article V Edit: Corrected 3/4 -> 2/3 Edit2: I stand corrected. The Bayh-Celler proposal was passed by the House and filibustered in the Senate in 1970. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_abolition_amendment#Bayh%E2%80%93Celler_amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_abolition_am...
tick_tock_tick 6y ago
Harry Reid, he's the one that ruined congress by changing the rules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid
- neverartful 6y ago
  Harry Reid was warned of the long-term consequences and he ignored them. Had Reid not pulled the 'nuclear option' the filibuster from the minority would stop the confirmation.
  - sukilot 6y ago
    That's a fantastical interpretation. Reid pulled the nuclear option to stop Republicans from refusing to do their job (approve judges). McConnell would have pulled the nuclear option himself as soon as he got the majority, regardless of what Reid did.
worker767424 6y ago
More than Trump? McConnell is at least a professional politician and not a washed-up reality TV heir.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
giardini 6y ago
It's beautiful to see someone like McConnell, who understands political power and is able to use it fully and legally w/o overstepping. If Democrats had someone his equal then they would be pleased too. Please remember that luck (chance) is an important and sometimes decisive component in conflict. Today it seems the Republicans are lucky; who knows what the future will bring.
- thirdsun 6y ago
  > It's beautiful to see someone like McConnell, who understands political power and is able to use it fully and legally w/o overstepping. If Democrats had someone his equal then they would be pleased too. Regardless of which side you're on - I don't think that's a worthwhile basis for political discourse and shouldn't be the modus operandi for what basically determines the development of a country. Then again, you're right of course - the fact that McConnell and other don't actually overstep in legal terms just shows that the rule set isn't suitable for the current political climate in a time which is shaped by disregard of norms and mutual respect.

edbob 6y ago

People are probably reacting to some combination of unnecessary partisanship and the false equivalency. McConnell stated that appointments should not be made near the end of term while the White House and Senate are split between different parties. That is not the case now, so it's hard to see how you can call him hypocritical. You can disagree, but I think you could find a more constructive way to disagree than that post.

sukilot 6y ago
What's more "unnecessary partisanship" then refusing to follow the Constitution because the President is of a different Party (a concept which is not part of the Constitution)?
- dllthomas 6y ago
  > (a concept which is not part of the Constitution)? And which was very much worried about and warned against by the founders, even if they immediately fell into it themselves.
- edbob 6y ago
  Are you arguing that the Constitution requires judicial appointments to be made within a certain time frame? Where in the Constitution are you getting that from? It's certainly not in the appointments clause, or anywhere else that I can see.