4 ms·

McConnell says you never replace a Supreme Court Justice in an election year. Let's see just how long it takes him to release a public statement going back on

McConnell says you never replace a Supreme Court Justice in an election year. Let's see just how long it takes him to release a public statement going back on that one...

wilg 6y ago
> Mr. McConnell and his allies say the two situations are different. Where one party controls the Senate and the other the presidency, as in 2016, they say, vacancies should not be filled in a presidential election year. Where the same party controls both the Senate and presidency, they argue, confirmations may proceed. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/us/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-dies-at-87.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/us/justice-ruth-bader-gin...
- spuz 6y ago
  It's a terrible argument. If the senate is not controlled by the same party as the president and they dislike the president's choice for supreme court, they can vote not to confirm him/her. It also encourages the president to choose a nominee who can appeal to both parties. McConnell refused to allow Garland to even have hearings in the Senate let alone a vote because he feared that some of his republican colleagues may have been persuaded. If there are two controlling parties in two parts of the government then the solution is compromise. This is a philosophy totally abhorrent to McConnell whose views can only be supported by an authoritarian minority.
  - someguydave 6y ago
    Wait it takes two to compromise, and a Supreme Court pick is really important . What did the Democrats offer McConnell in exchange for Garland hearings?
gamblor956 6y ago
He already has, in a talk at the Federalist Society last year, where he said that if given the chance to replace a SCOTUS justice in 2020 he would not hesitate. EDIT: And again, just over an hour ago, McConnell promised that he would have a vote on a new justice within a week of receiving the nomination. Meanwhile, Murkowski of Alaska announced she would not support confirmation hearings until after the election. And in other related news, Senate Democrats have promised to add seats to the Supreme Court if they win the Presidency and Senate in November and McConnell goes ahead with his plans... The next few months are going to be exciting.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
wyldfire 6y ago
He did make such a statement months ago.
netsharc 6y ago
Well, it's not like this flip-flop would be in the top 10 of his list of shameless actions... From his point of view, the majority of the country already hates him anyway, and sure, it's a few weeks of bad press from the predictable wing, but in the end he'll (hopefully for him) have pushed his cause (making the conservative grip more concrete) forward. The progressives will rage on Twitter, but on the day he goes back on what he said in 2016, Mitch is going to have a pleasant dinner with company that will agree with him, and he's going to fall asleep just fine, because he's convinced (or twisted the truth to convince himself) he's doing the right thing, and those who disagree with him are the ones who are un-American...
AdmiralAsshat 6y ago
https://nitter.net/guypbenson/status/1307119221692870659 https://nitter.net/guypbenson/status/1307119221692870659
stjohnswarts 6y ago
I think he's probably making calls and planning meetings for tomorrow with the R's on the wall about nominating a SCOTUS judge this soon, as we discuss here on HN. I have no doubt he's had this planned for years and is ready to execute his plan.

McConnell says you never replace a Supreme Court Justice in an election year. Let's see just how long it takes him to release a public statement going back on that one...

wilg 6y ago

> Mr. McConnell and his allies say the two situations are different. Where one party controls the Senate and the other the presidency, as in 2016, they say, vacancies should not be filled in a presidential election year. Where the same party controls both the Senate and presidency, they argue, confirmations may proceed. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/us/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-dies-at-87.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/us/justice-ruth-bader-gin...

spuz 6y ago
It's a terrible argument. If the senate is not controlled by the same party as the president and they dislike the president's choice for supreme court, they can vote not to confirm him/her. It also encourages the president to choose a nominee who can appeal to both parties. McConnell refused to allow Garland to even have hearings in the Senate let alone a vote because he feared that some of his republican colleagues may have been persuaded. If there are two controlling parties in two parts of the government then the solution is compromise. This is a philosophy totally abhorrent to McConnell whose views can only be supported by an authoritarian minority.
- someguydave 6y ago
  Wait it takes two to compromise, and a Supreme Court pick is really important . What did the Democrats offer McConnell in exchange for Garland hearings?

gamblor956 6y ago

He already has, in a talk at the Federalist Society last year, where he said that if given the chance to replace a SCOTUS justice in 2020 he would not hesitate. EDIT: And again, just over an hour ago, McConnell promised that he would have a vote on a new justice within a week of receiving the nomination. Meanwhile, Murkowski of Alaska announced she would not support confirmation hearings until after the election. And in other related news, Senate Democrats have promised to add seats to the Supreme Court if they win the Presidency and Senate in November and McConnell goes ahead with his plans... The next few months are going to be exciting.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

wyldfire 6y ago

He did make such a statement months ago.

netsharc 6y ago

Well, it's not like this flip-flop would be in the top 10 of his list of shameless actions... From his point of view, the majority of the country already hates him anyway, and sure, it's a few weeks of bad press from the predictable wing, but in the end he'll (hopefully for him) have pushed his cause (making the conservative grip more concrete) forward. The progressives will rage on Twitter, but on the day he goes back on what he said in 2016, Mitch is going to have a pleasant dinner with company that will agree with him, and he's going to fall asleep just fine, because he's convinced (or twisted the truth to convince himself) he's doing the right thing, and those who disagree with him are the ones who are un-American...

AdmiralAsshat 6y ago

https://nitter.net/guypbenson/status/1307119221692870659 https://nitter.net/guypbenson/status/1307119221692870659

stjohnswarts 6y ago

I think he's probably making calls and planning meetings for tomorrow with the R's on the wall about nominating a SCOTUS judge this soon, as we discuss here on HN. I have no doubt he's had this planned for years and is ready to execute his plan.