3 ms·

This is a laughable inability to distinguish between 'I don't like it' and 'it's unconstitutional and illegal', mixed with obvious massive hypocrisy. When the

This is a laughable inability to distinguish between 'I don't like it' and 'it's unconstitutional and illegal', mixed with obvious massive hypocrisy. When the Republicans refused to confirm Garland, they did it fully within the processes laid out in the constitution. If the Democrats had the senate now, we can guarantee they would have blocked every Trump nominee past and future. Or do you think they would have allowed Kavanaugh through? Of course not, they tried everything to stop him, inside and outside the process. And I know you cheered their efforts. You're just being massively hypocritical. You want the Dems to block Trump nominees by any means necessary, but if elected Republicans simply use established processes to do the same thing it's "no regard for the constitution". EDIT: Clarify garland situation, doesn't change the point.

mcphage 6y ago
> but if elected Republicans simply use votes to do the same thing it's "no regard for the constitution". They didn’t use votes. If it had gone to vote, Garland would have been confirmed. McConnell refused to bring it to vote.
- jlawson 6y ago
  Fine - used established, legal processes.
  - mcphage 6y ago
    Confirming Supreme Court nominees is the Senate’s constitutional duty.
nscalf 6y ago
Do you know how laws are often interpreted? It's asking what is the faith and meaning of the law, NOT what is literally written in paper. This means past precedents are incredibly important for defining what a law is. Refusing to hold a vote for a nomination of a qualified supreme court justice is not against the law on paper, but it is against the meaning of the laws and the precedents of how the president interacts with the supreme court. It is not the senates job to decide if a nominee is worthy of being nominated, or if the president should make a nomination. It is their job to vote on the nominee. They did not do that.
- jlawson 6y ago
  The word you're looking for is 'norms' not 'precedent' (since this wasn't a court case). And yes, I agree, the norms have gotten way shittier over recent decades. Both sides participated in this, back to the character assassination of Robert Bork, and the dems reneging on their promises around the Reagan migrant amnesty and probably before. It is hypocritical and childish to put that all on one side.

mcphage 6y ago

> but if elected Republicans simply use votes to do the same thing it's "no regard for the constitution". They didn’t use votes. If it had gone to vote, Garland would have been confirmed. McConnell refused to bring it to vote.

jlawson 6y ago
Fine - used established, legal processes.
- mcphage 6y ago
  Confirming Supreme Court nominees is the Senate’s constitutional duty.

nscalf 6y ago

Do you know how laws are often interpreted? It's asking what is the faith and meaning of the law, NOT what is literally written in paper. This means past precedents are incredibly important for defining what a law is. Refusing to hold a vote for a nomination of a qualified supreme court justice is not against the law on paper, but it is against the meaning of the laws and the precedents of how the president interacts with the supreme court. It is not the senates job to decide if a nominee is worthy of being nominated, or if the president should make a nomination. It is their job to vote on the nominee. They did not do that.

jlawson 6y ago
The word you're looking for is 'norms' not 'precedent' (since this wasn't a court case). And yes, I agree, the norms have gotten way shittier over recent decades. Both sides participated in this, back to the character assassination of Robert Bork, and the dems reneging on their promises around the Reagan migrant amnesty and probably before. It is hypocritical and childish to put that all on one side.