3 ms·
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 prec
by 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 agoThe 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.