4 ms·
McConnel had serious doubts that Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, would _fail_ to get a majority in the senate, so he forbade the nomination to come to a vote.
by blake1 6y ago
McConnel had serious doubts that Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, would _fail_ to get a majority in the senate, so he forbade the nomination to come to a vote. So it’s a little different than you pose: you a pretending that Obama’s nomination came to a vote and lost (which would be entirely legitimate). The majority leader prevented that from even happening.
- taurath 6y agoSorry, if that were true, then obama could've nominated someone else. Why would you need to block a vote you know you will win?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- erichocean 6y ago> [if] Obama had a Democratic Senate majority when he nominated Merrick Garland… With a Democratic majority, Garland would have been confirmed. It's exactly because no Democratic majority in the Senate existed that Garland wasn't even voted on (and actually didn't even get a hearing).
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- stjohnswarts 6y agoThat is not what happened at all, he didn't hold a vote because he didn't want to and used an excuse that "Presidents shouldn't be able to nominate a SCOTUS judge in their last year". Now he's changing it to "majority party situation" and that is not what he said when he refused to hold any confirmations. He is a sneaky snakey weasel and has been for decades.
- malwarebytess 6y agoRe-read the comment.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]