4 ms·
> he simply could not get him confirmed That's hardly the whole truth. McConnell refused to even hold hearings.
by GavinMcG 6y ago
> he simply could not get him confirmed
That's hardly the whole truth. McConnell refused to even hold hearings.
- erichocean 6y agoSure, but the fundamental issue isn't McConnell, it's that Obama seriously weakened Democratic control of both the House and Senate during his time as President. As a result, his party lost a Supreme Court pick. "Elections have consequences" and all that.
- cromka 6y agoAh yes, the good old "should have been so weak", "deserved it" victim-blaming.
- gamblor956 6y agoNo, the fundamental issue is that McConnell was the first and only Senate Leader to ever prevent a vote on a SCOTUS nominee, so there were no confirmation hearings at all.
- erichocean 6y ago> There have been 37 unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States. Of these, 11 nominees were rejected in Senate roll-call votes, 11 were withdrawn by the president, and 15 lapsed at the end of a session of Congress. Note: 15 nominations were not voted on by the Senate, including Merrick Garland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_th...
- gamblor956 6y agoIn all of those 15 they had hearings. They simply didn't get to the point of voting on confirmation.
- gran_colombia 6y agoMcConnell prevented senators from voting on a candidate they would have approved. This is hijacking representatives' voice because you're afraid to hear it.
- pnw_hazor 6y agoLegislative leadership at all levels of US government often do not allow hearings, floor debates, or floor votes when they know the issue will fail.