5 ms·
Sure, 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
by erichocean 6y ago
Sure, 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 Of these, 11 nominees were rejected in Senate roll-call votes, 11 were withdrawn by the president, and 15 lapsed at the end of a session of Congress.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.