3 ms·

Since the Senate was held by a different party, senators could have voted against Obama's candidate, couldn't they? But they didn't; rather, Garland wasn't ever

Since the Senate was held by a different party, senators could have voted against Obama's candidate, couldn't they? But they didn't; rather, Garland wasn't ever brought to the Senate for a confirmation vote. Because McConnell didn't care a bit about the people expressing the next Justice, he was more simply scared as fuck of losing that vote despite theoretically having a majority. Since this is HN I will paraphrase Bryan Cantrill: "Do not fall into the trap of trying to anthropomorphize McConnell. You need to think of him the way you think of a lawnmower".

jki275 6y ago
McConnell was given the power to do that by the rest of the Senators who put him in that position. The narrative that Garland would have been confirmed if only he’d gotten a vote assumes that McConnell didn’t have the support of his caucus in what he did. That’s an incorrect assumption. They could have removed him and done what they wanted to do if there was some groundswell of support for Garland in the Republican Party. There wasn’t, they supported McConnell, and Garland wasn’t brought to a vote. That’s just how politics works.