5 ms·

The Republican party had no reason to hold confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland - the votes did not exist to confirm him. The role of the Senate is to pro

The Republican party had no reason to hold confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland - the votes did not exist to confirm him. The role of the Senate is to provide advice and consent - there was no consent so there was no reason to do it. This year is different - Republicans hold the majority of the Senate and the White House. This nominee has the votes.

Schiendelman 6y ago
To me, your comment reads as an interesting bit of mental gymnastics.
Aunche 6y ago
In that case, the Senate can always just refuse to confirm a new justice whenever the majority isn't the same party as the president.
- rubyist5eva 6y ago
  yes, they can.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  That is the case. I don't think it is obvious that this sort of naked use of power is always going to be the best strategy for a political group though. Only time will tell, but it appears to me that the coalition of voters the GOP has long relied on is starting to fracture.
tchock23 6y ago
That wasn’t the stated reason given by the party at that time. The line sold to the public was ‘can’t confirm in an election year,’ which can be found in many public statements by Republicans at that time. Going through with a nomination while voting has actually started and announcing it one hour after the death of a justice is pure hypocrisy, plain and simple.
plushpuffin 6y ago
The Senate has traditionally accepted the president's nominee assuming s/he was qualified. Garland had previously been out forward by the GOP as an example of a qualified and respected judge. And let's not forget that had Clinton won, the GOP was determined to keep that seat on the court empty for 4 years. They said as much. And when they refused to even consider Garland they also said that their newly made-up rule would apply if the shoe was on the other foot. They clearly didn't mean that, and the rationale for confirming Barrett that you are parroting above is just that, a rationale. An excuse. Don't pretend the rest of us are stupid. We know exactly why your position on this has changed and it has everything to do with the fact that your side has the temporary power to do what it wants.
- rubyist5eva 6y ago
  Don't act like "your side" wouldn't do the exact same if the parties were reversed.
  - plushpuffin 6y ago
    A few years ago, they wouldn't have. Now they would, and should. The GOP has escalated and the Democrats need to respond in kind by expanding the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary, to undo the damage caused by years of Republican obstruction which prevented Obama from appointing hundreds of judges. Please stop pretending that this game of escalating stakes and norm-breaking is somehow on the Democrats. We've been watching Mitch McConnell and we remember what he's done.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
RonaldRaygun 6y ago
Believe it or not, the Senate used to actually follow the law as written and advice and consent, and not simply reject out of hand because the nominating president was of the opposing political party. 13 Supreme Court Justices have been confirmed by a Senate controlled by the opposing party since 1945. All of these were under a Republican President and confirmed by a Democratic Senate. The last Justice to fail to be confirmed was Bork in 1987, for the very valid reason of his association with Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre prior to the latter's forced resignation. The process was never intended to be a political, partisan battle, and this was respected by both parties until 2016. Merrick Garland was (and remains) eminently qualified for the seat, and nobody serious on either side of the aisle claims otherwise. I defy anyone to give me a cogent reason why he should not have been given the prescribed consent by the Senate. Mitch McConnell has most likely indelibly changed the Supreme Court confirmation process to be a purely political one, to the great detriment of the Court. Incredibly shortsighted, in my opinion, as it has dispensed with all pretense of a supra-partisan deliberating body.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
lordnacho 6y ago
> The Republican party had no reason to hold confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland - the votes did not exist to confirm him. The senators are supposed to go to the hearing and then decide whether they think the guy should be confirmed. For you to say he didn't have the votes is to admit it is just a power grab. Why not just hold the hearing and vote against him if you don't like what you hear? The silly thing about this is they could have just gone through the motions, just like they are doing now.

Schiendelman 6y ago

To me, your comment reads as an interesting bit of mental gymnastics.

Aunche 6y ago

In that case, the Senate can always just refuse to confirm a new justice whenever the majority isn't the same party as the president.

rubyist5eva 6y ago
yes, they can.
maxerickson 6y ago
That is the case. I don't think it is obvious that this sort of naked use of power is always going to be the best strategy for a political group though. Only time will tell, but it appears to me that the coalition of voters the GOP has long relied on is starting to fracture.

tchock23 6y ago

That wasn’t the stated reason given by the party at that time. The line sold to the public was ‘can’t confirm in an election year,’ which can be found in many public statements by Republicans at that time. Going through with a nomination while voting has actually started and announcing it one hour after the death of a justice is pure hypocrisy, plain and simple.

plushpuffin 6y ago

The Senate has traditionally accepted the president's nominee assuming s/he was qualified. Garland had previously been out forward by the GOP as an example of a qualified and respected judge. And let's not forget that had Clinton won, the GOP was determined to keep that seat on the court empty for 4 years. They said as much. And when they refused to even consider Garland they also said that their newly made-up rule would apply if the shoe was on the other foot. They clearly didn't mean that, and the rationale for confirming Barrett that you are parroting above is just that, a rationale. An excuse. Don't pretend the rest of us are stupid. We know exactly why your position on this has changed and it has everything to do with the fact that your side has the temporary power to do what it wants.

rubyist5eva 6y ago
Don't act like "your side" wouldn't do the exact same if the parties were reversed.
- plushpuffin 6y ago
  A few years ago, they wouldn't have. Now they would, and should. The GOP has escalated and the Democrats need to respond in kind by expanding the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary, to undo the damage caused by years of Republican obstruction which prevented Obama from appointing hundreds of judges. Please stop pretending that this game of escalating stakes and norm-breaking is somehow on the Democrats. We've been watching Mitch McConnell and we remember what he's done.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

RonaldRaygun 6y ago

Believe it or not, the Senate used to actually follow the law as written and advice and consent, and not simply reject out of hand because the nominating president was of the opposing political party. 13 Supreme Court Justices have been confirmed by a Senate controlled by the opposing party since 1945. All of these were under a Republican President and confirmed by a Democratic Senate. The last Justice to fail to be confirmed was Bork in 1987, for the very valid reason of his association with Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre prior to the latter's forced resignation. The process was never intended to be a political, partisan battle, and this was respected by both parties until 2016. Merrick Garland was (and remains) eminently qualified for the seat, and nobody serious on either side of the aisle claims otherwise. I defy anyone to give me a cogent reason why he should not have been given the prescribed consent by the Senate. Mitch McConnell has most likely indelibly changed the Supreme Court confirmation process to be a purely political one, to the great detriment of the Court. Incredibly shortsighted, in my opinion, as it has dispensed with all pretense of a supra-partisan deliberating body.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

lordnacho 6y ago

> The Republican party had no reason to hold confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland - the votes did not exist to confirm him. The senators are supposed to go to the hearing and then decide whether they think the guy should be confirmed. For you to say he didn't have the votes is to admit it is just a power grab. Why not just hold the hearing and vote against him if you don't like what you hear? The silly thing about this is they could have just gone through the motions, just like they are doing now.