History Is on the Side of Republicans Filling a Supreme Court Vacancy in 2020

Trump has devolved so low that he struggles to complete a WORD, much less a sentence!

 

Again, he isn't saying much.

 

History was on the side of Obama in 2016.

But he was a black man so the Republicans could not allow him to nominate a supreme Court Justice in his final year. Only white presidents are allowed to do that.

 

I think anytime politicians are being honest with their sleaziness, it's better than them lying about their sleaziness.

Also, politicians are getting a lot more bold about their shenanigans. They get re-elected at a 90%+ rate, despite the constant flip-flopping opinions, based on what argument is best for the "team." Why shouldn't they be up in our faces with their ways? We don't mind. If we did, we'd switch them out for some fresh voices in DC.

 

You know had McConnell held a vote on Garland (which would've got shot down based on Republican advantage in the Senate) they could've still got their way and wouldn't look like hypocrites now.... anything other than saying basically "I know what I said then but that was then and this is now" is just pathetically transparent attempts to gaslight Republicans supporters into believing they're the victims

 

Guy who made fun of a crippled guy's illness offered to pay supporters bail guy who cheated on pregnant wife with a porn star then called her "horseface" on twitter guy who said "it is what it is" or "Bob this things a killer it's worse than the flu" then went out a week later in front of his supporters and said "this is just like the flu" or said Biden should have a drug test before the debates or "if you take out the blue states Covid deaths are good" while he's supposed to be the president of all the states? What about the "get those sob's out of the game" or "I like my war heroes not captured" ....

I dont blame you for voting for who you want to for any reason whatsoever but I hope your reasons are a lot better than "they all suck"

 

Ted Cruz cited Ginsburgs quote saying the Senate should do something regarding Garland as a reason they'll now do something........

Republicans will get the nominee through but I dont think they'll come away unscathed from this because in hindsight McConnell should've just held a vote on Garland so it could've been shot down. Since they didn't I believe they'll take some amount of pr hit for McConnells needless shortsightedness

 

Once again I wholeheartedly agree with what you say..... what's that saying "great minds think alike"

That's my biggest deal about this whole thing it's so transparent what's really going on the only real way to handle this is just to be honest imo anything else just insults people.

 

In reality, it was the honest thing to do. Of course he was playing politics. That's the job of a politician. Why waste taxpayer money on pretending to vet someone? Don't politicians pretend enough? Their primary job is to pretend they care about Americans.

 

Only if Covfefe counts too. ( I couldn't help myself).

 

Had he said that instead of the canned line "give the American people a voice" I'd agree. I see what your saying though and it's an interesting different perspective

 

Perhaps. Honestly, an open seat would probably be the biggest boost he could hope for when it comes to votes.

 

He's not up for reelection in 2020, and he voted to convict Trump and remove him from office, so I don't think that's his reasoning.

 

Thanks for the link, allowing me to be more accurately informed. With history being so definitive on this question, though, it makes me wonder how McConnell could have so bungled the P.R. to be thought of as being a hypocrite, rather than just as following the long-established, if hypocritically-seeming, Senate precedent. Is it also a false impression I've rec'd from the media that McConnell is being seen broadly by Americans as doing an, "about-face," on the issue?

Maybe it's just the way McConnell defends his postures? We all are aware of the way facts can be parsed so as to give very misleading impressions. Therefore, after someone's been guilty of this once (& I'd have to include McConnell in w/ that number), it casts doubt in my mind on any future statements by that person which seem even to hold the potential for being similar twistings of truth (I'm referring to the article's quote of McConnell, "You'd have to go back to 1888..."). If instead, McConnell had said, unequivocally, "Over the many times there's been a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year & the Senate majority has NOT been the President's party, the seat has been left open, an overwhelming majority of the time, for the election's winner to fill," I would anticipate that claim would be fact-checked, even by left-leaning news outlets (thereby bolstering McConnell's case). And if I heard no correction by, say, PBS of McConnell, I would presume his words to be (not just technically, "true," but) the TRUTH.

I'm interested in your perspective on this. Let's include the even more striking P.R. blunder of Lindsey Graham, who is on tape from 2016, multiple times, saying that if we were to find ourselves in precisely the situation that we are now in, he would NOT vote to confirm a new member of the Supreme Court, nor would the Senate move to confirm one. How can HE not be responsible for any negative press he gets over this (particularly as he now chairs-- I'm not sure if this, likewise, was the case in 2016-- the Senate Judicial Committee, in charge of passing on judges to the full Senate for a vote)?

I'm looking forward to getting your take on this.

 

I'm not one to call McConnell a hypocrite over this. He simply lied back in 2016 regarding the reason he blocked Obama's nominee.

McConnell's quote in the National Review is only off by a century.

Anthony Kennedy, an R nominee, was confirmed by a D Senate on Feb 3, 1988 - a Presidential election year.

Pffffttt.... Good For You, and Dan McLaughlin and the National Review.

 

Could you please provide proof you've shown any faith or respect for Republican senators in recent memory? Otherwise that proclamation rings hollow...

 

"Nineteen times between 1796 and 1968, presidents have sought to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential-election year while their party controlled the Senate. Ten of those nominations came before the election; nine of the ten were successful"

yeah.. what year do you think that one exception out of the ten was?

There's a reason why people are calling them hypocrites, it's literally the same senators

 

This is why the founders intended for US Senators to be appointed, not elected. The Senate should be above the political fray, not in the middle of it.

Additionally, it was the Democrats who lowered the requirements for Presidential nominations from 60 to 51, to which McConnell said this:

 

History Is on the Side of Republicans Filling a Supreme Court Vacancy in 2020
Not to mention the Constitution.

 

After our conversation I made a point of watching Trump speak at his MAGA rally last night in Pennsylvania and he had no problem forming coherent sentences. In fact he performed real well.

I don't think anyone is voting for or against either one of those men based on their madd oratorical skillz, but that's beside the point. Biden's rapidly deteriorating mental condition is an issue for a lot of people and it's already a selling point Trump is using against him. It think this has also been a liability for Biden, his handlers and his supporters, too. IMO, Biden's inability to get out and compete on the campaign trail is contributing to the lack of enthusiasm he is generating, and that could be a critical factor in this election as it was for Clinton in 2016.

 

A hollow, partisan and unpersuasive talking point.

The Senate exercised its constitutional prerogative not to consent to Obama's pick, and it didn't owe you, Obama or anyone else a hearing.

Nevertheless, Leftists and Demokrats are butthurt today because

1) Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election and with it the privilege of nominating Scalia's replacement

and

2) Her Holiness RBG didn't have the good sense, prudence and loyalty to you and the rest of your comrades on the Left to retire between 2009 and 2013 while Obama was president and Demokrats controlled the Senate

 

Uh in 2016 the democrats told us they wanted their pic in an election year. We know without a doubt they would do the same today if the situation was reversed. Elections have consequences as Obama so eloquently said.

 

Good post, but I disagree. Ordinary American Republicans and Democrats do not vote for Senators to help the opposition fill seats on the federal bench.

 

Lindsey Graham is a professional politician. Casuistry is part of the job.

 

Now it's in the dictionary - so it counts.

https://www.dictionary.com/e/pop-culture/covfefe/