Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Selective amnesia regarding Ruth Bader Ginsburg's replacement. [I Got Something To Say]

It seems some people have forgotten how Obama's nomination for the supreme court in 2016 was ignored by the Senate as they considered that the next president should fill the vacsncy and now are calling for a replacement to occur before the election.
Will the hypocrisy ever end?


[quote] On March 16, 2016, President Barack Obama nominated Garland to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created by the death of Antonin Scalia. The Senate refused to hold a hearing or vote on this nomination made during the last year of Obama's presidency, with the Republican majority insisting that the next elected president should fill the vacancy. Senate Republicans' unprecedented refusal to consider the nomination was considered highly controversial. Garland's nomination lasted 293 days and expired on January 3, 2017, at the end of the 114th Congress. The seat Garland was nominated for was eventually filled by Neil Gorsuch, appointed by President Donald Trump [/quote]
Selective memory is right... it seems you (and many others) keep conveniently "forgetting" the rule you are discussing was actually introduced in 1996 by not just Democrats, but none other than professional second banana himself, Joe Biden. It's name in the Senate is the "Biden rule" for this reason.

You also "forget" that the rule leaves it up to the Majority Leader to decide if a nominee is to be confirmed or held over during a Presidential election year.
@QuixoticSoul Amazing how it became "informal" each time the GOP has issued it. But, this is exactly what the country has come to expect from both sides. "Rules for thee, but none for me." Perhaps this is why Congress approval ratings remain the lowest in history.
@QuixoticSoul lie to me and tell me that if the roles were reversed right now, the Dems would not be packing the court. We all know they would be. The difference is, the Constitution would be toilet paper by November.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@PrivateHell If the roles were reversed, Democrats would have held a vote for the Garland-analogue in '16. They are way less comfortable pushing norms than the GOP has been recently.

And yes, highly informal - Biden more or less mused about the future in a speech, not even in context of a nomination. How many times has the GOP issued it exactly?
Frank52 · 70-79, M
That's interesting.

Another point that occurs to me is if the Republicans are so convinced that they are going to win anyway, what's the rush? Perhaps they are not really that confident after all.
MarineBob · 56-60, M
@Frank52 why not suspend all arguments until there's a nine member court
Frank52 · 70-79, M
@MarineBob Indeed, why not? I wonder if both 'sides' would agree?
JT123 · M
Trump will be picking the replacement whether we do it now of wait till his 2nd term starts. Why waste time waiting?
gregloa · 61-69, M
Oh but how the Democrats handled the impeachment was ok right. Completely shut out the Republicans. Failed miserably anyway. 😂🤣 they got their forced impeachment though didn’t they.
EuphoricTurtle · 41-45, M
@gregloa please describe the differences in comparisson to the Clintin impeachment.
gregloa · 61-69, M
@EuphoricTurtle you might want to ask Monica that.
EuphoricTurtle · 41-45, M
@gregloa I'll give you a 5 for humour but 0 for content. Wanna give it another try?
I find it amusing that people are finding hypocrisy in this. There is no hypocrisy here if you consider what politicians do versus what they say. Partisans do whatever they need to to acquire power. It would be hypocritical for Senate Republicans to not push for their nominee if they have the votes now and fear they will not have the votes after election day. And a similar point can be made about Democratic Senators and their approach.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@BiasForAction No, there is plenty of hypocrisy. The senate, more than most branches of our government, runs largely on norms and sportsmanship. What McConnel did in ‘16 was unprecedented. Him turning that around in 2020 is even more dramatic. This is not business as usual.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
What are three on this post so afraid of to be showing their dissent? 🤷‍♂️

Trolls? 🤷‍♂️
Frank52 · 70-79, M
@DeWayfarer Not sure I understand this? Do you mean dissent?
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@Frank52 correct and corrected. I'm tired.
Frank52 · 70-79, M
@DeWayfarer We all do it sometimes. 😄
SW-User
Can Republicans get a nominee confirmed without democratic support?
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@SW-User Yes, but there are risks.
MarineBob · 56-60, M
That was the senate's problem, law states it's a nine member court
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@MarineBob That had nothing to do with the senate's "problem".
Judy Garland ?
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
EuphoricTurtle · 41-45, M
@RogueLoner doesn't answer the question. How old was Scalia when he died?
This comment is hidden. Show Comment

 
Post Comment