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]

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

BiasForAction · M

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.