But, wow, McConnell was completely right on the money when he told the Dems "You'll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think." (In response to the DNC going Nuclear in 2013.)
Because this would have prevented the republicans from doing the same when it fit their need... now that's funny.
Republicans had the opportunity to nuke the judicial filibuster in 2005. They didn't.
You just keep digging in, don't you? In late June the nominations had been sorted out (and had been for months), and the upcoming conventions mark the start of the head to head presidential campaign. You think he was including primary season and anything that could be construed as part of the general nomination process? Get real. Obviously in l If he meant that, why the hell hadn't he said something in January? Because he didn't mean that. Hell, it's always election time here. Senate is just as important for SC and thats happening every 2 years. If congress can't do its job because some primary is going on, they would never do a damn thing. That's ridiculous.
Presidential primaries are not "some primary." If you don't want to hold Presidential nominations while the public is actively voting on the next President, then just say so. We can disregard the Biden Rule and hold nomination votes during November and into a possible lame duck presidency. That is, if you think it's so ridiculous to let the American people have a say in these matters.
There is no contradiction past or present with the Republican's handling of Supreme Court nominations. There is well-established bipartisan agreement that vacancies during a Presidential election year should wait until the outcome of the Presidential election. Republicans followed that precedent in 2016..
That is a bogus argument not supported by facts.http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... asnt-been/
1. That addresses an entirely different argument.
2. The Politco states the plain fact that "[the] last time there was a vacancy, nomination and confirmation was 84 years ago." They proceed to opine that "the notion of an 80-year precedent is fundamentally misleading." This is the conceit of the so-called "fact check" genre. They are opinion pieces masquerading as objective journalism.
I find it ridiculous how justice is politicized in the US (elected judges, prosecutors, etc.), especially the Supreme Court. Ideally politics should have no role in this, and supreme court justices should be barely known except by lawyers and scholars.
Counter-argument: these nominations should be political. The exercise of government power cannot be accountable to the people and simultaneously free from politics. It's one or the other.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.