- Joined
- Jun 22, 2013
- Messages
- 20,264
- Reaction score
- 28,063
- Location
- Mid-West USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Yes, I changed the title of the included video. Blaze TV's was too "incendiary" for me.
This is Mitch McConnell's recent response to the Democrat "objections" to a speedy SCOTUS appointment:
Points made:
1. Democrats are raising misinformation and threats to prevent a rapid SCOTUS appointment.
2. They say there is insufficient time to confirm a nominee;
3. Other's claim the situation is the same as Justice Scalia's passing and Merrick Garland's nomination under Obama.
Essentially, and as I have argued in the past, the Senate has the Constitutional power to confirm, or refuse to confirm a Presidential appointment.
There is no reason for the Republican controlled Senate to refuse confirmation of a Republican President's nomination, any more than there is any reason to compel Democrats to go along with it. Each Party's Senators may do as they choose within the scope of this Constitutional authority.
Any argument that it should be delayed is simply Partisan confirmation bias speaking.
This is Mitch McConnell's recent response to the Democrat "objections" to a speedy SCOTUS appointment:
Points made:
1. Democrats are raising misinformation and threats to prevent a rapid SCOTUS appointment.
2. They say there is insufficient time to confirm a nominee;
a. At time of video there are 43 days until the November election, and 104 days until the end of the current Congress.
b. Justice John Paul Stevens was confirmed 19 days after his nomination.
c. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was confirmed 33 days after her nomination.
d. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was confirmed 42 days after her nomination.
3. Other's claim the situation is the same as Justice Scalia's passing and Merrick Garland's nomination under Obama.
a. McConnell reminds us that he said "The Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was a divided government since 1888, 130 years ago."
b. McConnell reminds us the next day he also said "You have to go back to 1888 when Grover Cleveland was President to find the last time a vacancy created in a Presidential election year was approved by a Senate of a different Party."
c. That up till then only six times has this situation occurred, and the majority of those times. there was no confirmation.
d. Voter's elect their Party to office to check and balance the other Party. And that the Party that controls each part of Congress does so.
e. That President Obama was asking Senate Republicans for an unusual favor that hasn't been granted in 130 years.
4. That the Democrats state they would do the same thing themselves were they in control.a. In 1992 during Bush 41 Joe Biden, Chair of the Judiciary Committee, declared his committee might refuse to cooperate if a vacancy (on SCOTUS) arose; and
b. In 2007 during Bush 43, Democrats controlled the Senate and Chuck Schumer declared that the Democrats "except in extraordinary circumstances" should boycott any further nominations to SCOTUS.
Essentially, and as I have argued in the past, the Senate has the Constitutional power to confirm, or refuse to confirm a Presidential appointment.
There is no reason for the Republican controlled Senate to refuse confirmation of a Republican President's nomination, any more than there is any reason to compel Democrats to go along with it. Each Party's Senators may do as they choose within the scope of this Constitutional authority.
Any argument that it should be delayed is simply Partisan confirmation bias speaking.
Last edited: