WTF: Voting on SCOTUS nominee in an election year was not our position!

[In It to Win It]

I've been reading a lot of op-eds and basically says "sure, Republicans are being hypocrites but so are Democrats." They basically lay out that Dems are hypocrites because Dems wanted to have a vote on a SCOTUS nominee in an election year but now Dems don't. Dems are breaking with that position.

EXCUSE THE FUCK OUT OF ME? Our position was that the President nominated a reasonably qualified nominee and that nominee deserves a vote because there is a vacancy on the court and he's qualified, not because it's an election year. Give the guy a vote. If you don't like him, vote not to confirm. The GOP had the majority. They could have done that. But at least he gets a vote! The nominee himself was a compromise. Merrick Garland was picked specifically because Republicans suggested him because he was a moderate. I'm sure Barack Obama would have nominated someone that he thought was more liberal if he thought he could get him/her confirmed.

What Republicans did to Merrick Garland's nomination was disgusting! It was pure fuckery! Once upon a time, I considered certain Republican ideas. What they did with Merrick Garland is the reason the GOP lost me FOREVER! I stopped thinking anyone of them were reasonable. They block Merrick Garland's nomination not because of Merrick Garland but because Merrick Garland had the unfortunate luck (and greatest honor) of being chosen by Barack Obama. Despite what Lindsey Graham might think, what they did to Judge Garland's nomination was far worse than what Dems did to Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation [where was that energy during Merrick Garland's nomination!].

Because they fucked with Merrick Garland's nomination, FUCK THEM! FUCK THEIR "RULES"! FUCK THEIR NOMINEES!

[Bev54]

1. It is not really even about an election year

it is more about timing, with it being during the election itself, when people are already voting. It shows the repubs desperation, the only power they have left.

[joshcryer]

2. The "election year" thing is a distraction, this shit is happening...

...weeks leading up to the election. It's a completely different ball park.

And the courts will need to be packed to resolve this.

It is the only reasonable outcome.

If Biden wins it all he needs to act immediately to do this.

[Dfwguy99]

3. Moscow Mitch changed the rules of the game

History will show that Moscow Mitch changed the rules- The only thing we can do is change the rules again..but this time- with fixed rules.Making scotus 13 justices- to equal the 13 Federal courts..and with a set term (18 years is popular) -with an option to be re-nominated.
We really need to name this amendment after Mitch...serves that little toad right.

[lame54]

4. And the reason they gave is...

The voters get to decide

Their new message is F the voters

[Baitball Blogger]

5. If you listened to the hearing today, they have, again, changed the goal posts.

This brand of Federalist Republican operates like a cult. Now they claim that you have to have the president AND the senate controlled by the same party in order to get a Supreme Court pick.

THAT's why they are afraid of the Democrats packing the courts. Because we are headed for just that scenario.

[In It to Win It]

6. That made me want to rip my hair out!

I saw an interview with Joni Ernst a couple weeks ago. In that interview (or maybe it was with voters asking her questions), that's the point that she made, that you have to have the president AND the senate controlled by the same party in order to get a Supreme Court pick.

I had hoped that they would have drove that point home to make her admit that basically the "election year" excuse were pure bullshit then.

I've heard someone else say, who I think was Tom Cotton but I'm not completely certain, that basically the American people made the decision when they elected Trump and then doubled down and expanded the GOP senate in 2018.

[Baitball Blogger]

7. The way they twist things is something that should concern anyone, especially since their

Supreme Court pick is a strict constructionist. The Constitution says nothing about the Senate AND the president having to be part of the same party. It says that the president picks the nominee and the Senate SHALL provide that hearing.

I don't know the exact wordage, but I hope someone asks that strict constructionist, Barrett, how she feels about that interpretation. Does she agree with Cruz? Or, as a lawyer, does she sense that it's political, not legal?