Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Hospitalized

[Igel]

28. The election's less than a year a way.

But people misquote what was said--or, rather, they fail to reproduce the entire quote.

We heard the bit about not considering/confirming a SCOTUS nominee in the year before an election. What was omitted widely (by the NYT and a lot of others) was the condition he imposed on that--when the Senate and president are from different parties. Since it's material to the meaning of the proposition it has to be part of the quote--to omit it is to change the meaning. (Not quite as bad as saying, "I do ... support marriage equality," where the "..." replaces "not", but still it alters the material meaning of the sentence. Defending the NYT and others is that at the time the contingency was irrelevant--it was true and therefore omissible.)

The (R) also cited some historical bit about that having held true since some time in the late 1800s. (Whether this is deliberate principle or mere circumstance I'll leave for those concerned about such matters to decide, but I suspect it's convenient "circumstance." I'm also not sure it's anything more than him trying to play CYA.)