Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
Call me crazy, but the last time anyone refused to do their job, they were FIRED! McConnell is NOT doing what the taxpayers of Kentucky voted him to do. First Rate even by low Republican standards, Merrick Garland, should, at the very least, be considered for appointment to the Supreme Court. Another example why the citizens of this great country are frustrated with a "do-nothing" congress. Get rid of all of them!. Even Rubio got caught with his knickers down. Is there anyone in congress that we can trust???
|
Oh, so now that the shoe is on the other side, you don't like it? Democrats insisted that the Republican president wait until after the general election before the nomination of new judge, but it's OK for them to be obstructionists, right?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-appointments/
==========================
During last year of G.W.Bush, Chuck Schumer said:
“We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not. I will do everything in my power to prevent one more ideological ally from joining (Justices John) Roberts and (Samuel) Alito.”
==============================
“It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and
not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed. The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over. …Others may fret that this approach would leave the Court with only eight members for some time, but as I see it, Mr. President, the cost of such a result, the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the Justices four to four are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the President, the Senate, and the nation would have to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President, if that nomination were to take place in the next several weeks.”
— Then-Sen. Joe Biden, statement on the floor of the Senate, June 25, 1992 (an election year)
==========================