That and denying a Supreme Court nominee a hearing. He’s totally OK violating the Constitution.
“he (the President) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for”
Although given how Garland turned out at DOJ, we may have dodged a bullet there.
Garland was a compromise pick by obama. He was the most centrist republican that obama could find to try and get him appointed. He just wasn’t a federalist society whack job.
Right. He put up a candidate the Republicans couldn’t possibly object to . . . and yet they did anyway. This is what you get for trying to play Republicans at their own game.
That’s the point. If they were being reasonable and honest they would have held a hearing for him, because he’s a candidate they could agree with. They were forced to make a choice to admit playing a cheap game or elect him and give up their possible future of absolute control of the SCOTUS. Sadly making them admit this seemed to not actually sway many peoples opinions, and they only went further if anything.
Yup, they literally had no objections to him but blocked him anyway. It was probably a reasonable attempt by Obama to minimize damage, since Garland certainly would have upheld Roe and moderated other conservatives on the Court.
But in retrospect, since it didn’t work, I think we all would have liked to know what a “swing for the fences” pick plus a media shame blitz on McConnell would have accomplished.
But that was Obama - a politician that was good objectively, but didn’t really take any risks or press any advantages out of fear of being labeled extreme, so also squandered a depressing number of opportunities to improve the country.
He also stacked the SCOTUS by contradictory practices, denying Obama a pick in the last year of his presidency but giving one to Trump. That has had grave consequences for recent rulings since Trump only nominated extreme conservatives.
If you count the elections where it should have gone the other way based on the popular vote, more like 6-3 liberal majority, and arguably even 8-1 with Thomas being the sole holdout.
Trump’s 2016 “win” gave them three justices. Bush didn’t get any nominations his first term (which he only won via the electoral college), and then went on to get two his second term (where he did get the popular vote). So it depends on if you expect Republicans to win the popular vote in 2004 or not if they didn’t already have the office.
Removed by mod
That and denying a Supreme Court nominee a hearing. He’s totally OK violating the Constitution.
“he (the President) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for”
Although given how Garland turned out at DOJ, we may have dodged a bullet there.
Garland was a compromise pick by obama. He was the most centrist republican that obama could find to try and get him appointed. He just wasn’t a federalist society whack job.
Right. He put up a candidate the Republicans couldn’t possibly object to . . . and yet they did anyway. This is what you get for trying to play Republicans at their own game.
They didn’t even have a chance to object to him, McConnell blocked him from having a hearing.
That’s the point. If they were being reasonable and honest they would have held a hearing for him, because he’s a candidate they could agree with. They were forced to make a choice to admit playing a cheap game or elect him and give up their possible future of absolute control of the SCOTUS. Sadly making them admit this seemed to not actually sway many peoples opinions, and they only went further if anything.
Yup, they literally had no objections to him but blocked him anyway. It was probably a reasonable attempt by Obama to minimize damage, since Garland certainly would have upheld Roe and moderated other conservatives on the Court.
But in retrospect, since it didn’t work, I think we all would have liked to know what a “swing for the fences” pick plus a media shame blitz on McConnell would have accomplished.
But that was Obama - a politician that was good objectively, but didn’t really take any risks or press any advantages out of fear of being labeled extreme, so also squandered a depressing number of opportunities to improve the country.
He also stacked the SCOTUS by contradictory practices, denying Obama a pick in the last year of his presidency but giving one to Trump. That has had grave consequences for recent rulings since Trump only nominated extreme conservatives.
scotus should be a 5-4 majority the other way right now.
If you count the elections where it should have gone the other way based on the popular vote, more like 6-3 liberal majority, and arguably even 8-1 with Thomas being the sole holdout.
Trump’s 2016 “win” gave them three justices. Bush didn’t get any nominations his first term (which he only won via the electoral college), and then went on to get two his second term (where he did get the popular vote). So it depends on if you expect Republicans to win the popular vote in 2004 or not if they didn’t already have the office.
this is also true. but thomas shouldn’t even be there, either.