A pair of Republican-led House committees voted on Thursday to advance contempt proceedings against Attorney General Merrick Garland for his refusal to turn over audio recordings of President Joe Biden’s interview with special counsel Robert Hur.
It’s written that the Senate may vote to confirm, not that they have to.
If republicans refused to hold the vote because they didn’t have the votes to stop it, Obama should have just sat his pick (not the bullshit “compromise”) to the SC.
Republicans would have challenged it, and it would have went to the SC.
Would it have been guaranteed to work? No, it wouldn’t.
But it would have been better than a year out from the election just fucking giving up.
Can you explain any downside to trying anything more than accepting it?
Source:
Scores of scholars — law professors, historians and political scientists — urged the Senate to at least have a process for Garland as a duly appointed nominee with impeccable qualifications. But some lawyers and academics pointed out that the Constitution empowered the Senate to “advise and consent” but did not require it do so. (Some adding that they thought the Senate still ought to do so.)
Rather than do it and fight the battle that they were able to do it, we ran out the clock talking about if we could.
That’s the main difference between the parties.
Republicans do shit then we try to undo what they managed to get thru.
Dems have the fight before doing anything, and keep running out of time.
The entire premise of moderate politics doesn’t work anymore. We spend all our time trying to undo what republicans do, but they do so much bullshit there’s not enough time for everything, let alone anything’s ng we want to do.
How do people not see that if you’ve been paying attention to politics since at least 2016?
Between the insults, you said I don’t know what happened, then said what happened was the same thing I said?
Is it just because I pointed out Dems didn’t fight or try anything to get Obama his pick?
Or that the reason they didn’t was in an attempt to motivate voters to turn out for someone they don’t like?
I just don’t see anywhere else we disagree, but if you keep the insults up I’m probably just going to block you and be done with this.
If you want a political group ok with juvenile insults, republicans are on the other side of the aisle.
Senate majority leader McConnell refused to even bring it to a vote. And laughed about it. How do you propose that they should’ve fought that?
It’s written that the Senate may vote to confirm, not that they have to.
If republicans refused to hold the vote because they didn’t have the votes to stop it, Obama should have just sat his pick (not the bullshit “compromise”) to the SC.
Republicans would have challenged it, and it would have went to the SC.
Would it have been guaranteed to work? No, it wouldn’t.
But it would have been better than a year out from the election just fucking giving up.
Can you explain any downside to trying anything more than accepting it?
Source:
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now
Rather than do it and fight the battle that they were able to do it, we ran out the clock talking about if we could.
That’s the main difference between the parties.
Republicans do shit then we try to undo what they managed to get thru.
Dems have the fight before doing anything, and keep running out of time.
The entire premise of moderate politics doesn’t work anymore. We spend all our time trying to undo what republicans do, but they do so much bullshit there’s not enough time for everything, let alone anything’s ng we want to do.
How do people not see that if you’ve been paying attention to politics since at least 2016?
It’s incredibly obvious what’s happening…