Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers
Jim ever think the whirlwind reference was a political whirlwind after the right stacked the courts, oh wait that won’t work for your narrative?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
(1) the right didn't stack the court. The right refused to confirm a liberal nominee to replace Scalia. The American people chose to give Senate control to Republicans during Obama's second term, and common sense suggests they didn't do that because they wanted Obama to replace Scalia with a radical liberal.
Elections have consequences.
It was Biden, when George H W Bush was POTUS, who famously (and regrettably, for him) said that if Bush tried to nominate someone late in his second term, the senate democrats should block it. It became known as the Biden Rule. All the GOP did, was invoke the Biden rule.
Is there any reason why the Biden Rule is OK for democrats to use, but not republicans?
Not that long ago, it was assumed that both parties would confirm a president's nominee. That's why Ruth Bader Ginsburg got a ton of GOP votes. That changed when Joe Biden politicized the nomination of Robert Bork. So if you don't like how political it now is, blame Biden.
(2) as to the whirlwind being a political reference, Schumer also said that Kavanaugh wouldn't know what hit him. Was that also a political threat?
Can you answer a question? Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are appointed for life, they are not elected. So please tell me, specifically, what political price you think Schumer was suggesting they'd pay? How does someone appointed for life, face political consequences?
I'll wait for the answer. You have fun with that.
Threaded Mode