Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
You left out that it is the Senate's constitutional responsibility to accept the nomination and complete a confirmation hearing. Intentional, or by accident?
What it came down was the Senate refused to do their duty, as defined by the constitution of the United States of America, a document they all swore an oath to uphold and defend, so they prevent a sitting President from executing his constitutional responsibility and right. McConnell thumbed his nose at the constitution and extended a middle finger to the Democrats and the majority of American voters. Oh, but it sold well with his "constitutionalist" base, even though it was a direct affront to the very document they claim to love and defend. McConnell could have been compliant, held the hearing and then blocked the appointment. That would have been following the rules and completely above board. But Mitch doesn't play by the rules. He makes his own and only applies the ones that feed his power and ego. See the problem now?
|
I didn't intentionally or accidentally leave that out - I was trying to imply exactly what you're saying - and I like how you framed it. Isn't that exactly what they are intending to do? Or am I missing something (entirely possible!)?
I get what you're saying about 2016, and that they (the republican senate majority) didn't do this, and that's the problem (or was the problem in 2016). Easy to be cynical about that, and frankly, I would support your criticisms about that. No argument from me on your assessment of how that played out.
I just don't see the argument against what they're doing now.........and there seems to be significant objection to what they're doing now. Girlysports may have come close to explaining that a few posts up when she referred to the confirmation hearing as a "sham" - I agree with that to the extent that any political process like this one is a sham. But that's not new, nor is it unique to this senate or to the republican party.