Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Marsh
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.
|
Just because the outcome is known ahead of time doesn't make it a sham. It's the system functioning as intended.