Believe it or not, the majority of those positions of his are centrist. They only look otherwise to you because you're a radical wacko. This dude was roundly praised by the majority of Republicans during appointments to lower courts, and he's only being blocked now because of gamesmanship.
It's fun to hear you pretend him being blocked has anything to do with him personally, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitzers
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Constitution
President shall Nominate. - not appoint
Senate shall advise and consent. - no timeline
I would like you all to google "The Biden Rule"
Game, set, match.
|
Your interpretation is contrary to the consensus of American legal scholars.
And yea, we should totally ignore the spirit of the US constitution and sabotage our own high court for an entire year because the King of Gaffes said something stupid in 1992 (and you conveniently ignore the fact that he said he was willing to compromise on a moderate candidate, something the current Senate won't even consider with Garland)
As long as the SCOTUS is a 4-4 split it can't do its job. If a Senate gets to completely deny SCOTUS appointments to a lame duck presidency, then our form of government simply does not work, and we have an error in our Constitution that requires amendment. Say Hillary gets elected, why not deny appointment for another 4-8 years if you think the Senate has that power? Because it harms the country, just like it does for the 1 year we're looking at now. But Republicans in Congress don't give a shit about that. They were willing to hold the country hostage over their budget and debt ceiling brinkmanship.
Trump's not going to win anyway. They are just delaying for an even worse nomination from Hillary. And since it's a presidential election year, Republicans will possibly get washed out of Congress anyway.