I don’t agree. Using procedures to get what you want in Congress has been in use since the founding of the country. Thomas Jefferson used them to keep Aaron Burr from becoming VP because Burr tried to game the system to become president. I can go through just about every Congress and find times where procedures were used to game an outcome. That’s called parliamentary maneuver and whatever you think of it it’s basically written into the system. Dirty Harry gamed the system to destroy the filibuster for everything except S.C. justices....the Republicans just took it a step further. Garland wasn’t the first federal nominee to be played that way....only the first S.C. justice nominee to have it done. Finally there is no comparison between using procedures to get you way and intentionally destroying someone’s reputation and life as the democrats have done repeatedly. BTW yes Trump does it but he’s Republican in name only. He’s a democrat played in NY democrat politics his whole life.
The crazy thing is the dems are acting like the Republicans kept one of their left wing locos off the bench. Garland wasn't an awful choice and I was actually surprised that barackmehd at least tried. Bottom line @Winston1 is right, nothing really dirty about keeping with precedent.
Shane, it broke precedent, when the republicans postponed the confirmation hearing, that's never been done before. Where do you draw the line? What's to keep Congress from postponing, 2, 3, 4 years?.. now, a new precedent has been set, it'll come back to bite them someday.
I don't think so. I dont think outgoing presidents have nominated justices and that was the carrot. The prize for winning the election. We will have to wait and see if the Republicans respond with something this dirty
I was going off of what winston and ocean said, I don't really know,.. like you said, we'll have to wait and see.
Do some research on this dude. Look at his history and background and look at what a lot of his friends say about him. Shouldn’t a judge be impartial? How in the hell is that supposed to be impartial when the first thing out of his mouth was a tirade about a conspiracy theory that the Clintons orchestrated a political hit on him for revenge.
And you need to look at his judicial record to determine this. Are you saying that Sotomayor, Ginsberg and Kagan are "impartial" and keep their politics out of their decisions?