They have the power to deny a confirmation but in this instance, they didn't even hold the hearing. It was unprecedented and will go down as a seminal moment in history. Well after the fact of course.
You're in for a treat. Start off with a romantic dinner of wine and Cheetos. What kind of wine goes well with Cheetos
The kind that comes in a box? But wine makes my belly hurt these days. Beer gives me headaches. Whisky is where its at for me.
So had they held the hearing and denied the appointment it would have all be fine? Def not see it that way at all. Like I said I am in no way a trump nor a clinton fan I think they were both horrible choices but I completely agree with how congress handled the supreme court appointment. The timing of the death of Judge Scalia obviously led to this as had it happened 1 year earlier or later none of this would be near the issue it became but as it stands I really do not see how anyone on either side can say this was not the right decision. Had Clinton won she could have still nominated Garland or anyone else and you would not be hearing a word about this from anyone. The only reason it is an issue now is bc Trump won. On the notion that this is unprecedented well that is simply false. While not often final year presidents have made a nominations for supreme court. It has only 1 other time with a president who was not running for re-election and which was when Johnson nominated Thornberry in his last year in office which Thornberry withdrew his nomination bc congress was obviously not going to approve him. It happened 2 more times with Presidents who were in the last year of their first term and were running for re-election.....this was Hoover nominating Cardazo and Taft nominating Pitney both of which were confirmed but both President lost their re-election bid.....obviously those 2 are not the same situation as those presidents were up for reelection vs this situation in which the president was definitely leaving office. This goes decades back and even has the "Thurmond Rule" which of course is not a rule but an opinion from several congressman lead by Thurmon in the 60s that basically says that any outgoing president should not make a nomination in his final year in office. So to say this is unprecedented is clearly incorrect. So while one could argue that congress should have least gone through motions of denying the appointment(which seems pointless IMO if they were just going to vote it down anyways which I guess could be argued with you never know how the vote could have gone but that is extremely at best,) you could also argue that Obama as an outgoing President in his final year in office should have deferred the appointment to the next elected President rather than try to strong arm his appointment through. Now with lower courts obviously since there are many many more appointments there are also lots more examples that you can cherry pick through to support both sides of the argument which comes out in a wash. Sorry....my 2 political science degrees kinda acted up there a little bit I got it reigned back in now.....will try to keep it under control. Haven't been fishing in a while and no turkey hunting so I am getting all twitchy.
more like i ended up with those bc i was "huntin and fishin" to much. Somehow I ended up with a dern pile of degrees......couple bachelors, couple masters and a specialist. Not that any of them are much good for anything.
