Again when did I say the Thurmond rule was anything more than an opinion that I happen to share? It is Congress's job to approve or deny an appointment.....but nowhere does it outline a time limit. There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about waiting to vote on an appointee until a lame duck term ends. Please show me where they went against the constitution. Again....you can't bc they didn't as there is no set timeline on holding the hearing. All they did was wait it out. If you want to say in your opinion what they did was immoral or something like that then I could agree completely that in your opinion you see it that way just as I have said it is my opinion that they did the right thing. But to say they went against the constitution or that it had no precedent is 100% false as there is no set timeline and what anyone would consider a timely manner given any particular set of circumstances is nothing but another opinion that will vary person to person and circumstance to circumstance. And there in lies the problem with this arguement. So much of it is opinion that folks try to put forth as fact that it just rages on.
Which is one of 3 reasons I am glad he won. Lesser of 2 evils with these 2 horrible choices we had. With him I doubt he will get enough support to get any major policies changed to the point of hurting much of anything, 2nd amendments rights hopefully will not be as much on danger since Clinton will not be able to appoint a SC full of gun control nuts(who knows who trump will appoint or what they will do though), and hopefully he is more heavy handed with groups that threaten the US. Thank got Hillary isn't in there to really screw stuff up though as she would likely get more or nonsense passed than trump will be able to do. Just hoping that whoever comes next from either size is a better choice than either of those.
You're right, not timeline specified although precedent and common sense would suggest waiting years doesn't make any sense. Further, they didn't hold the hearing. Ever. So they're not waiting it out, they didn't hold the hearing. They held it for someone else who was nominated later. You really think that they followed the spirit of the law? Or do you think they found an unintended loophole that was never meant to be used for congress to not hold a hearing?
The only thing I have ever said on it was that they did not violate the constitution. You really want to hash out every time either party has exploited loopholes? That will crash the website as it happens prob every dern day. As I said there is no violation here.....only a matter of differing opinions as to if what they did was moral(I believe it was as it was heavily believed Hillary would have been doing the appointing so no one can say they were just waiting for trump) or if it was not which is just as accurate an opinion as mine. Neither are "right or wrong" it's just all in how the individual feels it should have been handled.
