Maxosaurus-rex said:
Mr_Destiny said:
Yes, some nominees were rejected in previous presidencies. I do not dispute that. When I say "universally blocked," I mean Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell literally said they would not accept any Obama nominee, period. Nixon, Reagan, W, LBJ, etc. all had at least one of their nominees voted down or withdrawn, but eventually got another nominee confirmed. The GOP Senate would never have voted on any Obama nominee--that's what made it unprecedented.
If the Dems take back the Senate, I'd support them holding a seat open for the 2020 presidential winner to "get back" at the GOP. But after that, this nominee nonsense needs to stop.
|
It wasn't unprecedented. Even Harry Reid said senate has no duty to consider a SC nominee
|
Saying and doing are two different things. Under GWB, Reid did try a filibuster against Alito even though he knew he didn't have the votes--he got confirmed. 22 Dems voted for Roberts--he got confirmed. They could have blocked them from getting 60 votes but didn't. Nothing close to Garland's situation had ever occurred, so it definitely falls under the definition of unprecedented.
