• jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    145
    ·
    8 months ago

    That and denying a Supreme Court nominee a hearing. He’s totally OK violating the Constitution.

    “he (the President) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for”

    Although given how Garland turned out at DOJ, we may have dodged a bullet there.

    • cogman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      8 months ago

      Garland was a compromise pick by obama. He was the most centrist republican that obama could find to try and get him appointed. He just wasn’t a federalist society whack job.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        8 months ago

        Right. He put up a candidate the Republicans couldn’t possibly object to . . . and yet they did anyway. This is what you get for trying to play Republicans at their own game.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            That’s the point. If they were being reasonable and honest they would have held a hearing for him, because he’s a candidate they could agree with. They were forced to make a choice to admit playing a cheap game or elect him and give up their possible future of absolute control of the SCOTUS. Sadly making them admit this seemed to not actually sway many peoples opinions, and they only went further if anything.