You're misrepresenting the alleged narrative.

McConnell straight up stated that American Voters should have a say in whether a SCOTUS judge is appointed. American voters do INDEED get that say, and it's called the Senate. American voters voted majority Republican at that time, which gave the Republican senate the choice of accepting or not. They chose to defer.

It's no different this time whatsoever. American voters voted majority Republican this time. And this time, the President who is putting forth the nominee lines up with the Senate the voters voted for.

I see no "hypocrisy" or anything else. I see consistency. You can certainly disagree with the assessment, and outline why, as Xistenz did, you believe they should have actually given the no vote, rather than deferred. But to claim that McConnell's statements aren't completely inline when applied to both cases is false.

Edit: To take it a step farther, we all knew RBG had been fighting cancer and generally declining health for years. We all knew she wasn't going to live long. Had voters been so anti-Trump in a SCOTUS appointment, then how did we end up with a Republican majority? Voters did INDEED agree to a Trump appointment by stacking the Senate in his favor. In fact, for the Senate NOT to vote in favor of any (qualified) nomination by Trump WOULD be hypocrisy, based on McConnel's statements from 4 years ago.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Sep 24 2020 09:12pm

in 2015 the senate was republican majority. obama was outgoing due to 2nd term ending

in 2020 the senate is a republican majority. trump's future hangs on the election


to call hypocrisy is to ignore basic facts

I didn't hear a single Republican at the time say "You shouldn't appoint a supreme court justice in an election year only if the president and the senate are different parties, otherwise it's fine".

I will say that when RBG first died, my immediate response regarding the seat was, "If Trump appoints prior to election, there'll be riots."

Then I remember that there are already nationwide riots, and here in Portland, those riots have been ongoing pretty constantly since May, and have been off and on since Michael Brown's shooting.

The threat of riot isn't a threat, it's a constant reality. Doesn't matter if the right gives in on literally every point, the left IS ALREADY RIOTING. You've shot the hostage, not concerned about riots or threats.

The larger issue here is Reid busting the need for a 60 vote confirmation. By turning it into a simple majority (aka utilizing the nuclear option), he opened up the opportunity for both the deferral of 2016 and a confirmation here in 2020.



Your statement is meaningless. What voter really gives a shit beyond getting their own way?

If there's any hypocrisy, it'd specifically be from McConnell. And there's none there. His reasoning is equally applicable to why the Senate SHOULD vote for a Trump nominee as to why they should NOT have voted for an Obama nominee.

You may not like it, and you may consider it unprincipled, and as to that, I probably won't argue. But it's consistent, and not hypocritical in the slightest.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Sep 24 2020 09:20pm

is this in the constitution?
My point to this is, if it's not part of law. And Senate sets a precedent then backpedals on its own statement its pretty BS

This post was edited by theCrossbones on Sep 24 2020 09:22pm

The Constitution specifically demands that the President Nominate judges to sit on the SCOTUS. The Constitution specifically demands that any nominee must be approved by the Senate in order to be appointed.

I am unaware of any specified time frames or anything beyond that. Merely that an appointment required 60 votes prior to Reid, then was reduced to a simple majority of 51 votes.

so where is the "back up" for this stall or hold out option?
McConnel and Senate's idea.. so they should stick to it right?

I don't understand the question. McConnell's statements in 2016 were that the voters had a right to weigh in to the decision, and by voting a Republican majority, that had done exactly that, and for that reason, the vote would be deferred.

Using the same exact reasoning, it's easy enough to say that voters not only voted for R president but R majority Senate, therefore a vote is mandated.

Where is any of that in the Constitution? It's not. But I mean, what are you going to do, attempt to get a SC decision on constutionality of both the President and the Senate doing their Constitutionally mandated duties?

If you're trying to wring from me a concession that the Senate should have voted on Garland, it's all yours. I wasn't even attempting to refute that. Merely pointing out there's no hypocrisy whatsoever in McConnell's actions based on his own statements from 4 years ago.

When one time you say it's bad to confirm in an election year, then turn around and confirm in an election year, that's hypocritical.

I care about facts and it seems all you're going on is feelings.

Context matters. No hypocrisy on McConnell's part. Stupidity and hyperpartisanship on yours.

It's very clear you believed Garland should have received a vote, rather than a deferral. Therefore, you believe how it was conducted was wrong.

Yet now you're openly advocating that it be done AGAIN, because it would suit your desires, where last time it didn't.

I definitely see hypocrisy here, but not from McConnell. Perhaps you should do something about that. Like care about facts.

Genius.