Why did Hatch vote present?
Scottish law precedent.
It’s a filibuster vote. It doesn’t matter if you vote NO, vote PRESENT, or simply don’t vote at all.
To break a filibuster, there has to be 60 YES votes. Any vote that is not a “YES” is a vote to block, even if you don’t vote at all.
My guess is Hatch, who has stood on principle that the constitution does not allow filibusters, probably figures voting “present” keeps his record on voting for a filibuster intact, while also signalling that he opposes the nominee. But it’s really a no vote.
My opinion is we have to filibuster as many judges as the left did to Bush, until it is “equal”. Then we should go back to never filibustering, because the president deserves to have his nominees get an up or down vote.
And if Bush had gotten votes on ALL of his nominees, it wouldn’t matter that Obama can slip some crazy judges in as well. THe problem is that there are so many vacancies because the democrats blocked the votes, and letting Obama appoint people to those judgeships just rewards the democrats.
Because he’s a RINO....!!!
When oh when will the GOP be led by someone with a half ounce of common sense and at least one testicle?