I always love to ask this question of liberals when they bring up the Garland nomination: Since the senate found the nominee to not even be worth holding hearings over, why didn’t the president withdraw the nomination and nominate someone whom the senate might approve of?
How did it go a year of ‘accept my nominee or I’ll leave the seat vacant’? Why were they never angry at Obama for not putting forward another nominee?
To the democrats who say that ‘now SCOTUS nominees are nothing more than political appointees’, I always ask which of Obama’s SCOTUS nominees were anything more than political appointments? I mean, those were the most transparently political appointees that Obama nominated, none of which would stand up to half of Gorsuch’s record.
And if they’re really that upset about laws created by SCOTUS disappearing, why haven’t they taken steps to encourage their party members to return the power of making laws to the only body that constitutionally can do so?
Oh, right, because the voters might take it out on them..
Democracy is always something they support, so long as it is for something they support. Democracy (50+1) for something they don’t support is of course ‘chilling.’
To the democrats who say that ‘now SCOTUS nominees are nothing more than political appointees’, I always ask which of Obama’s SCOTUS nominees were anything more than political appointments? I mean, those were the most transparently political appointees that Obama nominated, none of which would stand up to half of Gorsuch’s record."
This is a good point. Why did Obama put up a throwaway like Garland, and not someone high-profile who actually campaigned for the job, like Tribe?
The answer is: the Reid Rule. They knew all along he wouldn't get a hearing, and that was because of Harry Reid.
What I want to know is - where are all the goddamned books? Where are the tell-alls that explicitly detail Obama's conniving and contrivances, with the aid of ValJar, Boiled Rice, et al.