SCOTUS Appointment

[*michaelsean*]

(03-18-2016, 03:24 PM)xxlt Wrote: I noted Reagan nominees were unanimously confirmed. I did not state "every Reagan nominee" or "all Reagan nominees" were unanimously confirmed. So, as usual, you have either misunderstood or deliberately distorted what someone else said. Cheers.

Now, additionally, let's note that Bork was NOT DENIED A HEARING. In fact, I have not taken the time to look this up but I am willing to state with some confidence, "NO REAGAN NOMINEE FOR ANY POST WAS EVER DENIED A HEARING." Feel free to disprove that claim - but it will require proof, and not just saying, "Yes they were."

So, what McConnell is doing in terms of being an asshole is not without precedent. But, what he is doing in terms of denying a hearing is without precedent as far as I know. If there was a precedent for it I am pretty sure it would have been cited by someone by now. And, when Mitch says it has been 80 years since a SC nominee was confirmed in a President's final year he is just straight up lying, or as we used to call it in KY, "He is just Mitch being Mitch."

You are missing the point. Claiming people were unanimously confirmed while ignoring that one was voted down is disingenuous.

The second part of your post, I guess you didn't read what I had to say about this situation, and with your preconceived ideas you just assumed my opinion. (Hint: post #137)

I don't know why you don't like me. I'm like the nicest guy on this board.