03-18-2016, 05:17 PM
(03-18-2016, 03:35 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You are missing the point. Claiming people were unanimously confirmed while ignoring that one was voted down is disingenuous.
You are the only one missing the point. The fact that one niminee was voted down does nothing to disprove the fact that the Senate back then was capable of cooperating to the point of giving unanimous approval to two of his nominees.
it would be like someone saying "Jim Brown was a great running back. He lead the league in rushing 9 times." then you calling him disingenuous because he did not mention that there was a season when Brown did not lead the league.
You are getting hung up on a meaningless fact that does not effect the meaning of the statement at all. The fact that not EVERY nominee was unanimously approved does not change the fact that the Senate was much much different from today when they will not even agree to consider a nominee.
seriously, how does this fact you are obsessing over change the argument? it doesn't.
