09-21-2020, 06:15 PM
(09-21-2020, 05:17 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Thanks.
Back to Mickey's statement.
Not acting on a president's SCOTUS nomination is not "normal practice" that both sides do. It occurs with less than 1/10th of 1 % of nominations and the last time it occurred before McConnell did it in 2016 was over 160 years ago.
It is precedent that no SCOTUS has been confirmed when one party holds the White House and the other party holds the Senate. In that respect Garland was "normal practice".
What does the time frame matter? Is it legal and constitutional or not?
Out of this whole SCOTUS thing, what is illegal and/or unconstitutional? That's all that matters. Doesn't matter who says what, who agrees or disagrees, who thinks the other side is a big, orange, meanie, poopy pants. Non of that is relevant.
There is literally nothing to see here other than politicians being their normal douche bag selves on both sides.
