Voters don't deserve an answer

[*PhilHos*]

(10-14-2020, 11:20 AM)hollodero Wrote: Will be three.
Also, yeah I think this Garland denial was a step too far. Democrats would probably do the same thing now, but I am not so sure they would have done the same thing back then. For one, the centrist Garland already was an olive branch of sorts. While the GOP just nominates the most conservative judges they can find.

This has nothing to do with party affiliation. I am a foreigner, not a "liberal". But what republicans did to be 6-3 in the SC now was gangster and no retaliation just emboldens the bully to be gangster again and call you a loser. Imho.

If Ted Cruz's numbers are right (and I'm going off memory right now, FYI) there have been 29 times where a vacancy on the SCOTUS occurred during a presidential election year. Of those 29, 22 times happened when the the same party held the senate and presidency. And all 22 nominees were confirmed. The remaining times, different parties held the senate and presidency. And only twice has a nominee been confirmed. 

So, in the entire history of the United States of America, during a presidential election where the current president is a different party than the majority in the Senate, only 2 judicial Supreme Court justices have been confirmed.

Yes, any Republican in the Senate in 2016 that argued that a nominee should wait until after the election who is now voting to confirm is a hypocrite. That said, ACB's nomination and confirmation hearing is not unheard of nor is it unprecedented and it is especially NOT unconstitutional.