|
Politics Forum
|
List All Forums | About |
message board home
Next
9/23/2020 12:11:01 PM
 
Reply
or ReplyNewSubject
Section 4: President & Congress Subject: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Msg# 1098568
|
||||||
|
Boils down to same party controlling Senate as the Prez VS different parties between the two. There have been plenty of historic precedents, following each of those patterns. Delay in the Garland example of similar historic cases vs moving forward in the current Ginsburg circumstances matching the historic cases.
Here's a detailed source, discussion many of such cases, from Thomas Jefferson to Obama with Garland, for anyone who wants to get down into the weeds. Its conclusion: "There was, in that sense, nothing unusual about the Republican Senate’s refusal to vote on Garland’s nomination; just as there is nothing unusual about a Senate immediately voting on and confirming a President’s Supreme Court nominee when both the President and the Senate majority belong to the same party. . .This is the accepted norm in American politics and has been almost since the dawn of America itself." (underline added) |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where: Ginsburg was confirmed in less time than you are stating. So why would they not even give Garland a hearing with 9 month to go until the election and now try to push through a a new justice with 6 weeks to go until the election? Ginsburg was not even confirmed in an election year. (96 to 3, by the way) |
