By this reasoning, Dan, you could just whip votes on anything and skip all hearings. Come on.
-
-
-
That would be fine with me. There are times when hearings are useful, but they are at all times solely for the benefit of the Senators - to learn things, to build or erode public support, to get people on the record. And most hearings are a waste of time.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I made that point over & our again though. Give him a hearing and a vote. There was no way Dems had the votes to break cloture. None. And all the outrage & feeling that the seat was stolen would’ve dissipated.
-
I think that is completely wrong.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
While denying Garland hearings was not entirely selfless, it also spared him a brutal gauntlet that was certain to have no prize at the end. Besides, all the whining about hearings now would just be replaced by whining about "Filibuster! Give him an up-or-down vote!"
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The fatuous appearance of it all is just what he wanted to avoid. The partisanship would have been too bald. Basically, Obama called Hatch’s bluff and nominated exactly who Harch suggested theee weeks earlier. And, of course, that was all bs and best not to expose that.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.