Garland was never going to say anything in a hearing that would be different from what the most far-left nominee would say.
Carswell, though, was at least presented as a nonideological vote, and as Brian noted, the whole battle then went away until the abortive Rehnquist filibuster (including by Biden!) in 1986, which was a dress rehearsal for Bork.
-
-
To be fair, the only reason the first Rehnquist nomination didn’t go down was exhaustion over confirmation fights and Christmas approaching. And Carswell, you can say is different because he’s so manifestly racist & incompetent. Fortas & Haynesworth are ideological. The ethics
-
Stuff comes up after the ideological stuff
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
All true. Bork was a straight out, “He’s an extremist, we reject him on ideological grounds.” Rehnquist was not that different except that he Den caucus not homogeneous enough then to pull off. Partisan parliamentary parties = predictable partisan justices on the major cases.
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.