Not only because of the time to Election Day, but also because the president & Senate majority were opposing parties. You're not seriously addressing the argument if you omit that part.https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1227981586936844288 …
-
-
Is the argument that a Congress of the opposite party has to rubber stamp a President's nominee if it's not an election year?
-
The norm pre-Bork was a certain amount of deference, although that norm was not always honored - Nixon had 2 shot down, the Whigs wouldn't confirm Taney. Besides Ike, few presidents got nominations between 1897-1968 when the other party controlled the Senate.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This was the March 2016 interview with Wallace where McConnell raised the precedent again.pic.twitter.com/J7g1rIw6N3
-
Even in that quote he is emphasizing the fact that it’s an election year, not that the senate is under same party control. But this is sort of silly, right? (1/2)
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.