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 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @baseballcrank
I appreciate that that is the case now. But can you point me to that being the central argument at the time? I’m happy to consider the record again.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @samstein
Here's a start. McConnell made this point several times (he repeated it in an interview with Chris Wallace in March). So, IIRC, did Grassley & Hatch. 1888 precedent (Melville Fuller-by Cleveland) wasn't just the last time, but the only one. The other 7 times, seat was held open.pic.twitter.com/Yg1i9WlUoB
1 reply 1 retweet 15 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
yeah. i mean, i think it's fair to say that the main argument was, simply, you don't do it during an election year. Which would explain why Grassley, at one point, said he wouldn't do it in 2020 (without an nuance about who controlled the senate)https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/410686-grassley-says-judiciary-panel-wouldnt-consider-supreme-court-nominee-in …
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @samstein @baseballcrank
It was only after the Kavanaugh nomination succeeded that McConnell really leaned into the notion that the standard (which, let’s be honest, there’s not actually a standard) was about senate and the WH being under opposite party control. I know that because I was at that presser
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @samstein
That's wrong. I wrote about this at great length in March 2017, as it was a live issue during the Gorsuch nom https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/03/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-nominee-rejections-politics-has-lot-do-it/ … More from Ed Whelanhttps://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/left-desperate-distorts-mitch-mcconnell-on-scalia-vacancy/ …
2 replies 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank @samstein
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
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.
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.