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
This was the March 2016 interview with Wallace where McConnell raised the precedent again.pic.twitter.com/J7g1rIw6N3
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @baseballcrank
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)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @samstein @baseballcrank
I think if we both decided to take a bit of truth serum before our next tweets we'd acknowledge these “standards” are concocted for narrow partisan gains. Do we really believe that if McConnell was in the minority now and Trump got a vacancy, he’d say: we can’t do it! (2/2)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Everybody likes rules, norms, & precedents better when they deliver results they want. That doesn't make them more or less true as rules, norms, or precedents. A Senate majority blocking an opposing-party nominee in a presidential election year is amply supported by precedent.
-
-
Replying to @baseballcrank
So why do you think Grassley and Graham both interpreted the Garland rule to be no nomination in an election year (irrespective of party control) if McConnell was so clear about it?
2 replies 2 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @samstein
Shorter, simpler talking point - but notice that Grassley stressed that this was a decision by the Senate *majority*pic.twitter.com/ov960TO9Ee
0 replies 1 retweet 3 likes
End of conversation
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.