Garland was not put on ice. He was rejected by the United States Senate as it is empowered to do by the United States Constitution.https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/1042838686528942082 …
-
-
-
Replying to @lawrencehurley
Remind where in the Constitution it says all nominees are guaranteed a vote?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @conncarroll
the point being -- to say it was put on ice seems quite a reasonable way of conveying that the nomination was not acted on and instead expired at the end of the session. Otherwise people could get the mistaken impression that the Senate had voted Garland down
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lawrencehurley
The Senate not choosing to vote on a nominee is light years different than smearing a nominee by accusing him of rape. John Harwood, another "journalist" was the one who equated the two.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes
I wasn't responding to that, just the "ice" comment, which seems reasonable. As you nominee, nominations often whither on the vine in the Senate without a vote
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.