Rick, while I agree the blocking of Garland was horrible and unethical, it wasn't against the rule of law or of Senate rules/procedures. Constitution does not require Senate to give nominees a hearing or a vote. Should they? Absolutely.
-
-
-
"rule of law" -- "the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws" ... established custom furthering basic constitutional norms is part of this & the "horrible and unethical" actions re Garland broke it
-
There is no law mandating hearings or a vote. How can there be a rule of law for a law that doesn’t exist?
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.