70
submitted 7 months ago by vegeta@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] MrVilliam@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago

Senate majority leader McConnell refused to even bring it to a vote. And laughed about it. How do you propose that they should've fought that?

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

It's written that the Senate may vote to confirm, not that they have to.

If republicans refused to hold the vote because they didn't have the votes to stop it, Obama should have just sat his pick (not the bullshit "compromise") to the SC.

Republicans would have challenged it, and it would have went to the SC.

Would it have been guaranteed to work? No, it wouldn't.

But it would have been better than a year out from the election just fucking giving up.

Can you explain any downside to trying anything more than accepting it?

Source:

Scores of scholars — law professors, historians and political scientists — urged the Senate to at least have a process for Garland as a duly appointed nominee with impeccable qualifications. But some lawyers and academics pointed out that the Constitution empowered the Senate to "advise and consent" but did not require it do so. (Some adding that they thought the Senate still ought to do so.)

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now

Rather than do it and fight the battle that they were able to do it, we ran out the clock talking about if we could.

That's the main difference between the parties.

Republicans do shit then we try to undo what they managed to get thru.

Dems have the fight before doing anything, and keep running out of time.

The entire premise of moderate politics doesn't work anymore. We spend all our time trying to undo what republicans do, but they do so much bullshit there's not enough time for everything, let alone anything's ng we want to do.

How do people not see that if you've been paying attention to politics since at least 2016?

It's incredibly obvious what's happening...

[-] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Not “may”, the wording is “shall” and “with””. And while I would have rather they try to end run around the road block, shall and with have specific meaning in legal documents that is much less wishy-washy than “may”

this post was submitted on 16 May 2024
70 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19223 readers
2961 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS