582
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
582 points (98.0% liked)
politics
31317 readers
2271 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
That and denying a Supreme Court nominee a hearing. He's totally OK violating the Constitution.
"he (the President) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for"
Although given how Garland turned out at DOJ, we may have dodged a bullet there.
Garland was a compromise pick by obama. He was the most centrist republican that obama could find to try and get him appointed. He just wasn't a federalist society whack job.
Right. He put up a candidate the Republicans couldn't possibly object to . . . and yet they did anyway. This is what you get for trying to play Republicans at their own game.
They didn't even have a chance to object to him, McConnell blocked him from having a hearing.
That's the point. If they were being reasonable and honest they would have held a hearing for him, because he's a candidate they could agree with. They were forced to make a choice to admit playing a cheap game or elect him and give up their possible future of absolute control of the SCOTUS. Sadly making them admit this seemed to not actually sway many peoples opinions, and they only went further if anything.
Yup, they literally had no objections to him but blocked him anyway. It was probably a reasonable attempt by Obama to minimize damage, since Garland certainly would have upheld Roe and moderated other conservatives on the Court.
But in retrospect, since it didn't work, I think we all would have liked to know what a "swing for the fences" pick plus a media shame blitz on McConnell would have accomplished.
But that was Obama - a politician that was good objectively, but didn't really take any risks or press any advantages out of fear of being labeled extreme, so also squandered a depressing number of opportunities to improve the country.