They had 54 lost 2 in the 2016 election. Someone left between 2016-2018 leaving 51 and gain back 2 in 2018 =53
Umm...You do realize that doesn't make what I said incorrect, right? I said the people elected a republican senate in 2016 (they did) and they expanded it in 2018 (they did). So what did I say that was incorrect?
1. That was not the primary justification at the time - it's only being floated now as a post-hoc rationalization. I believe McConnell may have mentioned it once or twice, but far more often, he (and every other Republican Senator) justified their positions based on the fact that it was "too close to the election." Lindsey Graham even used an identical situation as a hypothetical during a committee hearing and said that the hypothetical Republican president should not be allowed to choose a justice.
If you consider that an expansion OK it's not what I would describe as an expansion.
I didn't claim it was new. Just that it wasn't the main justification that was used. That would be the proximity of the election. Now that we have another Supreme Court vacancy in an election year, the former primary justification has been laid aside in favor of the passing comment.
I never said I agreed with it necessarily. I said earlier, I don't see why they shouldn't have at least voted on the pick in 2016. I just don't think the Dems should pretend they have a moral high ground here or something, since they would do the exact same thing, and everyone knows they would.
They had 51 in 2016, they got 53 in 2018. Yes, I do consider that an expansion.
I'm not sure what makes you so certain of this. They never did it before. And they would have certainly lost my vote had they tried. Now that the Republicans have gone there first though, all bets are off. I'd still prefer a return to the status quo (re-instating and codifying the 60-vote threshold for judicial nominees of all types, as well as prohibiting committees from unilaterally holding back Senate responsibilities.), but I'd hardly fault the Democrats for using the Republicans own tactics against them.
Most of the people on both sides are hypocrites and career politicians who just play politics. There isn't many that really uphold the constitution at all, if any. Right now, I pretty much just have to choose the lesser of the two evils.
I
True, though it could be argued that that was because the Republicans decided they would filibuster every nominee that Obama made regardless of qualifications. It was a misguided response to be sure, but the Republicans were engaging in systematic obstruction of the function of the judicial system and showed no desire to compromise. Personally, I think they should have toughed it out and campaigned hard against the obstruction in 2014. The elimination of the filibuster was likely a significant contributor to the Republican landslide that year.
That's one heck of a post-hoc rationalization IMO. How could he not see that coming? Sure, not the specifics, but he had to know the Democrats were going to fight tooth and nail against any nominee if the Republicans won in 2016 after the obstruction of Garland.
1. It's not new. It came up in her confirmation hearings for the 7th Circuit as well.
The only attack on her faith I see in that video is a reference to one analyst calling her a "fake Catholic" - and that's a quote on the scrolling banner out of context. It's over the line, I agree, but a single analyst at MSNBC doesn't qualify as "Democrats."
