Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Mitchell Tells Senators There's No Case Against Kavanaugh
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="USincognito" data-source="post: 73255812" data-attributes="member: 21511"><p>That is an absolute falsehood. Perhaps there are some examples from very late in a fourth year or during lame duck status, I don't know, but there is <strong>NO</strong> precedent for refusing to even hold hearings for a year. In fact that closest you can get to a similar situation was in 1852 when Justice McKinley died Millard Fillmore's efforts to nominate a replacement were held up by the Senate until the election. </p><p></p><p>McKinley died in July. Scalia died in February. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's a non sequitur because there is no requirement, provision or, well, anything that says a president cannot nominate and have, at the very least, hearings in their final year in office. Thus your response does not follow the fact that Judge Garland was nominated and Mitch McConnell single-handedly blocked the nomination for a year. Your comment simply wasn't germane. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, I actually understand that the ranking minority member of the judiciary committee (Sen Feinstein), while powerful, has very little control over the agenda; unlike the committee chair (Mitch McConnell) who had all the power of whether a judge even get's a hearing, much less a vote.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="USincognito, post: 73255812, member: 21511"] That is an absolute falsehood. Perhaps there are some examples from very late in a fourth year or during lame duck status, I don't know, but there is [B]NO[/B] precedent for refusing to even hold hearings for a year. In fact that closest you can get to a similar situation was in 1852 when Justice McKinley died Millard Fillmore's efforts to nominate a replacement were held up by the Senate until the election. McKinley died in July. Scalia died in February. It's a non sequitur because there is no requirement, provision or, well, anything that says a president cannot nominate and have, at the very least, hearings in their final year in office. Thus your response does not follow the fact that Judge Garland was nominated and Mitch McConnell single-handedly blocked the nomination for a year. Your comment simply wasn't germane. No, I actually understand that the ranking minority member of the judiciary committee (Sen Feinstein), while powerful, has very little control over the agenda; unlike the committee chair (Mitch McConnell) who had all the power of whether a judge even get's a hearing, much less a vote. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Mitchell Tells Senators There's No Case Against Kavanaugh
Top
Bottom