@blatham,
blatham wrote:
Quote:as they argued, USSC appointments by lame duck presidents in an election year are rare.
No law. no rule, no constitutional support uphold how McConnell acted in this circumstance. He merely acted as he did because he had the power and saw the possibility it might work to deny Obama a SC appointment.
You are correct. You also (very significantly and somewhat deceptively) omitted the fact that no law or constitutional provision prevented his actions. What was done was entirely within the discretion of the Senate Majority Leader, and he acted in keeping with most (not all) previous precedent.
blatham wrote:
Quote:in view of the forthcoming election and the prospect of a possible Republican President and larger republican majority in the Senate (both of which occurred), Garland was not an acceptable choice for them.
Here's where you get it right. Garland became suddenly "unacceptable" simply and only as a consequence of McConnell figuring he could get away with destroying Senate norms.
That may well be true. However, where is it written that the acceptability of someone or something must be completely independent of the circumstances that attend it?
Once again you are projecting your own prejudices or the otherwise valid, independent judgments of others, and faulting them for not sharing your point of view.
