Categories: Culture Wars/Current Controversies, Law/Justice
- Empowerment Equalizer
- Ann Sterzinger
- Craig FitzGerald
- David Heleniak
- Caity & Dan Greene
- Keith Preston
- Bill the Butcher
- Jack Donovan
- Rachel Haywire
- comrade hermit
- S E Pearson
- Rachel Haywire
- Nexus X Humectress
One of the biggest con-jobs the Democrats have done recently is to portray it as if Trump “stole” the Merrick Garland nomination. In reality, while Obama had the right to nominate Garland, in no way did Obama have the right to see Garland actually confirmed, or even see hearings and a vote. It is truly amazing to see how they’ve portrayed this into a huge sham.
The US Constitution doesn’t require “hearings” nor a “vote”. It merely demands “consent”, approval. Sure, that is frequently done WITH a “vote”, and often that vote occurs after hearings. But these steps are by no means necessary. Mostly, it gives the political minority an opportunity to look statesmanlike.
At the time Obama nominated Garland, the Republicans held 55 Senate seats, and the Democrats held 45. At that time, it needed 60 votes to confirm a SC nominee, so to confirm Garland required at least 15 Republican votes, even assuming that all 45 Democrats did so as well.
(Blame the Democrats for their “Nuclear Option”, getting rid of the requirement for 60 confirmation votes for Federal judges, in 2014 as I recall. While that didn’t itself change the number needed for SC judges, it opened the door to making the second change look reasonable.)
Is anyone under the illusion that Garland even had a prayer of getting 60 votes in the Senate? It’s hard for me to imagine that anyone would be so gullible.
It was quite simple. Garland would never have been confirmed, whether hearings had occurred or not. Lack of “consent” doomed that nomination.