tigooner said:
The argument for putting off Merrick Garland's hearing was 'the Constitution doesn't say we can't'. The argument for pushing a nominee through with less than two months till the election is 'the Constitution doesn't say we can't'.
You know what the Constitution also doesn't say? How many justices sit on the Supreme Court.
The President nominates; the Senate confirms. There is no constitutional requirement for a hearing at all. None. So there was nothing to put off. It is the Senate's prerogative to not act on ANY nomination of the President for whatever reason. The President's remedy is the next round of elections.
It is beyond stupid for the left to continually bring up Garland as if he was ever going to be on the court under ANY circumstance absent a) a Hillary win AND b) a democrat takeover of the Senate. BOTH conditions would have had to have occurred. Not just one but both. I guess a 50-50 split might have got him there but still, nothing short of all of that would have.
The left makes fools of themselves talking about Garland's nomination like he was entitled to a seat on the court -- one in which he would never have gotten even had his nomination gone forward. But then again, the left believes they are entitled to power at the expense of everyone else.
So those suggesting this is the same thing as 2016, it is not, and no amount of hand wringing or constant restating of lies is going to change that. Obama wasn't going to be President and the Senate (as we now know) wasn't going to change hands. Garland would still be an unqualified leftist cheerleader politician on the DC Circuit -- a place he doesn't belong.
Trump can and should nominate someone and he or she should be confirmed as soon as possible. If its someone who they've had the name of for 4 years (i.e. part of Trump's original list) OR they've been a Federal Judge, it should be a floor vote only. Hearings are political theater and should be done away with. I didn't watch the hearings of Obama appointees because I already know they're unqualified hacks. They're not put on the court to be arbiters of the law but advancers of leftist ideology -- as Garland would be. Trump should put a true justice on the court. He or she may make a decision I don't agree with (my favorite justice, Thomas sure has) but as long as it is made on the facts of the case and the law, I can respect it. Show me a leftist who will say and believe that.
