Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

FBaggins

(26,727 posts)

9. Still no

Reply to Chasstev365 (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 6, 2017, 10:37 PM

Dec 2017

Nobody expected Garland to get past the Senate, including President Obama. He was nominated so that Republicans would have to own voting him down.

Democratic senators didn't want him to be confirmed, because they expected Hillary to win the White House and Democrats to retake the Senate. We would therefore have a far more progressive supreme court nominee who we could confirm.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

11 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Remember when McConnell denied Marrick Garland his constitutional right to be on the Supreme Court [View all] Chasstev365 Dec 2017 OP

SC Court still_one Dec 2017 #1

He had a constitutional right to be on the SC? FBaggins Dec 2017 #2

I think we all know what he means lame54 Dec 2017 #3

I think the op meant what he wrote. Why would you think differently? Nt kelly1mm Dec 2017 #5

Because i give him the benefit... lame54 Dec 2017 #7

Then the op should have wrote that. I think it unlikely that the Republican kelly1mm Dec 2017 #8

As Ruth Bader Ginsberg put it on the issue of the courts forcing the Senate to consider Garland PoliticAverse Dec 2017 #11

Oh, OK: Let's be technical: Chasstev365 Dec 2017 #6

Still no FBaggins Dec 2017 #9

No, because the Senate even if it had a vote could have voted no. It is not like kelly1mm Dec 2017 #10

No, because no one has a constitutional right to be on the SC. He may have kelly1mm Dec 2017 #4