Nice article here highlighting the obvious fact that this is all just politics, on both sides, and no statement by any politician means anything:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/...not-precedent/
It does a good job of reminding us not only of McConnell's statements, but also how Joe Biden, then Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he wouldn't consider a nomination by Bush I in 1992 in an election year, and then in 2016 argued fervently that Garland should get a vote.
This is politics. All of it. The ability to influence the law of the land for decades is a big prize, all the more b/c one of the two most liberal voices on the bench can be replaced by a conservative one, though due to the Senate margins it will be a moderately conservative one.
I take no offense at the machinations, it's the system working as it should. I do tire of the language on both sides trying to justify simple politics with some kind of moral high ground, which is humorous and silly.
The easy test is would the other side do exactly the same thing if their positions were reversed? If so, that's just politics, no need to get offended. If this was Schumer and Hillary in power and staring at a likely defeat of one and possibly of both, you think they'd wait and hand that choice to minority leader McConnell and a possible Trump presidency? Uh.... no way in Hades.
I am deeply intrigued by the political possibilities though. Just as the article above does a good job laying out the way it played out in 2016, there's a possibility Trump and McConnell may want to wait past Nov. 3rd for a vote, though it's a risky strategy to put in a pick during a lame duck session. McConnell loses a lot of his power over the weak tea Republicans in the Senate like Romney if he waits.
But hearings take time. Will be an interesting few weeks.
Bookmarks