there was no "mandate on the supreme court by the people" or whatever

yes but that isn't hypocritical technically because that isn't what they argued last time

they weren't saying "never elect someone in the last few months"

they were saying "if the senate just changed, and the majority is the opposition, then they hold all the cards so we should wait until the next president, so the people have their say [since they voted in the new opposition senate]"

this is very minutia

(this time around they had both the presidency and the senate, so why wait?)

I feel I owe realz for the schooling. Nice place here when people know what they are talking about.

So the first time let the people decide the president the second time was we already have a republican president so the election doesn’t matter? Why couldn’t you argue well you may have it now but we should let the people decide on the senate since “Thurmond rule”

lol I got this information from Barnes

Still super hypocritical

Off to do homework. Out of many one.

> So the first time let the people decide the president the second time was we already have a republican president so the election doesn’t matter
I mean this does logically follow

like I said it is still hypocritical in a way

Not if you apply the Thurmond rule

er I mean to say you are correct

what you are saying logically follows

and I agree there is some level of hypocrisy

Either way I am still fine with packing the court with one more liberal judge

Let the democrats destroy norms for once

but it doesn't bother me all that much for two reasons

1. McConnell had God literally come down from heaven and give him his revenge over the Democrats nixing the fillibuster for judicial nominees

"You will regret this" lol

his literal words

Ah yes the filibuster

2. in 2016, the republicans merely blocked a vote, which they would anyway have won

the fight was over a nothingburger

Yeah but they would be forced to give a good reason

They probably wasn’t one

no not really

Merick from what I understand was pretty non partisan

did the democrats have a good reason for voting against the latest nominee?

Hyper religious

that is

🤮

unconstitutional

Prob not

its not

So judges aren't allowed to be religious?

But they didn’t control the senate

I don’t want my judges hyper religious no

OK well that is not a "good" reason to me