@Zuluzeit they didn't want to be seen as not confirming a judicial nomination they didn't like, there is some stigma there

I see.

(as long as the nominee is qualified, they will often get more than the partisan vote)

Yeah I know it’s just the reasoning they gave. It’s like they were forced to give one and came up with something that was a total lie. I think Lindsey ghram even said “use my words against me”. I could never support that level of incompetence (in coming up with a rational reason) or the blatant hypocrisy of rationale

it wasn't a total lie

There's a few things in the of senate policy but the whole issue came down to a difference in the outcomes of the 2012 and 2014 elections

there is nuance, and I can explain it, but it is quite minutia

Well I am aware of the Thurmond rule

and another point of irony is that McConnell got his revenge

McConnell is a stickler for the rules

The rule Biden appealed to in the summer of that year the other Supreme Court judge would have died

However the “Biden rule” was appealing to the Thurmond rule

We could just increase the barrier for scotus confirmation to what it once was but that'd require bipartisanship

So it’s like going back on their own position twice

The argument under obama was that a new opposition senate was just elected, and they had the majority, so they should wait until after election

in this case, there was no new senate

it was a republican senate

and a republican president

Well there was the potential of it turning blue after the election

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