(11-12-2020 11:23 AM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  

(11-12-2020 10:38 AM)BlazinBham Wrote:  What the GOP did regarding the nomination was no different than what’s happened historically.

If the Senate and potus share the same party, The nomination gets approved. If they don’t match, the nomination confirmation doesn’t happen. Obama finished with a GOP Senate. There’s nothing more to discuss in that regard to SCOTUS.

Anybody that argues with you otherwise, is irrational.

I don't think you're intentionally misrepresenting history here, as media and politicians have gone back and forth on this to a ridiculous degree, but I'm curious as to how you explain Kennedy's 1988 confirmation by a Democratic-majority Senate, the uncontested 1956 appointment of Brennan by Eisenhower when the Democratic-majority Senate was out of session (confirmed in 1957), or the two justices confirmed in 1888 by a Republican-majority Senate while Democrat Grover Cleveland was seeking a second term.

There very easily could be some circumstances that make these different, but other than Reagan already being in a second term, they aren't obvious to me. Now, if the argument is that we haven't faced this situation since American politics have become as partisan as they are now, I can definitely see how times like this could set a new precedent.

EDIT: Also, why does it seem like everyone in this thread has to end their posts with something like, "And if you think otherwise, you're an idiot"?

If you are referring to me, I didnt do that. I stated the truth. If you REPEAT the LIES that what happened in the ACB case was ANY DIFFERENT than what has happened historically, then you likely do have your nose up Maddows ass. Because that would be the only explanation as to why that person doesnt know any better. That includes Kamala, who lied about what Lincoln said and did.