(11-12-2020 01:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If your argument is hypocrisy--you win---on BOTH sides. The same people saying ACB should NOT be confirmed in 2020 said it was the Senate duty to hold hearings to confirm Garland in 2016. Its politics folks---but if your looking for who to blame over politics entering the confirmation of the qualifications of judicial nominees (which used to be restricted to simply insuring that the candidates were qualified)--then its the democrats that broke with previous precedent with the massive politicizing of the Bork hearings. The insane lengths that the Democrats went to in order to attempt to derail Kavennah nomination raised this behavior to new levels of insanity. The steadily increasing level of partisanship confirmation nastiness exhibited by Democrats since the original Borking (Thomas and Kavannah being among the most stunning examples) has completely changed the character of these hearing and made what happened in 2016 and 2020 the rule rather than the exception. Under the current highly politicized nature of SC confirmation hearings---if you can get an appointee through the process--then your going to do it--regardless of when it occurs within a presidential term. It is now an exercise of pure power.

Probably the fairest answer I could hope for. I appreciate it. I'm certainly with any of you who are indicating that the Bork proceedings were a bad sign of things to come. (Insult to injury that year was the confirmation that you can't smoke weed and later become a SC justice. It'll be a few more generations before we get past that.)