| Topic List | Page List: 1 |
|---|---|
| Topic | Chris' political topic. Where Chris posts super casually about political stuff. |
| Corrik 07/10/18 1:10:10 PM #336: | Just because you say something should apply to something else doesn't really mean much. Should they went ahead with Garlands process? Probably. Would he have passed? Probably not. Republicans probably would have just turned him down. On one hand, the Constitution states a president can appoint a supreme Court nominee. On another hand, the Senate has to approve said nominee. Thus, the Constitution argument doesn't exactly fly. Should you be mad if you wanted a liberal appointment. Sure. Was it a highly politically motivated partisan move. Yes. However, trying to apply it to the midterms to me is just the bitterness of the move talking. For example, you are arguing they should have ran Obama's pick through the process. While arguing they should not do it now before a midterm. You are in fact the one arguing a contradictory stance based on your "constitution" argument. Republicans at least had enough nuance to differentiate the two appointments. With proper context is a presidential election for lame duck president versus a midterm. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik ... Copied to Clipboard! |
| Topic List | Page List: 1 |