LogFAQs > #955139646

LordoftheMorons posted...

Ive never understood the argument that 13 would just be undoing what McConnell did. He unquestionably stole one seat, but not two; Trump filling Ginsbergs seat was a brazen act of hypocrisy, sure, but it was only a theft if you accept McConnells original logic that a president cant fill a seat in the last year of their term.

It can be both. Prior to filling Scalia's seat congress had never taken more than 125 days to vote on a nomination and they vastly exceeded that to refuse Obama a nomination. They let Garland's nomination linger for 293 days. Meanwhile RBG's spot was filled within 27 days, a mere 8 days before a presidential election.

If there is a point at which it is too close to an election to fill a seat, and if that range falls between 27 and 293 days then it can be viewed that two seats were stolen. One because the range as applied unfairly to Garland's nomination, and the second because the range was not considered at all with ACB's nomination.

If there is no consideration period at all, then a single seat was stolen as only Garland's nomination was handled incorrectly by applying the restriction.

If there is a consideration period, but it's larger than 293 days then a single single seat was stolen as only ACB's nomination was handled incorrectly by NOT applying the restriction.

But in between there is a very wide range of days in which both might have been handled wrong because the restriction was applied to a nomination that was too far out and then NOT applied to a nomination that was much too close.

But republican senators insist they did nothing wrong in EITHER case because they are full of shit. Logic dictates that at least one of the situations was handled incorrectly. There is no possible scenario in which both were handled right.

---

~C~ FD
https://imgur.com/dGDfxaw