I listened to BOTH Obama's nomination speech for Merrick Garland as well as Mitch McConnells reply for the GOP. Obama's speech and rhetoric were spot on. Merrick Garland is an impeccable nominee who deserves a vote. Listening to McConnell reminds me of all that is wrong with politics today. I am more and more embarrassed to be a part of the GOP and may switch to Independent as a result. Somehow the GOP wants to claim they are the ones that understand and support our Constitution, but when push comes to shove they honker down behind their political wall. Mr Garland deserves the decency of having an up or down vote from Congress. 

It is no wonder people are disgusted with politics the way it stands today. 

I guess the question to ask is there a reason other than partisan politics NOT to confirm Mr Garland ? He seems to be the type judge that really IS NEEDED. Perhaps others here differ and I would be interested in hearing the reasons he 1) should not even get a vote and 2) why he would be a wrong choice for a Supreme Court Judge given his record. 

Last edited by tennyson (3/16/2016 11:41 am)

Common Sense wrote:

The party of "NO" is the minority party now. Remember Harry Reid stopped most everything while the democrats were the majority!

McConnell says there will not be a vote until the election picks a new president. 

 
So . . . That would be a "NO" from Mitch McConnell.

Senator Joe Biden in 1992: "President Bush should consider following the practice of the majority of his predecessors and not, and not, name a nominee until after the November election is completed.



 

Last edited by Common Sense (3/16/2016 2:25 pm)

Rongone wrote:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, both Republicans, already announced that they wouldn’t consider any nominee from Obama—and he said he stands by that.


Paul Ryan said he supports McConnell and Grassley in their decision not to move forward with the confirmation process.

Senator Orin Hatch said "it's not about the individual. It's about protecting the integrity of the court". Even though he had previously supported Garland's appointment.

Rep. Bradley Byrne, Rep. Brad Wenstrup, Rep. Steve Daines, Rep. Paul Gosar, and several others have all spoken up to say they will not even entertain discussing the nomination.

What do they all have in common? They are all republicans . . . And I'm sure there will be many more who will follow the party leadership to say "NO" to even having hearings on the nomination. Another complete and utter disregard for and abdication of their constitutional responsibilities.

 
The Constitution only matters IF it is in your party's best interests. 

 

Last edited by tennyson (3/16/2016 4:40 pm)