2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,334
- 52,582
- 2,290
I must respectfully disagree. The role of the Senate here is to, "advise and consent." Period. Vet the nominee (ie hearings) and vote up or down. The Republicans refused to do that. That's their prerogative, they have that power. It was blocking a constitutionally nominated person, that cannot be denied. What the Democrats are attempting is the same thing, it's just they don't have the numbers to use the same tactic, so they are attempting to smear his character. Either way, it's an attempt to block a constitutionally nominated person. How am I wrong?They had no need to attack him because they had the numbers. It's still the same game.I seem to remember the Republicans blocking an Obama nominee a little while back. Both sides are at fault and the divided nature of your politics is not going to change.Any process falls apart when half the people involved, are not operating in good faith.
This shambles is caused by the dems being partisan scum.
To suggest that one side is morally superior is closing one eyes to the problem.
Yes, they blocked Obama's nominee, as permitted under the Constitution. They did not attack him or falsely accuse him of moral turpitude.
To suggest that both scenarios are equal is either stupidity, or malevolence.
Both sides play dirty, nobody can deny that.
You don't understand. What the Republicans did was not "playing dirty". It was fully sanctioned by constitutional mandate.
Read the US Constitution, Article II, Section II.
It is assuredly NOT the same game.
You are wrong because Advise and Consent doesn't say they have to hold hearings or vote...... so what the Republicans did is Constitutional and doing their job, even if that means not voting on the guy, they gave their advise...we will not vote, we will wait, and did not give their consent...which is their Right......
The democrats can vote against him as is their Right... making up smears to destroy not only his chances but to destroy his life is vile and disgusting.....