At least you're willing to admit it is an unprecedented action. Except that one of those two things has been done an a nearly daily basis since the Senate was created and the other has never been done in the history of our country. No, this is projection. They are two wildly different things and the ONLY reason you're defending it is partisanship. No, I wouldn't, I would insist that Democrat leadership hold hearings and a vote as they have for every SCOTUS nominee in the history of this country.
You're wrong, this has never been done in the history of our country. I don't see where anyone has claimed that this action is unconstitutional or illegal, just unprecedented.
No, McConnell clearly said that no nominee would even get a hearing. You're ignoring this just as you ignored it when the same man stated that the number one priority for the GOP was making Obama a one-term president.
Exactly, which is the reason we have been using the word "unprecedented." Other than the fact that one is done on a daily basis and has been for the last 200 years and the other hasn't ever been done in the history of our country. No, I have a problem with it because it has never been done before, your support is due to partisanship. You're OK with this because the team you decided to support is doing it even though this inaction has never been done by any Congress over the last 200 years. No, I wouldn't, stop assuming that you know what I think, you don't. You don't think anywhere near deeply enough to understand my thought processes.
You do realize that the GOP has been dramatically more obstructionist than the Democrats were in the time frame you reference, right?
I'm sure a blind partisan like yourself would think that. The whole "it wasn't as bad when my side was doing it" argument is childish and you hear it from both sides.
Dude, I have voted Libertarian the last two presidential elections and third party in more than half of those for which I was eligible. My first presidential vote was for GHWB. "Partisan"
Oh I know you consistently say that you are a Libertarian, but your comments betray you. It's pretty clear that you are a closet Democrat, and that's fine, no one is going to judge you....be honest about who you really are. You can say 1000 times that you vote Libertarian, but when you always push non-Libertarian ideology and even anti-Libertarian ideology with your comments, no one that matters is going to believe you.
I know you constantly claim that you are open minded, but your comments betray you. Even when someone is as consistent on the topic of partisanship (which party one supports) as I have been over the last 28 years, you choose to assume something different. I am. You're the one talking out your a$$ about my partisanship when you don't know the first thing about me. I would prefer to vote Republican, as I did in the first election for which I was eligible. I will absolutely do so again when they have reasonable Republicans running for office. My wife is the Democrat in the family, anything else is your mistaken assumption. While I vote Libertarian, I will likely never be in lock-step with any party. I am not a strong partisan, though I fully admit that I have certain ideological leanings. On the political compass, I am almost dead even between right and left with a strong libertarian lean on the Y axis. But you are right, I suspect you will never believe me because people like you are willing to make assumptions without proof and then believe those assumptions even when they are completely inaccurate. This is evident in your discussion in this thread, where you make the assumption that not having SCOTUS hearings is SOP "agenda control" when this sort of agenda control has never been exercised before in the history of our country. And, of course, you don't matter.
I believe the GOP did exactly what they were supposed to. Our government was not designed to pass a bunch of laws it was designed to be in a constant state of stalemate and I'm perfectly ok with that. I fully expect the Dems to oppose to the best of their ability any legislation that is contrary to the desires of their constituency. From my perspective our government needs to spend less and control less which will never happen. The closest we can get to that is to pass as little new legislation as possible.
Except that the GOP did it more than any Congress in history. There is a difference between standard levels of gridlock and historically unprecedented levels of obstruction. Of course you are, you are a supporter of the "party of no." The recent actions of the GOP show that they oppose to the best of their ability any legislation that is proposed by Democrats, which is an important difference from the "desires of their constituency." While these may be congruent in some areas, most of the country is ideologically split, and GOP Representatives and Senators are representing the constituents in their party, not their constituencies as a whole. This wasn't the case in the past. I would agree with you on both of these. However, with the partisan and polarized nature of government today, it isn't possible for bipartisan solutions to emerge. The GOP absolutely refuses to consider anything proposed by Democrats, even when the proposals substantially mirror previous proposals and policies from Republicans (the PPACA being the clearest example). When a party refuses to consider proposals on their merit and governs based entirely on partisanship, they aren't representing their constituents, they are representing their party.
Also, the country will continue to be ruined. Luckily, Democratic politicians advocate for blacks, immigrants and women, so unlike the conservatives there's enough class and cultural dissonance to compromise on their beliefs and find common ground on the other side of the white, Christian, native-born, private school tuition paying aisle.
On a lighter note, you can vote for the dog that will represent Garland on Last Week Tonight's Supreme Court Reenactments. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tug71xZL7yc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> These sketches are only ok but the idea is pretty funny. I would highly suggest everyone watch his show. His segment on the Supreme Court situation isn't on youtube but it was really great. He showed a montage of pundits pointing out that one of the positives for conservatives is that he's in his 60s which effectively means, "don't worry. He'll die soon." Conservatives will hate it but liberals will love it. He did a practical breakdown of the Trump Wall and it was hilarious and unique. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tug71xZL7yc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Unsurprisingly, you find yourself wrong on this issue. The government is built to stalemate when there isn't broad agreement. There's numerous ways they could have designed it to be more efficient, they didn't want it to be efficient and fast moving because then it would be too unstable. Hell his average has him poised for 36 or 37 more turnovers as is.
LOL, well I just combined 2 different responses into one. Ignore the part about James Harden being poised to shatter the all time turnover record.
The obstructionism from Republicans has been unprecedented. Never in the history of this country has a party refused to meet with a supreme court nominee nor take a confirmation vote. Never in the history has a party forced the U.S. to default to get what they want. And until recently...only Newt and Boehner have shut down a gov't to try to extract what they want. It is unprecedented. Boy - you need to learn the fact. Boy. Also, read this: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...an-senators-now-back-meetings-merrick-n546931 It's clear that Republicans are obstructionists and that even their own strategists are trying to get them not to be...but rather kill the nomination after they have a chance to attack him.
Garland must be looking like Scalia right now to the GOP. What the over under on calls to Obama trying to schedule his confirmation?
