...of course there isn't any hypocrisy at all... Republicans control the Senate, which has the power to confirm judicial nominees. Democrats did not control the Senate when Merrick Garland was nominated. Garland simply did not have the votes.
Reason provided for not considering a SCJ in an election year was to let the voter decide. But now you are saying that was a lie by Republicans.
No that's not true, because even if Clinton won they could refuse a vote on her pick as well. There was no risk to his move at all. It was unconstitutional. if the tables were turned, you guys would be screaming about this and saying it was unconstitutional.
Issue wasn't not confirming it, it was refusing to even hold a confirmation hearing which should be unconstitutional.
Be real. We all know that confirmation hearings are just show theater. Votes aren't decided during confirmation hearings - we all know that if we're being honest. Confirmation hearings are pointless when you know the votes aren't there...
It's not over until the fat lady sing. The reason for not having them is because there is a chance he would get confirmed and the Republican weren't willing to take any chances.
They are purely a power party now, and they are openly against the rule of law now when that benefits them. Look no further than their silence on paramilitary brownshirt terrorists shutting down a state legislature, and a POTUS even encouraging such. A mafia or cartel model fits the data better than “political party.”
How dare the people rise in opposition to tyranny! While the people are prohibited by the state government from running their businesses and congregating at church... These 'freedoms' are mere inconveniences! Thank God the wimp/simp men of the Democratic party today weren't around in the 1770's and 1780's. We'd be singing God Save the Queen before Rockets games.
Shows how broken the retrumplican party truly is, trying to argue that this isn't hypocrisy. Their argument was that the people (voters) should decide, even quoting Joe Biden.
https://www.inquirer.com/columnists...s-biden-2020-election-mcconnell-20200917.html Even if Joe Biden wins, Trump and Mitch McConnell’s judges could block U.S. progress for decades
Once the filibuster goes, we add more judges. There aren't enough anyway - this has been true for decades. Add more slots, we fill them.
Not just judges, but more Representatives too. Hell, increase the size of the Senate if we can. Make our government harder to co-opt, more expensive to buy, and more representative of the people. The public apparatus may be "too big", but the elected government itself is woefully small.
This is a good idea. I'm for adding one more Senator to each state (that way each state has one senator up for election each election cycle). And definitely expand the number of Representatives. This link shows that each representative was responsbile for about 35K in 1790, abotu 200K at the turn of the 20th century, and about 790K now. That's just way too many people to cover and why so many may feel that they don't have a voice in Congress. I'd like to get it down to about 100K per Rep, but that would leave us with 3,000 Representatives and I don't think we'd be able to do that immediately. maybe try to get it back to 500K per district which would raise the number of Reps to around 600...which is still a substantial increase from the 435 we have now. That would also increase Electoral College votes (if we must keep the system) and likely make it a little more fairer. At that same link, it shows that Wyoming's electoral vote is 3.7 times more impactful on the presidential race than 1 of California's Electoral vote. A bump up in votes would make it harder for one party to game the system. Of course, we could just go to the popular vote.
The Electoral College is going to have its day of reckoning eventually, whether it likes it or not: As for Representatives, I think a hard cap of 100K per Rep is a fine idea, but that should be the ceiling. Let's explode the number of reps. Who says 3000+ people need to be in a room together to vote? That's old thinking. Debates, hearings, and committee meetings can happen virtually. There is no good reason to keep the number stuck where it is unless you are either overly deferential to tradition or you are willfully trying to sabotage our democracy because making it more representative would not suit your aims. Our dumb monkey brains would have the hardest time going from 100 Senators to 150, probably for much the same reason we don't want to go from 50 to 51 states. But those are both great ideas that need to happen.
I would argue the opposite would happen - the more people in Congress, the more the corruption. The cost is the same because each race just becomes cheaper to win if you have to reach less people. But smaller districts means less attention and less oversight paid to each candidate or member, meaning more shenanigans and easier to buy influence. It's the same reason it's easier to buy/influence a local school board member than it is a House Rep than it is a Senator than it is the President. Outside of Trump, virtually all of your biggest corruption scandals tend to be at the local level for this reason.
