Can you find a mention of it as a drinking game from before he claimed it was? Because his classmates were claiming it wasn't prior to him saying it (they said it means the most common usage of that term).
Well obama said elections have consequences and the American people gave the majority in the senate and House to stop obama.
There's no question it would have shifted more to the left by replacing Scalia with Garland... Doesn't mean Garland was a bad potential nominee, he certainly wasn't... but it would certainly have been a win for Democrats, not Republicans... Doesn't mean Republicans should have blocked him... But that also means that there shouldn't be any complaints if Ginsburg, for example were replaced with a conservative justice, or a moderate conservative justice, if you will...
Thing is, Trump will seize on that moment, because he loves trolling the media. So.. I agree.. then the fun will really begin.
Again, it was more about spiting Obama, than about doing what the Constitution intended the Senate to do in the "advise and consent" role....
They have all signed a letter and submitted it to the JC that it was a name of a drinking game during their high school years.
I disagree. As I've pointed out, you don't go on and on about "balance" and then expect the majority to confirm some limp wristed moderate to replace a legend like Antonin Scalia. That was DOA for several legitimate reasons. If McConnell capitulated there, the GOP would have gotten steamrolled in '16.
RIP Scalia... We can agree to disagree... I just tend to think that these things sort themselves out... Look at us talking about how Trump may replace Ginsburg... wouldn't it be nice to have the political leverage in pointing out that we allowed Obama to replace Scalia with Garland? I'm saying not only is it the right thing to do, but it may have actually paid off for both parties in the long run. Of course that's assuming that Democrats will behave in good faith, which is a gamble I would have been willing to take in 2016.
Wrong. It was about what it's always about... retaining power. And if they had actually let Obama replace Scalia (who had just died god's sake) with someone like Garland, you could kiss that power goodbye. If the situation had been reversed, Harry Reid does the same exact thing. You don't screw your own party that badly right before an election. And that is what it has and always will be about. End of story.
There is no such thing as the "Biden Rule." Souter was roughly on par with Kagan, so I'm not sure how another Souter would end up being significantly more liberal.
Oh, so wait a minute......... You mean that after something like that goes public, that might influence people on one side or the other to try and make something up to validate the story of the side they are on? So we might not want to believe everything we read from people who have been quoted in the media? Gee, if only there was a process that the JC had to investigate things like this very quietly to avoid all of this craziness. You know, like the one DiFi s**t all over and instead started this entire clownshow.
Which is why our state in politics seems to be getting muddier by the year... Even when we can't think it can get any worse, it does... I think we should've done the right thing in confirming Garland... I think Democrats should do the right thing now, and at least stop obstructing Kavanaugh... It's disgusting to watch...
