|
|
|
|
|
|
by mrkstu
2547 days ago
|
|
|
Since the Constitution expressly places the approval of judges into the hands of the Senate, that is a bit of a non-sequitur. McConnell took a gamble that paid off for his party- if the voters had chosen Hilary there is a very good chance she would have nominated a more leftist judge than Obama had. In the end it was actually a very prominent campaign issue and therefore was directly a choice before the voters, which in my mind would make it more legitimate in a 'democratic' context than the usual. |
|
|
> [...] if the voters had chosen Hilary there is a very good chance she would have nominated a more leftist judge than Obama had.
Under your logic, they could have just waited for a Republican to become president before they voted to confirm any judges. Granted, that would have been an even bigger gamble (what if they lose the majority in the Senate in the meantime?), and even more justices could die or retire in the meantime.
How many seats need to be open before you would say the Senate must confirm someone? (1? 2? 5? 9?) How long are they allowed to wait? (6 months? a year? 4 years? 8 years?) . How dysfunctional could our government become before your logic implies the need to act?