Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
It started further back than that. Bork and Thomas nominations were political shit shows.
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...-maybe-forever
"The nomination changed everything, maybe forever," says Tom Goldstein, publisher of the popular SCOTUSblog, which extensively covers the Supreme Court. "Republicans nominated this brilliant guy to move the law in this dramatically more conservative direction. Liberal groups turned around and blocked him precisely because of those views. Their fight legitimized scorched-earth ideological wars over nominations at the Supreme Court, and to this day both sides remain completely convinced they were right. The upshot is that we have this ridiculous system now where nominees shut up and don't say anything that might signal what they really think."
And Thomas gets to remain on the bench because this is a free country, and his wife has as much right as anyone else to petition the government. |
Bork? Robert Bork who started the Saturday Night Massacre? And because one blogger calls him brilliant you believe he is the standard bearer for Scotus nominations?
So how about McConnel blocking Garland but barrelling through Amy Barret, perhaps even weaker than Kavanaugh, who I doubt if he even had any judicial experience. Save your breath, I already know that Scotus justice need not have any prior judicial experience nor for that matter even need a law degree.
Didn't Bush 2 nominate a woman who was working for him for the Scotus, but the laughter got so loud he withdrew the nomination?