Trump supporters-- which of the following is true?

[GeneralMacArthur]

Please pick one of these options.  I expect option 3 to be the most popular and for Trump supporters to backwards-rationalize the 2016 unconstitutional stonewalling with some new-fangled reason that was never discussed at the time.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

The rationale is simple.
In 2012, the people elected a Democratic President. In 2014, they elected a Republican Senate. The verdict was split, and so it was resolved in the election, where a Republican President and Senate were elected.
Since the Senate and Presidency are both Republican, there's no illegitimacy in nominating a Supreme Court Justice now, especially since Barrett is so clearly well qualified.

[Badger]

The rationale is simple.
In 2012, the people elected a Democratic President. In 2014, they elected a Republican Senate. The verdict was split, and so it was resolved in the election, where a Republican President and Senate were elected.
Since the Senate and Presidency are both Republican, there's no illegitimacy in nominating a Supreme Court Justice now, especially since Barrett is so clearly well qualified.

Liar. That elected senate abrogated its elected duty to allow a vote.

"Power, power, power! We can't win enough votes anymore, so f##k democracy"

Liar.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

The rationale is simple.
In 2012, the people elected a Democratic President. In 2014, they elected a Republican Senate. The verdict was split, and so it was resolved in the election, where a Republican President and Senate were elected.
Since the Senate and Presidency are both Republican, there's no illegitimacy in nominating a Supreme Court Justice now, especially since Barrett is so clearly well qualified.

Liar. That elected senate abrogated its elected duty to allow a vote.

"Power, power, power! We can't win enough votes anymore, so f##k democracy"

Liar.

The Senate has no obligation to confirm a nominee before the election. It may do so if the nominee is in accord with the Senate majority, it may delay until after the election to allow a clear resolution.

[Badger]

The rationale is simple.
In 2012, the people elected a Democratic President. In 2014, they elected a Republican Senate. The verdict was split, and so it was resolved in the election, where a Republican President and Senate were elected.
Since the Senate and Presidency are both Republican, there's no illegitimacy in nominating a Supreme Court Justice now, especially since Barrett is so clearly well qualified.

Liar. That elected senate abrogated its elected duty to allow a vote.

"Power, power, power! We can't win enough votes anymore, so f##k democracy"

Liar.

The Senate has no obligation to confirm a nominee before the election. It may do so if the nominee is in accord with the Senate majority, it may delay until after the election to allow a clear resolution.

Power obcessed democracy fearing liar.

[Pericles]

Yeah, McConnell already has an excuse prepared for this that the 'rule' only applies when the Senate is not controlled by the President's party.

[GeneralMacArthur]

"We didn't say this in 2016, but actually the rule is that Supreme Court nominees can't be approved in years whose digits add up to an odd number.  2020's digits add up to an even number so it's fine."

Any arbitrary reason will satisfy you people.  You don't care.  All you want is to win.

[Santander]

I think there should be a gentleman's agreement (yes, in the United States Senate, I know) not to confirm nominees after both parties' conventions. Any time before then, they should have a vote.

[VAR]

Option 1.

I think there should be a gentleman's agreement (yes, in the United States Senate, I know) not to confirm nominees after both parties' conventions. Any time before then, they should have a vote.

I agree with this 100%.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Everyone is getting this wrong: it's not about whether there is a Presidential election, it's whether there is a Summer Olympics.

[Bismarck]

I’m not sure if I count as a Trump supporter but I think McConnel was wrong to not hold hearings on Garland. Should’ve held hearings and voted him down. Trump has every right to appoint a new justice now.

[Stranger in a strange land]

The rationale is simple.
In 2012, the people elected a Democratic President. In 2014, they elected a Republican Senate. The verdict was split, and so it was resolved in the election, where a Republican President and Senate were elected.
Since the Senate and Presidency are both Republican, there's no illegitimacy in nominating a Supreme Court Justice now, especially since Barrett is so clearly well qualified.

Liar. That elected senate abrogated its elected duty to allow a vote.

"Power, power, power! We can't win enough votes anymore, so f##k democracy"

Liar.

The Senate has no obligation to confirm a nominee before the election. It may do so if the nominee is in accord with the Senate majority, it may delay until after the election to allow a clear resolution.

This sort of thing is why people hate lawyers, and Democrats should run on that.

[GeneralMacArthur]

I’m not sure if I count as a Trump supporter but I think McConnel was wrong to not hold hearings on Garland. Should’ve held hearings and voted him down. Trump has every right to appoint a new justice now.

If you think McConnell was wrong then you should support rectifying that wrong by not holding hearings now.

[Anni di ghiaccio]

Yeah, McConnell already has an excuse prepared for this that the 'rule' only applies when the Senate is not controlled by the President's party.

The Republican Party is responsible for the hyper polarization of this country.

[Joe Kakistocracy]

Asking the three actual Trump supporters on this forum countless (usually loaded) questions in countless threads is Atlas' favorite pastime.

It’s part of the unending quest for Republicans to try and justify the heinous acts of their party and its leadership, and our subsequent amusement of watching them tie themselves in logical knots attempting to do so.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

In 2016, we had a Republican Senate and a Democratic President. However, this time we have both in Republican control so it is okay, since voters gave us the mandate to do so in 2018, while in 2014 they didn't give Obama that mandate.

[Joe Kakistocracy]

In 2016, we had a Republican Senate and a Democratic President. However, this time we have both in Republican control so it is okay, since voters gave us the mandate to do so in 2018, while in 2014 they didn't give Obama that mandate.

Please stop reciting McConnell’s made-up, disingenuous, constantly shifting goalposts here.  You already understand, deep down, that they don’t make sense.

The 'voters gave a mandate' argument doesn’t really apply either when the Senate Democrats won 58% of the vote in 2018, and Trump decisively lost the popular vote in 2016.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

In 2016, we had a Republican Senate and a Democratic President. However, this time we have both in Republican control so it is okay, since voters gave us the mandate to do so in 2018, while in 2014 they didn't give Obama that mandate.

Please stop reciting McConnell’s made-up, disingenuous, constantly shifting goalposts here.  You already understand, deep down, that they don’t make sense.

The 'voters gave a mandate' argument doesn’t really apply either when the Senate Democrats won 58% of the vote in 2018, and Trump decisively lost the popular vote in 2016.

The Senate vote class doesn't matter, because 2018 was a mostly blue seat year with less than 10 R seats up for re-election, along wtih CA having 2 Dems on the ballot. Also for 2016, PV doesn't matter we use the electoral college here.

[Joe Kakistocracy]

In 2016, we had a Republican Senate and a Democratic President. However, this time we have both in Republican control so it is okay, since voters gave us the mandate to do so in 2018, while in 2014 they didn't give Obama that mandate.

Please stop reciting McConnell’s made-up, disingenuous, constantly shifting goalposts here.  You already understand, deep down, that they don’t make sense.

The 'voters gave a mandate' argument doesn’t really apply either when the Senate Democrats won 58% of the vote in 2018, and Trump decisively lost the popular vote in 2016.

The Senate vote class doesn't matter, because 2018 was a mostly blue seat year with less than 10 R seats up for re-election, along wtih CA having 2 Dems on the ballot. Also for 2016, PV doesn't matter we use the electoral college here.

Exactly my point.

[GeneralMacArthur]

The Senate vote class doesn't matter, because 2018 was a mostly blue seat year with less than 10 R seats up for re-election, along wtih CA having 2 Dems on the ballot. Also for 2016, PV doesn't matter we use the electoral college here.

The House Democrats won the popular vote by 8.6% in 2018.  Donald Trump's approval is in the low-40s and he consistently polls 6-10% behind Joe Biden.  There is no mandate for the Republicans to approve a Supreme Court justice, if that's something you suddenly want to pretend to care about.

[beaver2.0]

Option 1.

I think there should be a gentleman's agreement (yes, in the United States Senate, I know) not to confirm nominees after both parties' conventions. Any time before then, they should have a vote.

I agree with this 100%.

I do agree that it hardly seems fair to punish Trump for something McConnell did, but on the other hand it hardly seems fair to let McConnell get away with this.  Hypothetically, as a Republican voter, what would you think of letting the Democrats nominate someone alongside Trump's choice?

[Koharu]

Sorry for the caps; it's from CSPAN's transcript. L

IF TED CRUZ OR DONALD TRUMP GETS TO BE PRESIDENT, THEY HAVE ALL ASKED US NOT TO CONFIRM OR TAKE UP A COLLECTION BY PRESIDENT OBAMA. IF A VACANCY OCCURS IN HER LAST YEAR OF THE FIRST TERM, GUESS WHAT? YOU WILL USE THEIR WORDS AGAINST THEM. I WANT YOU TO USE MY WORDS AGAINST ME. IF THERE IS A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTAGAINST ME. IF THERE IS A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT IN 2016, YOU CAN SAY LINDSEY GRAHAM SAID, LET'S LET THE NEXT PRESIDENT, WHOEVER IT MIGHT BE, MAKE THAT NOMINATION. YOU CAN USE MY WORDS AGAINST ME. WE ARE SETTING A PRECEDENT TODAY, REPUBLICANS ARE, THAT IN THE LAST YEAR, AT LEAST OF A LAME-DUCK, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO FILL A VACANCY OF THE SUPREME COURT BASED ON WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE TODAY.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4907587/user-clip-sen-lindsey-graham-we-setting-precedent-today

[SteveRogers]

The rationale is simple.
In 2012, the people elected a Democratic President. In 2014, they elected a Republican Senate. The verdict was split, and so it was resolved in the election, where a Republican President and Senate were elected.
Since the Senate and Presidency are both Republican, there's no illegitimacy in nominating a Supreme Court Justice now, especially since Barrett is so clearly well qualified.

1. Plenty of SCOTUS nominees have been confirmed under divided government. McConnell made up this “precedent” whole cloth.
2. If Hillary had won in 2016 but Republicans still kept the Senate, then McConnell would’ve just made up some new rationale for blocking Hillary’s nominee. Who do you think you’re fooling?

[ProudModerate2]

In 2016, we had a Republican Senate and a Democratic President. However, this time we have both in Republican control so it is okay, since voters gave us the mandate to do so in 2018, while in 2014 they didn't give Obama that mandate.

What gutter did you dredge this opinion out of?
Besides, this is nothing even close to what McTurtle told the American people, for why the GOP would not move forward with the Garland nomination.
And then you have Graham telling America that the Senate (his committee) will not vote on a SCOTUS pick in the last year of Trump’s term (yet alone, a month-and-a-half before election).

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Literally the only rationale is that they want a conservative Supreme Court Justice. Come on.