Does Merrick Garland have a case to sue Mitch McConnell

[Wakie77]

In 2016 Mitch McConnell's argument for not giving Merrick Garland a hearing before the Senate was that it couldn't happen during an election year.  Now McConnell is insisting that any Trump nominee will get a hearing.

Garland should file a civil lawsuit against McConnell for the irreparable damages and loss of future earnings which he sustained due to McConnell's refusal to grant him a hearing.  The decision to refuse Garland a hearing was not because of any lack of qualifications from Garland or anything which he had done.  By saying the Trump nominee will get a hearing what McConnell is that the judiciary IS NOT an independent group above the influence from political parties.

[acbtrain]

In 2016 Mitch McConnell's argument for not giving Merrick Garland a hearing before the Senate was that it couldn't happen during an election year.  Now McConnell is insisting that any Trump nominee will get a hearing.

Garland should file a civil lawsuit against McConnell for the irreparable damages and loss of future earnings which he sustained due to McConnell's refusal to grant him a hearing.  The decision to refuse Garland a hearing was not because of any lack of qualifications from Garland or anything which he had done.  By saying the Trump nominee will get a hearing what McConnell is that the judiciary IS NOT an independent group above the influence from political parties.

First, you conveniently misrepresent Mitch's argument, which was based on the Senate being controlled by the opposition in an election year.

Second, the Constitution gives the Senate the right to reject nominees in whatever way it chooses to reject them.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Take it easy there, Wakie77.

[acbtrain]

Take it easy there, Wakie77.

no, no, no....watching the lefties be triggered over the law since Hillary lost has been one of the most entertaining political spectacles.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Take it easy there, Wakie77.

no, no, no....watching the lefties be triggered over the law since Hillary lost has been one of the most entertaining political spectacles.

Do you have any actual beliefs or do you just like it when following politics is upsetting to people you dislike?

[emailking]

I think he has standing to sue since he's an injured party, but would not win because the Senate can make their own rules.

[Wakie77]

First, you conveniently misrepresent Mitch's argument, which was based on the Senate being controlled by the opposition in an election year.

Second, the Constitution gives the Senate the right to reject nominees in whatever way it chooses to reject them.

No you and Mitch are changing the argument.  It was very very very clear that his argument was that in an election year the nominee should come from whomever is elected that year.  But now you are claiming it is all about political party and that the judiciary shouldn't be independent of party.

The Senate didn't reject the nominee, Mitch McConnell did by refusing a hearing.  Mitch is not the Senate.  Anyone nominated should be given a fair interview/hearing.

[acbtrain]

First, you conveniently misrepresent Mitch's argument, which was based on the Senate being controlled by the opposition in an election year.

Second, the Constitution gives the Senate the right to reject nominees in whatever way it chooses to reject them.

No you and Mitch are changing the argument.  It was very very very clear that his argument was that in an election year the nominee should come from whomever is elected that year.  But now you are claiming it is all about political party and that the judiciary shouldn't be independent of party.

The Senate didn't reject the nominee, Mitch McConnell did by refusing a hearing.  Mitch is not the Senate.  Anyone nominated should be given a fair interview/hearing.

First: Mitch in 2016: “Remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago.″

Second, there is no legal requirement for the Senate to give a nominee an interview/hearing.

[brucejoel99]

[SteveRogers]

First: Mitch in 2016: “Remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago.″

You understand that that’s not true though, right? You do know that Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by a democratic senate in 1988? And that in the timeframe that McConnell cites, there’s not a single example prior to Garland of a president’s nominee being blocked by an opposing party’s Senate using McConnell’s stated rationale?

[acbtrain]

First: Mitch in 2016: “Remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago.″

You understand that that’s not true though, right? You do know that Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by a democratic senate in 1988? And that in the timeframe that McConnell cites, there’s not a single example prior to Garland of a president’s nominee being blocked by an opposing party’s Senate using McConnell’s stated rationale?

But Kennedy was filling a position vacated in June 1987 and was nominated in Nov 1987.

"has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year" is completely accurate

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

First: Mitch in 2016: “Remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago.″

You understand that that’s not true though, right? You do know that Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by a democratic senate in 1988? And that in the timeframe that McConnell cites, there’s not a single example prior to Garland of a president’s nominee being blocked by an opposing party’s Senate using McConnell’s stated rationale?

But Kennedy was filling a position vacated in June 1987 and was nominated in Nov 1987.

"has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year" is completely accurate

You do realize that the fact that McConnell even bothers to concoct these justifications comes across as absurd nitpicking pin-dancing BS to anyone not already inclined to support whatever the Republican Party decides to do, right?

[Cassius]

Who?

[acbtrain]

First: Mitch in 2016: “Remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago.″

You understand that that’s not true though, right? You do know that Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by a democratic senate in 1988? And that in the timeframe that McConnell cites, there’s not a single example prior to Garland of a president’s nominee being blocked by an opposing party’s Senate using McConnell’s stated rationale?

But Kennedy was filling a position vacated in June 1987 and was nominated in Nov 1987.

"has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year" is completely accurate

You do realize that the fact that McConnell even bothers to concoct these justifications comes across as absurd nitpicking pin-dancing BS to anyone not already inclined to support whatever the Republican Party decides to do, right?

Yes, he strained at a gnat in 2016, just as Biden did in June 1992. But the point being: Mitch has NOT been hypocritical. What he said in 2016 is completely accurate and confirming ACB in Oct 2020 does NOT conflict with his 2016 comments.

[Yoda]

In 2016 Mitch McConnell's argument for not giving Merrick Garland a hearing before the Senate was that it couldn't happen during an election year.  Now McConnell is insisting that any Trump nominee will get a hearing.

Garland should file a civil lawsuit against McConnell for the irreparable damages and loss of future earnings which he sustained due to McConnell's refusal to grant him a hearing.  The decision to refuse Garland a hearing was not because of any lack of qualifications from Garland or anything which he had done.  By saying the Trump nominee will get a hearing what McConnell is that the judiciary IS NOT an independent group above the influence from political parties.

First, you conveniently misrepresent Mitch's argument, which was based on the Senate being controlled by the opposition in an election year.

Second, the Constitution gives the Senate the right to reject nominees in whatever way it chooses to reject them.

Nice try, but he never said this at the time. That reason was only invented years later.

[acbtrain]

In 2016 Mitch McConnell's argument for not giving Merrick Garland a hearing before the Senate was that it couldn't happen during an election year.  Now McConnell is insisting that any Trump nominee will get a hearing.

Garland should file a civil lawsuit against McConnell for the irreparable damages and loss of future earnings which he sustained due to McConnell's refusal to grant him a hearing.  The decision to refuse Garland a hearing was not because of any lack of qualifications from Garland or anything which he had done.  By saying the Trump nominee will get a hearing what McConnell is that the judiciary IS NOT an independent group above the influence from political parties.

First, you conveniently misrepresent Mitch's argument, which was based on the Senate being controlled by the opposition in an election year.

Second, the Constitution gives the Senate the right to reject nominees in whatever way it chooses to reject them.

Nice try, but he never said this at the time. That reason was only invented years later.

According to the Associated Press (AP), he did:

McCONNELL IN 2016

McConnell stunned the political world in 2016 with his declaration that the Senate would not consider a replacement for Scalia until after the presidential election nearly nine months away. While daring, McConnell said his action was justified by history.

“Remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago,'' he declared again and again that year, frequently citing what Republicans called the “Biden Rule.” That so-called rule — never adopted in any formal sense by the Senate — urged the Senate to delay action on a Supreme Court vacancy until after the presidential election.

[acbtrain]

And here is the proof Mitch said that in 2016:

https://www[dot]youtube[dot]com/watch?v=VGIZcVv-EbM#t=0m58s

listen to what he says between 0:59 and 1:20


...Now, I ask you, when does Mitch get his apology?!

[SteveRogers]

First: Mitch in 2016: “Remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago.″

You understand that that’s not true though, right? You do know that Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by a democratic senate in 1988? And that in the timeframe that McConnell cites, there’s not a single example prior to Garland of a president’s nominee being blocked by an opposing party’s Senate using McConnell’s stated rationale?

But Kennedy was filling a position vacated in June 1987 and was nominated in Nov 1987.

"has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year" is completely accurate

I see you ignored my second point entirely.

[acbtrain]

First: Mitch in 2016: “Remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago.″

You understand that that’s not true though, right? You do know that Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by a democratic senate in 1988? And that in the timeframe that McConnell cites, there’s not a single example prior to Garland of a president’s nominee being blocked by an opposing party’s Senate using McConnell’s stated rationale?

But Kennedy was filling a position vacated in June 1987 and was nominated in Nov 1987.

"has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year" is completely accurate

I see you ignored my second point entirely.

"And that in the timeframe that McConnell cites, there’s not a single example prior to Garland of a president’s nominee being blocked by an opposing party’s Senate using McConnell’s stated rationale?"

Your point is self-contradictory, as the timeframe McConnell cited didn't include pre-Garland presidents nominees.

[SteveRogers]

First: Mitch in 2016: “Remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago.″

You understand that that’s not true though, right? You do know that Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by a democratic senate in 1988? And that in the timeframe that McConnell cites, there’s not a single example prior to Garland of a president’s nominee being blocked by an opposing party’s Senate using McConnell’s stated rationale?

But Kennedy was filling a position vacated in June 1987 and was nominated in Nov 1987.

"has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year" is completely accurate

I see you ignored my second point entirely.

"And that in the timeframe that McConnell cites, there’s not a single example prior to Garland of a president’s nominee being blocked by an opposing party’s Senate using McConnell’s stated rationale?"

Your point is self-contradictory, as the timeframe McConnell cited didn't include pre-Garland presidents nominees.

He was lying about there being some historical tradition of opposing parties blocking a President’s nominees in election years. There was no such precedent. It never happened in the 130 year period that McConnell was referring to.

[acbtrain]

First: Mitch in 2016: “Remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago.″

You understand that that’s not true though, right? You do know that Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by a democratic senate in 1988? And that in the timeframe that McConnell cites, there’s not a single example prior to Garland of a president’s nominee being blocked by an opposing party’s Senate using McConnell’s stated rationale?

But Kennedy was filling a position vacated in June 1987 and was nominated in Nov 1987.

"has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year" is completely accurate

I see you ignored my second point entirely.

"And that in the timeframe that McConnell cites, there’s not a single example prior to Garland of a president’s nominee being blocked by an opposing party’s Senate using McConnell’s stated rationale?"

Your point is self-contradictory, as the timeframe McConnell cited didn't include pre-Garland presidents nominees.

He was lying about there being some historical tradition of opposing parties blocking a President’s nominees in election years. There was no such precedent. It never happened in the 130 year period that McConnell was referring to.

But, read...he never said anything about a tradition against blocking an opposing president, rather he said, "Remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago."

He might as well have said, "Remember, the Sun hasn't gone supernova in the last 130 years.".....what he said is 100% correct, regardless if it is relevant or not.

These are LAWYERS speaking!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

First: Mitch in 2016: “Remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago.″

You understand that that’s not true though, right? You do know that Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by a democratic senate in 1988? And that in the timeframe that McConnell cites, there’s not a single example prior to Garland of a president’s nominee being blocked by an opposing party’s Senate using McConnell’s stated rationale?

But Kennedy was filling a position vacated in June 1987 and was nominated in Nov 1987.

"has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year" is completely accurate

You do realize that the fact that McConnell even bothers to concoct these justifications comes across as absurd nitpicking pin-dancing BS to anyone not already inclined to support whatever the Republican Party decides to do, right?

Well, no one has been confirmed by an opposite party Senate since Joe Biden as Judiciary chair sent Thomas to the full Senate for a vote.

[acbtrain]

First: Mitch in 2016: “Remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago.″

You understand that that’s not true though, right? You do know that Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by a democratic senate in 1988? And that in the timeframe that McConnell cites, there’s not a single example prior to Garland of a president’s nominee being blocked by an opposing party’s Senate using McConnell’s stated rationale?

But Kennedy was filling a position vacated in June 1987 and was nominated in Nov 1987.

"has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year" is completely accurate

You do realize that the fact that McConnell even bothers to concoct these justifications comes across as absurd nitpicking pin-dancing BS to anyone not already inclined to support whatever the Republican Party decides to do, right?

Well, no one has been confirmed by an opposite party Senate since Joe Biden as Judiciary chair sent Thomas to the full Senate for a vote.

Biden empathized with Thomas.

[Wakie77]

First, you conveniently misrepresent Mitch's argument, which was based on the Senate being controlled by the opposition in an election year.

Second, the Constitution gives the Senate the right to reject nominees in whatever way it chooses to reject them.

No you and Mitch are changing the argument.  It was very very very clear that his argument was that in an election year the nominee should come from whomever is elected that year.  But now you are claiming it is all about political party and that the judiciary shouldn't be independent of party.

The Senate didn't reject the nominee, Mitch McConnell did by refusing a hearing.  Mitch is not the Senate.  Anyone nominated should be given a fair interview/hearing.

First: Mitch in 2016: “Remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago.″

Second, there is no legal requirement for the Senate to give a nominee an interview/hearing.

Watch Mitch's comments on the Senate floor in 2016 at this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vafhXA-cPDI
He clearly says that he supports the concept that once the election season starts no nominee should be considered until the winner of the election is decided.

"It is about a principle not a person."

But you keep on pushing your clear line of BS.

Second item … ok, let's say you are right.  Fair enough.  Going forward if the Senate is controlled by the party that is not in the White House then they will never again bother to consider a SCOTUS nominee from the White House.

[acbtrain]

First, you conveniently misrepresent Mitch's argument, which was based on the Senate being controlled by the opposition in an election year.

Second, the Constitution gives the Senate the right to reject nominees in whatever way it chooses to reject them.

No you and Mitch are changing the argument.  It was very very very clear that his argument was that in an election year the nominee should come from whomever is elected that year.  But now you are claiming it is all about political party and that the judiciary shouldn't be independent of party.

The Senate didn't reject the nominee, Mitch McConnell did by refusing a hearing.  Mitch is not the Senate.  Anyone nominated should be given a fair interview/hearing.

First: Mitch in 2016: “Remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago.″

Second, there is no legal requirement for the Senate to give a nominee an interview/hearing.

Watch Mitch's comments on the Senate floor in 2016 at this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vafhXA-cPDI
He clearly says that he supports the concept that once the election season starts no nominee should be considered until the winner of the election is decided.

"It is about a principle not a person."

But you keep on pushing your clear line of BS.

Second item … ok, let's say you are right.  Fair enough.  Going forward if the Senate is controlled by the party that is not in the White House then they will never again bother to consider a SCOTUS nominee from the White House.

Look, you can't selectively choose his comments. He may have said the nominee must be left handed. But that is not the question, rather it is whether he cited the Senate in opposition hands when a vacancy took place in an election year.  And he clearly made that argument in 2016:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGIZcVv-EbM#t=0m58s

listen to what he says between 0:59 and 1:20  

Biden made your bed in 1992, and now you Dems are having to cry yourself to sleep in it.