Does Merrick Garland have a case to sue Mitch McConnell

[Wakie77]

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.

You are cherry picking comments.  He said "you have to go back 80 years to find a case where a Supreme Court vacancy was filled during an election year".  He then tosses out the aside that the last time it was filled by an opposition party Senate was during Grover Cleveland.

He NEVER says that the issue was about the difference in party between the POTUS & Senate.  Never.  You made that up.  The link I posted was his comments on the floor of the Senate wherein he clearly says that the American public deserve a voice.

He is changing his argument and you are too.  Yeah, Biden's argument in '92 supported McConnell's 2016 logic.  It does not support McConnell's 2020 logic.

[acbtrain]

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.

You are cherry picking comments.  He said "you have to go back 80 years to find a case where a Supreme Court vacancy was filled during an election year".  He then tosses out the aside that the last time it was filled by an opposition party Senate was during Grover Cleveland.

He NEVER says that the issue was about the difference in party between the POTUS & Senate.  Never.  You made that up.  The link I posted was his comments on the floor of the Senate wherein he clearly says that the American public deserve a voice.

He is changing his argument and you are too.  Yeah, Biden's argument in '92 supported McConnell's 2016 logic.  It does not support McConnell's 2020 logic.

We're clearly having a language and logical breakdown. As the AP article stated, Mitch made the argument over and over again in 2016, it was NOT just an "aside". I did a quick search on YouTube and was able to find one of the instances for an example.

But, it doesn't matter if he made the comment one time or ten thousand times. The point is: he made the argument in 2016.

Second..." Biden argued in June 1992 that President Bush should wait until after the election to appoint a replacement if a Supreme Court seat became vacant during the summer or should appoint a moderate acceptable to the then-Democratic Senate"

This exactly consistent with what Mitch as done in both 2016 and 2020....in 2016, Obama's nominee was NOT acceptable to the then-GOP Senate. In 2020, Trump's nominee is very likely to be "acceptable" to the now-GOP Senate.

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

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.

You are cherry picking comments.  He said "you have to go back 80 years to find a case where a Supreme Court vacancy was filled during an election year".  He then tosses out the aside that the last time it was filled by an opposition party Senate was during Grover Cleveland.

He NEVER says that the issue was about the difference in party between the POTUS & Senate.  Never.  You made that up.  The link I posted was his comments on the floor of the Senate wherein he clearly says that the American public deserve a voice.

He is changing his argument and you are too.  Yeah, Biden's argument in '92 supported McConnell's 2016 logic.  It does not support McConnell's 2020 logic.

We're clearly having a language and logical breakdown. As the AP article stated, Mitch made the argument over and over again in 2016, it was NOT just an "aside". I did a quick search on YouTube and was able to find one of the instances for an example.

But, it doesn't matter if he made the comment one time or ten thousand times. The point is: he made the argument in 2016.

Second..." Biden argued in June 1992 that President Bush should wait until after the election to appoint a replacement if a Supreme Court seat became vacant during the summer or should appoint a moderate acceptable to the then-Democratic Senate"

This exactly consistent with what Mitch as done in both 2016 and 2020....in 2016, Obama's nominee was NOT acceptable to the then-GOP Senate. In 2020, Trump's nominee is very likely to be "acceptable" to the now-GOP Senate.

Nobody short of Felix Frankfurter 2.0 would have been acceptable to McConnell's Senate. Even then, Frankfurter might have been too (((intellectual))) for some of them.

[acbtrain]

We're clearly having a language and logical breakdown. As the AP article stated, Mitch made the argument over and over again in 2016, it was NOT just an "aside". I did a quick search on YouTube and was able to find one of the instances for an example.

But, it doesn't matter if he made the comment one time or ten thousand times. The point is: he made the argument in 2016.

Second..." Biden argued in June 1992 that President Bush should wait until after the election to appoint a replacement if a Supreme Court seat became vacant during the summer or should appoint a moderate acceptable to the then-Democratic Senate"

This exactly consistent with what Mitch as done in both 2016 and 2020....in 2016, Obama's nominee was NOT acceptable to the then-GOP Senate. In 2020, Trump's nominee is very likely to be "acceptable" to the now-GOP Senate.

Nobody short of Felix Frankfurter 2.0 would have been acceptable to McConnell's Senate. Even then, Frankfurter might have been too (((intellectual))) for some of them.

Mitch would have accepted ACB if Obama would have nominated her in 2016.

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

We're clearly having a language and logical breakdown. As the AP article stated, Mitch made the argument over and over again in 2016, it was NOT just an "aside". I did a quick search on YouTube and was able to find one of the instances for an example.

But, it doesn't matter if he made the comment one time or ten thousand times. The point is: he made the argument in 2016.

Second..." Biden argued in June 1992 that President Bush should wait until after the election to appoint a replacement if a Supreme Court seat became vacant during the summer or should appoint a moderate acceptable to the then-Democratic Senate"

This exactly consistent with what Mitch as done in both 2016 and 2020....in 2016, Obama's nominee was NOT acceptable to the then-GOP Senate. In 2020, Trump's nominee is very likely to be "acceptable" to the now-GOP Senate.

Nobody short of Felix Frankfurter 2.0 would have been acceptable to McConnell's Senate. Even then, Frankfurter might have been too (((intellectual))) for some of them.

Mitch would have accepted ACB if Obama would have nominated her in 2016.

And Biden's Judiciary Committee would have accepted Sarah Weddington if HW had nominated her. But that's not what Biden was suggesting and you know it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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."

Then Trump should never have nominated a single judge since he began his relection campaign right after the inauguration. There is no defined beginning to American elections, so basically, all McConnell's fine words mean, if taken at face value, that a divided government can never appoint judges, and that's certainly no way to run a government.