To be honest, the Republicans played dirty to block Garland by inventing a rule, and then changing it, everything should be on the table. What goes around comes around.Same as republicans, it's playing with fire because next time the tables are turned, it will come back around.
which they are constitutionally required to hold.
There is no rule and there never was. It always was and will continue to be the choice of the majority party in the Senate. That didn't start with Garland and didn't end now.
And it's the House's option to impeach for any reason.
An impeachment would hand the election to Trump on a silver platter.
The last thing the DNC wants to do is to remind the American public of their failed impeachment, it would be the greatest gift to Trump's reelection.
yup. Go ahead.
The justice will be voted on long before then.
If Dems already won the presidency and the senate, they have a lot more power during a lame duck session. That's definitely factor in whether Republicans would wait until a lame duck session to confirm.
Well, nothing in modern history shows anything.Also, if Republicans wanted their argument to be dependent on a divided government, they should have made that clear then. They skirted it then because it sounds (and is) overly partisan when you say it.
I didn't read the linked article at all but the quote is apropohttps://twitter.com/ishapiro/status/1308932851803578369
Correct.The real question we have to ask, why is the left losing it's collective mind over this?
Unlikely. Republicans might roll e dice that it's better to not have hearings when 50% of their conference is running for reelection, some of them in tight races.
Because of garland. If garland were confirmed, I agree it would be quite hypocritical of the left to be upset.
