Democrats who claim that it’s unfair for President Trump to move forward with Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court because of what happened with then-President Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland four years ago have a weak argument, as Andy McCarthy points out with a couple of questions.
Given that Obama nominated Garland when he knew there was little or no chance GOP-controlled Senate would consent, does anyone doubt that he'd have filled a vacancy if it opened a week – even a *day* – before his term ended if Dems controlled Senate? 1/2
— Andy McCarthy (@AndrewCMcCarthy) October 11, 2020
Would we have heard the exact opposite case from the one they are making today?
Anyone doubt Schumer, Durbin, Harris, Coons et al would then have said POTUS is POTUS for his full term and American people elected the Senate, so totally consistent with Constitution, even if seemed rushed and meant Obama had 'packed' 3 justices onto Court? 2/2
— Andy McCarthy (@AndrewCMcCarthy) October 11, 2020
We, of course, know the answer.
Garland has integrity, a brilliant legal mind & is a perfect fit for #SCOTUS. GOP inaction does our country a great disservice. #DoYourJob
— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) July 19, 2016
Recommended
There are 111 days left in the 114th Congress. Judge Garland deserves a hearing and a vote now. @SenateGOP must #DoYourJob
— Senator Dick Durbin (@SenatorDurbin) September 14, 2016
Obama had the authority to make a nomination to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. He did. Republicans, who held a majority in the Senate, had the authority to consent or not to that nomination. They did not.
There aren’t different rules this time around. There are different circumstances.
***
Join the conversation as a VIP Member