Quote:
Originally Posted by leo doc
There was no need to filibuster Obama's pick since the Republicans held the Senate majority and would simply vote 'no.'
So they should have voted 'no.'
And the threat of that should have forced Obama to pick a moderate appointee, perhaps even one that Republicans had suggested in the past as a possible split-party appointee, like Merrick Garland.
That's how a democracy is supposed to work. Obama doesn't get the flag-burning commie he wants, and Republicans don't get the gun-toting American patriot they want.
The problem in this case was that McConnell was out there a few nanoseconds after Scalia's death talking to the media about how the Senate wasn't going to confirm any Obama nominee, before Obama had even nominated anyone.
Democrats definitely take the blame for turning the nomination process into a partisan fiasco, with them bragging about how they Borked Bork in the 1980s. But Republicans and Democrats have both carried on that fine tradition for the past 30 years, each nominee being painted as the worst thing since ... the last nominee.
Scalia and Kagan were friends. If people want someone who's going to carry on Scalia's legacy, they should pick someone who's willing to get together for beers with someone they vehemently disagreed with in the courtroom.