politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Right. He put up a candidate the Republicans couldn't possibly object to . . . and yet they did anyway. This is what you get for trying to play Republicans at their own game.
They didn't even have a chance to object to him, McConnell blocked him from having a hearing.
That's the point. If they were being reasonable and honest they would have held a hearing for him, because he's a candidate they could agree with. They were forced to make a choice to admit playing a cheap game or elect him and give up their possible future of absolute control of the SCOTUS. Sadly making them admit this seemed to not actually sway many peoples opinions, and they only went further if anything.
Yup, they literally had no objections to him but blocked him anyway. It was probably a reasonable attempt by Obama to minimize damage, since Garland certainly would have upheld Roe and moderated other conservatives on the Court.
But in retrospect, since it didn't work, I think we all would have liked to know what a "swing for the fences" pick plus a media shame blitz on McConnell would have accomplished.
But that was Obama - a politician that was good objectively, but didn't really take any risks or press any advantages out of fear of being labeled extreme, so also squandered a depressing number of opportunities to improve the country.