Not deny Obama his appointment at the end of the term while allowing Trump to do that exact thing at the end of his term which is how they got a SCOTUS majority in the first place.
Not deny Obama his appointment at the end of the term while allowing Trump to do that exact thing at the end of his term which is how they got a SCOTUS majority in the first place.
Except the Dems didn’t do any of that. Do you have a method they could have employed to stop it? How is really the important part of the question.
Sure they did. They didn’t want to pick a fight with Republicans in 2016 when Obama nominated Garland because they figured Clinton would just do it after winning in 2016. In 2020 they once again sat idly by and allowed Trump to nominate ACB just 3 weeks before the election because they didn’t want to make waves.
I don’t get how people keep trying to claim Dems don’t have the power to do anything due to Republican opposition, while ignoring the fact that Republicans manage to pass their draconian bullshit in spite of Democratic opposition nearly every time. How come it only seems to work in one direction?
They didn’t want to pick a fight with Republicans in 2016 when Obama nominated Garland because they figured Clinton would just do it after winning in 2016.
What would that fight have looked like? Many prominent Dems spoke out against it. So what actions should have been taken. Could they have seated Garland somehow? Please stop with ambiguous statements like “fight”.
In 2020 they once again sat idly by and allowed Trump to nominate ACB just 3 weeks before the election because they didn’t want to make waves.
Many Dems again spoke out, pointing out the hypocrisy of not following their own “rule”. So again, what actions should they have taken? Could they have done something to stop ACB?
I don’t get how people keep trying to claim Dems don’t have the power to do anything…
Well, rather than being incredulous, maybe you could explain what Dems could have done, specifically of course.
…while ignoring the fact that Republicans manage to pass their draconian bullshit in spite of Democratic opposition nearly every time. How come it only seems to work in one direction?
Again, specifics would be helpful. But the Dems have stopped many Republican bills. But there are several differences. There’s a lot more Republican gerrymandering, so it’s easier for them to take the House. The Senate is inherently undemocratic, with representation being based on land and not people. California has as much representation in the Senate as Wyoming.
Additionally, Republicans don’t care if government functions. Their narrative is improved if government doesn’t work. They also govern for the fabulously wealthy and corporations, both of which will survive fine if the government doesn’t function.
Lastly, most of the Republicans most draconian legislation is passed at the state level or the result of SCOTUS decisions.
Not deny Obama his appointment at the end of the term while allowing Trump to do that exact thing at the end of his term which is how they got a SCOTUS majority in the first place.
Except the Dems didn’t do any of that. Do you have a method they could have employed to stop it? How is really the important part of the question.
Sure they did. They didn’t want to pick a fight with Republicans in 2016 when Obama nominated Garland because they figured Clinton would just do it after winning in 2016. In 2020 they once again sat idly by and allowed Trump to nominate ACB just 3 weeks before the election because they didn’t want to make waves.
I don’t get how people keep trying to claim Dems don’t have the power to do anything due to Republican opposition, while ignoring the fact that Republicans manage to pass their draconian bullshit in spite of Democratic opposition nearly every time. How come it only seems to work in one direction?
What would that fight have looked like? Many prominent Dems spoke out against it. So what actions should have been taken. Could they have seated Garland somehow? Please stop with ambiguous statements like “fight”.
Many Dems again spoke out, pointing out the hypocrisy of not following their own “rule”. So again, what actions should they have taken? Could they have done something to stop ACB?
Well, rather than being incredulous, maybe you could explain what Dems could have done, specifically of course.
Again, specifics would be helpful. But the Dems have stopped many Republican bills. But there are several differences. There’s a lot more Republican gerrymandering, so it’s easier for them to take the House. The Senate is inherently undemocratic, with representation being based on land and not people. California has as much representation in the Senate as Wyoming.
Additionally, Republicans don’t care if government functions. Their narrative is improved if government doesn’t work. They also govern for the fabulously wealthy and corporations, both of which will survive fine if the government doesn’t function.
Lastly, most of the Republicans most draconian legislation is passed at the state level or the result of SCOTUS decisions.