• Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    268
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    McConnell’s entire legacy can be summed up in one cowardly act: After Donald Trump whipped up a mob to attack our Capitol, threatening to kill the Speaker of the House and the Vice President, in an attempt to overturn a presidential election, he condemned Trump.

    “Former President Trump’s actions that preceded the riot were a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty,” McConnell said. “Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day.”

    But McConnell voted to acquit him of insurrection, allowing him to run for president again.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      146
      ·
      10 months ago

      That and denying a Supreme Court nominee a hearing. He’s totally OK violating the Constitution.

      “he (the President) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for”

      Although given how Garland turned out at DOJ, we may have dodged a bullet there.

      • cogman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        49
        ·
        10 months ago

        Garland was a compromise pick by obama. He was the most centrist republican that obama could find to try and get him appointed. He just wasn’t a federalist society whack job.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

            • Cethin
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              10 months ago

              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.

          • ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.

    • HenchmanNumber3@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      63
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      He also stacked the SCOTUS by contradictory practices, denying Obama a pick in the last year of his presidency but giving one to Trump. That has had grave consequences for recent rulings since Trump only nominated extreme conservatives.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          If you count the elections where it should have gone the other way based on the popular vote, more like 6-3 liberal majority, and arguably even 8-1 with Thomas being the sole holdout.

          Trump’s 2016 “win” gave them three justices. Bush didn’t get any nominations his first term (which he only won via the electoral college), and then went on to get two his second term (where he did get the popular vote). So it depends on if you expect Republicans to win the popular vote in 2004 or not if they didn’t already have the office.

          • ares35@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            more like 6-3 liberal majority, and arguably even 8-1 with Thomas being the sole holdout.

            this is also true. but thomas shouldn’t even be there, either.