Chuck Schumer votes against a qualified nominee for justice because..."

[Falvlun]

No, I said the question of why Obama didn't pick someone who could make it through the senate is just as real a question as why the senate didn't let Garland through.

The question is answered by the facts of what happened: Republicans stated their refusal to hold hearings for any person Obama nominated, regardless of their qualifications, or the fact that they previously said they would vote for them.

That is blatantly non-factual, as Obama nominated him and he didn't get through. Now, you can be upset that he couldn't get through and you can think it improper that he couldn't get though, but, he couldn't.

Since when does “could” mean “must” or “will”? Garland could have gotten through the Senate. Republicans are on record stating that he would be a fine SCJ choice, but they didn’t believe that Obama would actually nominate him.

Now, you can ignore the facts of what happened. You can try to rewrite history. But you are only fooling yourself.

The Republicans chose to abdicate their responsibilities, thwart the democratic process, and thumb their noses at precedent and procedure. Their stated, on the record stance, was that they would not hold any hearings on any Obama nominee. Explain, then, how it can possibly be on Obama that his nominee wasn’t even given the courtesy of a hearing.

Republicans: I like chocolate chip cookies. I bet Obama would never make us chocolate chip cookies.

Obama: Here, I made you chocolate chip cookies.

Republicans: We will not eat any cookies made by Obama.

Mister Emu: Why didn’t Obama give them cookies they would actually eat?