McConnell defends blocking Merrick Garland. Says move was consistent with the history of the Senate. The only problem is that it's inconsistent with the constitution of the United States which states "He shall hold his office during the term of four years"...," Not 3 years. The term lasts 4 years and during that time if a vacancy comes up on the Supreme Court, it's his right under the constitution to choose a successor. McConnell is simply looking for any possible way of justifying what he did which was to steal the seat that should have been Obama's to fill with his pick, which was Merrick Garland. And how the Democrats allowed McConnell to get away with that is a mind blowing example of political ineptitude.

The history or tradition of the Senate has NOTHING to do with this. Their traditions and history don't concern the executive branch and they cannot obstruct the executive branch from doing it's rightful task of filling a position on the court. Whatever traditions the Senate follows have nothing to do with the other branches of government. They can have a tradition of collectively, as a body, picking their nose on the first Monday of every month if that's what suits them, but the White House doesn't have to concern itself with that tradition nor can that tradition be imposed on the Executive branch of government to stop it from doing it's constitutional duty.

Listen to his comments regarding his blocking of Merrick Garland and the reasoning that he uses. McConnell is claiming that you have to go back to 1880 to find a situation where a Senate controlled by a party other than the President filled a vacancy on the Supreme Court that would parallel the Merrick Garland case. Bear in mind that the alignment of a current president in his last year of his term, and a justice dying or resigning at that same time is probably less frequent in our history than a solar eclipse. Then after recovering from that illogical explanation that "it's tradition and it's our history... blah blah woof woof, he fails to recognize the simple and very basic fact of what the Constitution has to say about this. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with history or "tradition": It's about the Constitution. The President gets a four year term. There is NO caveat that states that he cannot name a justice in the last year of his term. We don't base this presidential authority on some fabricated excuse like tradition or history. That has no place here. The President is president for 4 years. PERIOD. End of Story. McConnell stole the seat the belongs to Merrick Garland and the Democrats never fought for him. So he got away with denying Obama's pick to sit on the court. And here we are today.

Comments