• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    198 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.

    • @[email protected]OPM
      link
      fedilink
      68 months ago

      They didn’t even have a chance to object to him, McConnell blocked him from having a hearing.

      • Cethin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        58 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      18 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.