View Single Post
  #49  
Old 12 July 2018, 08:11 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,163
Default

It was a move to presumably provide better political/rhetorical cover than voting the nominee down outright. And maybe they would not have voted him down. But I don't think McConnell did this maneuver over the objections of the other Republican senators. They wouldn't even meet with Garland, right? If a rule that they didn't have the power to waive required a vote, I really can't see how they would not have reached the same result, based on R senators saying, I have no problem with him, but it is wrong to confirm a nominee so close to an election, so, I vote nay.

I guess he might have been confirmed under such a rule. I still think that it reduces to an elimination of the filibuster on judicial nominations, which has essentially already happened. And, given that there was no such rule in place, I don't see why Kavanaugh would think he should refuse the nomination, just because the Senate did not enact his suggestion of a new rule.
Reply With Quote