Phairness Doctrine

“You have to go back to 1880 to find last time a Senate controlled by a different party from the president confirmed a Supreme Court justice to a vacancy created in the middle of a presidential election,” McConnell said on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday morning, turning to historical precedent. This isn’t even an honest point (shocking!). It’s a complete Red Herring. A misdirection. The point isn’t that this particular situation hasn’t happened since 1880, the argument McConnell should be making is to point out ALL the times since 1880 where this exact situation actually presented itself , and then a nomination wasn’t even considered. Just like Merrick Garland wasn't even considered. That would be historical precedent.

“We didn’t attack Merrick Garland’s background and try to destroy him, we didn’t go on a search and destroy mission…” Mitch McConnell 10.7.18, Sunday morning talk show ...then, McConnell went on to explain how they were just following the “rule” that says that if the senate is of the opposite party of the president, you don’t select a new supreme court justice in the final year before an election. Riiiight. We cannot let McConnell get away with this answer. The issue with the Garland nomination wasn’t that the republicans “attacked” Garland. There was an attack, though, but it was aimed solely at President Obama. The Republicans attacked the respect due the office of the presidency (while they weren't occupying it, of course). The Republicans attacked the black man in that office who didn’t DESERVE to seat another supreme court justice. The Republicans attacked President Obama’s legacy. It was racist. It was deplorable. It was petty. I will never respond to the ...