Hacker News Reader

Comment by GavinMcG | Hacker News Reader

> he simply could not get him confirmed

That's hardly the whole truth. McConnell refused to even hold hearings.

Legislative leadership at all levels of US government often do not allow hearings, floor debates, or floor votes when they know the issue will fail.

Sure, but the fundamental issue isn't McConnell, it's that Obama seriously weakened Democratic control of both the House and Senate during his time as President. As a result, his party lost a Supreme Court pick.

"Elections have consequences" and all that.

No, the fundamental issue is that McConnell was the first and only Senate Leader to ever prevent a vote on a SCOTUS nominee, so there were no confirmation hearings at all.

> There have been 37 unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States. Of these, 11 nominees were rejected in Senate roll-call votes, 11 were withdrawn by the president, and 15 lapsed at the end of a session of Congress.

Note: 15 nominations were not voted on by the Senate, including Merrick Garland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_th...

In all of those 15 they had hearings. They simply didn't get to the point of voting on confirmation.

McConnell prevented senators from voting on a candidate they would have approved. This is hijacking representatives' voice because you're afraid to hear it.

Ah yes, the good old "should have been so weak", "deserved it" victim-blaming.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com