This is… not true. Orrin Hatch said if Obama nominated someone like Merrick Garland, the Republican Senate would approve it. Obama nominated him, then the Republican Senate said “psych.”
The checks and balances were broken by the Republican Senate because they decided “advice and consent” could be abused to mean “wait until there’s a Republican president.”
The public decided the solution to this was selecting a Republican president and keeping a Republican Senate. It’s a perfect plan for Republicans, because people on the left just blame Democrats so that the same pattern can happen again next time.
Agree entirely except the part about the people keeping a Republican Senate. The Senate is rigged. 1 person from Wyoming should not have the same power as 65 from California. The entire point of the Senate is to rig things against what most people want if it goes against what small states want.
“According to James Madison, “The use of the Senate is to consist in proceeding with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom, than the popular branch.””
By far the popular vote is not for the GOP and hasn’t been since 2004. The Senate makes sure that doesn’t matter. Gerrymandering the house does the rest.
Similar to the Senate issue, the last time a Republican won both the popular vote and the electoral vote was again 2004. The electoral college is the same problem compounded. The people haven’t picked a Republican president in 20 years.
No it is true, nominating Garland to begin with was a major capitulation to Republicans. He was basically a moderate Republican that made the base not care about the nomination.
And Democrats could of and should have shut down the government over what McConnell did but did what they always do. Perform a right wing ratchet where they simple stop the country from becoming right wing but never push it left. Then when a Rep comes into office the push the country right once again which is exactly what happened.
This is… not true. Orrin Hatch said if Obama nominated someone like Merrick Garland, the Republican Senate would approve it. Obama nominated him, then the Republican Senate said “psych.”
The checks and balances were broken by the Republican Senate because they decided “advice and consent” could be abused to mean “wait until there’s a Republican president.”
The public decided the solution to this was selecting a Republican president and keeping a Republican Senate. It’s a perfect plan for Republicans, because people on the left just blame Democrats so that the same pattern can happen again next time.
Agree entirely except the part about the people keeping a Republican Senate. The Senate is rigged. 1 person from Wyoming should not have the same power as 65 from California. The entire point of the Senate is to rig things against what most people want if it goes against what small states want.
“According to James Madison, “The use of the Senate is to consist in proceeding with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom, than the popular branch.””
By far the popular vote is not for the GOP and hasn’t been since 2004. The Senate makes sure that doesn’t matter. Gerrymandering the house does the rest.
Similar to the Senate issue, the last time a Republican won both the popular vote and the electoral vote was again 2004. The electoral college is the same problem compounded. The people haven’t picked a Republican president in 20 years.
No it is true, nominating Garland to begin with was a major capitulation to Republicans. He was basically a moderate Republican that made the base not care about the nomination.
And Democrats could of and should have shut down the government over what McConnell did but did what they always do. Perform a right wing ratchet where they simple stop the country from becoming right wing but never push it left. Then when a Rep comes into office the push the country right once again which is exactly what happened.
Case in point