Why did we not have out pitchforks when Garland was rebuffed?

[Funtatlaguy]

Watching this Kavanaugh farce brings it all back to me.
We should have trailed Mitch McConnell everywhere and made his life hell.
The Senate became a total joke when Garland wasn’t given a hearing.
That was the beginning of the end of our freedoms that we are seeing today.

[BSdetect]

1. The time for uprising was Nov 2016

[Funtatlaguy]

3. Disagree. Garland had nothing to do with the Pres election.

At least it shouldn’t have.
You are parroting McConnell to say otherwise.

[FBaggins]

6. Of course he did

I have no idea whether McConnell says the same thing... but I would expect anyone to say the same thing.

[Funtatlaguy]

10. We will have to agree to disagree.

[tonyt53]

15. IF Garland did, then people would have voted on that single issue. They didn't.

[FBaggins]

16. Based on what evidence?

Or did someone hack your account and delete the body of the text?

Both candidates made a big issue of what kind of justices they would appoint - which is always a major issue in any Presidential race. And unlike prior elections, there was actually an open seat to fight over. Yet you think it had no impact on the election?

There were definitely people who voted (or showed up when they otherwise wouldn't) on that single issue.



https://www.nbcnews.com/card/nbc-news-exit-poll-future-supreme-court-appointments-important-factor-n680381

[tonyt53]

19. Uh, trump won the election. Proof enough for ya? People didn't vote.

[FBaggins]

21. I didn't realize that only Democrats were "people"

The poll showed (and other polls said the same thing) that three times as many people considered Supreme Court Nominees to be their single largest issue compared to 2008.

The problem wasn't that people didn't vote based on the issue... the problem is that many more of them voted for Trump.

[tonyt53]

22. Time to lay off those "polls". They can be very wrong. History proves that.

[FBaggins]

24. Lol. I love your use of quotes around "polls"... but even funnier

is your implication that we should all instead accept your infallible statements of reality unsupported by anything at all.

We should also note that there's a difference between opinion polls and exit polls.

If you don't like polls, take a look at the Mother Jones article I linked to in #14 or scores like it.

[tonyt53]

25. Again, relying on "polls" to tell you how to think. trump does the same thing.

[FBaggins]

26. Since we're comparing people to Trump...

... your posts seem to lack any connection to reality. They certainly lack even a claimed connection to actual evidence.

Quite Trump-like if that's your new standard for the day.

Of course, in reality, I also cited contemporaneous articles backing up my claims... while your posts continue to lack anything but... well... anything. Just like Trump claiming to have the largest inauguration - you just claim that the SCOTUS opening didn't have any impact on how people voted.

[mr_lebowski]

29. This ... yes ... what Frodo said ...

[LanternWaste]

30. Trump also fails to support his conclusions with objective evidence.

Much as you're doing. Six of one, half a dozen of the other... and each as petulant and without merit as the other.

[exboyfil]

2. Because Clinton was running against

A clown.

[FBaggins]

4. Because we didn't want Garland

My apologies to all of those who want to revise their memories and make it seem like something it wasn't... but the simple truth is that Garland was never intended to be confirmed. Obama just wanted the electoral issue (forcing Republicans to run for election after opposing a fairly moderate nominee). He didn't expect his nominee to receive a vote (and would expect him to be rejected if a vote was held).

Everyone expected Hillary to win and dump him like a hot potato... replacing his nomination with a real progressive who would then be confirmed by the new Democratic majority in the Senate.

[Funtatlaguy]

7. I disagree. Many of us wanted someone more progressive, yes.

But we also knew that a gop controlled senate wouldn’t confirm one.
Garland was moderate enough and in the mainstream enuf to get enuf Gop votes.
So, the majority of us thought he should get a hearing.
However, McConnell and the Russians knew the fix was in. We didn’t.

[FBaggins]

14. Just go back and look at the threads from a couple years ago

There were many that asked the question whether Hillary should re-nominate Garland after she wins.

Then look at the threads that speculated about Republicans racing through a confirmation vote on Garland in a lame-duck session.

Here's an example from almost exactly two years ago:

What Happens to Merrick Garland if Hillary Clinton Wins?

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/08/what-happens-merrick-garland-if-hillary-clinton-wins/

For starters, why did Obama nominate Garland? Not in hopes of compromise with Republicans, I think. He’s not an idiot. Rather, he did it as a campaign ploy: a way of making Republicans look so extreme that they weren’t even willing to confirm a moderate jurist that most of them had praised earlier in his career.

[maxsolomon]

5. Mine was out. Mine is always out.

But GOP Senators are very good at obstruction, shirking duties, avoiding the press, and avoiding the public.

You couldn't find hay to pitch with that fork, and Obama didn't ask anyone to look.

[jrthin]

8. We were lost on the high road. nt

[CrispyQ]

11. +1!!

[onecaliberal]

12. That

[CrispyQ]

9. Because the dems don't do pitchforks; we do butter knives.

I'm as angry with the democrats as I am disgusted with the republicans. A true opposition party would never have allowed itself to be neutered like the democratic party has done. They should have changed strategy in 2000 when they saw the GOP throw the rule book in the trash. Now they have their boot on our neck. Our government has been hijacked by a pack of jackals who believe it should serve them, not The People. If we don't gain control of at least one Chamber this fall, you will be able to stick your pitchfork in this country, cuz it will be done.

[MiniMe]

13. Because everybody thought Clinton was going to win

And even if it wasn't Garland who she nominated, it would be somebody acceptable.

[Coventina]

20. This. n/t

[NewJeffCT]

31. Not just that

many were also hoping that Obama would pull some Constitutional magic out of his pocket and force an up or down vote, or at least hearings on Garland.

I saw a few articles that had suggested putting a time limit to schedule a hearing for Garland with the qualification that if the hearings are not scheduled for 60 or 90 days after the nomination,the Senate is considered to have waived it's right to advise and consent. Even if Republicans sued, at least they would have tried SOMETHING! Doubtful that every Republican would have voted against Garland after he came across as reasonable and bland in a confirmation hearing.

(or, withdraw Garland and submit a similar nominee with a time limit)

[rusty fender]

33. And most of us on this site

believed that she was going to win by 10 points or more.

[MiniMe]

34. Yup

[Kaleva]

17. Why didn't didn't you have your pitchfork out? U probably didn't think it that important.

If you had, you would have engaged in peaceful civil disobedience and possibly been arrested. But that would have put your comfortable lifestyle at risk and thus it would have been too high a price to pay. And that's okay because for many people, leisure time and a full tummy are far more important then freedoms.

I think the headline of your OP would be more accurate if it said:

"Why didn't we make more angry posts here at DU when Garland was rebuffed?"

[Funtatlaguy]

32. Im an old fart but I did the typical stuff of calling and emailing....

As old and decrepit as I am, I would answer a call to where I think we are headed when Trump does not allow the Congress to see the Mueller report unredcated.

[Kaleva]

37. Same with me. We old farts need to stick together!

[EffieBlack]

18. Because too many "Progressives" either thought this wasn't important or didn't like Garland

I remember it well.

Progressives - including many on this board - bitched and whined and moaned that Garland was too too conservative, too boring, too middle-of-the-road, too milquetoast, etc. and blasted President Obama for not selecting someone much more liberal.

And I distinctly remember Bernie supporters who kept railing about the "revolution" he was going to launch if elected being asked why he and they didn't start the revolution right then and join the fight to push for Garland's confirmation. Crickets.

Actually crickets would have been better than what we got - Bernie saying that, if he became president, he would withdraw Garland's nomination and nominate someone more to his liking. Yeah, that was really helpful, Senator. Thanks. ...

That's what we were dealing with at the time.

So, I don't have a lot of patience with the "Why didn't we do more then" question. I was part of the effort to fight for this confirmation and we desperately needed help from the troops and didn't get it - and it wasn't because no one knew what to do. They just refused to do it.

[jalan48]

23. Democrat's assumed Hillary would win easily and it would be her pick. Didn't work out that way.

[braddy]

27. Garland was nominated 7.5 months before the election to replace a president in his 8th year, by

as all assumed, Hillary Clinton, it would have been impossible to work up the public over not rushing to fill the seat, especially with the upcoming primaries and elections dominating the political world.

[procon]

28. Dems framed the wrong argument. This wasn't about the person nominated

to the Supreme Court, it was about the Constitutional rights and powers of a black president to nominate any new justice. They should have been queuing up for every camera they could find to push out that joint message and reinforce a sustained challenge against an obviously racist and bigoted Republican majority in the Senate.

[rockfordfile]

35. I agree should have been a bigger fight for Garland

[KPN]

36. Mostly because we aren't innately tribal

like the GOP. This is one case when we can as humans legitimately claim superiority; we are better than them. Unfortunately, they only yield to power and muscle. We are in a war so to speak, like it or not, and have long passed the point where we must flex and use our muscles if we are going to save and restore our democracy.