Supreme Court Nominees: The McConnell Rule

[gratuitous]

Remember that Sen. McConnell said that President Obama didn't represent the true will of the American people because his party lost seats in the 2014 election, even though President Obama had won re-election with a majority vote in 2012. President Trump, by the same token (no pun intended), similarly does not represent the true will of the American people, because not only did he fail to win a majority of the popular vote in 2016, he didn't capture even a plurality of the vote, and his party was outpolled in the national popular vote. Therefore, the Senate is bound under the McConnell Rule to refuse even a committee hearing for Judge Gorsuch.

That's how things work now, isn't it? We can't go against the ironclad rules laid down by the Senate Majority Leader can we?

NOTE: Reposted as an original post from another thread by request of some of the folks who read it and thought it deserved its own thread.

[tritsofme]

1. McConnell was able to cause mischief with the Garland nomination because of their majority.

If Democrats held the majority, they could lay down this marker, unfortunately we lack that power from the minority.

If Democrats can take back the Senate in 2018, there should definitely no consideration of Supreme Court picks under the McConnell rule, but we lack the votes to enforce it today.

[Vinca]

2. I'm trying to figure out how McConnell can be in charge of running the show as he follows

lockstep with orders from the King to use a filibuster to get Gorsuch confirmed. McConnell's wife is a cabinet member and can be hired and fired at the whim of King Donald. If Mitch doesn't toe the line, his family could lose a good chunk of money every year. How is this not a conflict of interest?