Posted by bad_luck on 7/10/2018 4:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by all3 on 7/10/2018 4:07:00 PM (view original):
Yup, typical b_l; site one event and say that proves it's like that all the time.
Maybe it has been, and I'm not looking a bunch of sheit up to prove things either way, but if it has, it shouldn't be, and one example certainly doesn't prove anything. I'd like to think voters consider the full history of what a person has and/or hasn't done, with such a blatant Party move being just one big negative.
What blatant party move? McConnell blocking Garland's hearing? Or a different one?
Not speaking about the one specific event you noted, just speaking in generalities - if a sitting elected official votes against a properly qualified SC nominee for nothing more than Party affiliation, that should be viewed as a big negative against him by the voters. If he's not going to put Party politics aside to get a qualified SC Justice in place, he's almost assuredly not going to put them aside to do what's best for his electorate.