Thread by @CA3blog

On 3/2/09, every Republican Senator signed a letter to Obama that said, “Regretfully, if we are not consulted on, and approve of, a nominee from our states, the Republican Conference will be unable to support moving forward on that nominee.” /1

republican.senate.gov/public/index.c…

On 10/26/16, conservative strategist Ilya Shapiro wrote, "if Hillary Clinton is president it would be completely decent, honorable, and in keeping with the Senate’s constitutional duty to vote against essentially every judicial nominee she names.” /2

thefederalist.com/2016/10/26/sen…

But with Trump president, their view has changed. Even as they confirm his judges at a record pace, now they insist, “for the sake of our courts, as well as the credibility of the Senate, this blatant obstruction of qualified nominees must be stopped.” /3

washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds…

Throughout the spring of 2016, GOP leaders insisted they blocked Garland out of “principle,” to “let the American people decide.” /4

npr.org/2016/03/16/470…

Then when it looked like Hillary would be elected, top R Sens pledged to block anyone she nominated. Even McCain said, “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up.” /5

nytimes.com/2016/11/07/opi…

Shapiro again: “the Senate is fully within its powers to let the Supreme Court die out, literally.” /6

thefederalist.com/2016/10/26/sen…

So now when conservatives scold Trump’s critics for inconsistency and insufficient fidelity to principle, the only appropriate response is a hearty guffaw. /end

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @CA3blog view original on Twitter