Thread by @nycsouthpaw

Man this is atrocious

https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1448762944075018251

*blue ribbon commissioning intensifies*

Here’s a more representative excerpt of the commission’s treatment of expansion. Still not great, imo.

A blind spot of the report is its elevation of shoring up “the court’s legitimacy” as the main goal of reform, rather than the law’s legitimacy and integrity.

This is some of the most cowardly shit ever to hide behind a watermark.

Here’s endnote 130, citing something McConnell put in his written statement to the commission about Bork—who lost an unfilibustered floor vote 58-42 with Republicans voting against him!! OMFG!—and a link to the doc. whitehouse.gov/wp-content/upl… cc @rauchway

What Bork got:
- A hearing
- A committee vote (which sent his nomination to the floor despite recommending he be rejected, 9-6)
- No filibuster
- A floor vote (which went against him 58-42)

Garland got none of those things. McConnell and other Rs refused to even meet with him.

In short, if Rs had treated Garland like Bork and gotten him voted down on a bipartisan basis like Borm, Dems would have no legitimate beef. They didn’t do that because they couldn’t. They would’ve lost. Senators like Garland; he got confirmed to the DC Circuit w like 76 votes.

They likely would’ve lost a vote to postpone Garland’s nomination indefinitely too, which is why McConnell didn’t hold one.

THAT is the beef with the Garland nomination. The Senate didn’t act on it at all. McConnell and Grassley connived to take the issue out of Senators hands.