web analytics

THE MCCONNELL DOCTRINE

By Pete Moore On September 21st, 2020

I see confusion abroad about the so-called McConnell Doctrine with regard to Supreme Court appointments. Allow me to explain. The doctrine has two parts. It says that the Senate should not ratify a President’s nomination for the Supreme Court if:

1) it is an election year, and

2) the Senate majority and President are of different parties.

Both tests are not fulfilled because the President and the Senate majority are of the same party. Many have cited only the first condition. Mainly Dems, libs, commies, never-Trumpers and other riff-raff, mainly. We won’t be making that error in here though, will we? I don’t know about you, but this array of luminaries have certainly persuaded me with their passionate calls.

(I know, if they didn’t have double standards they’d have no standards.)

 

23 Responses to “THE MCCONNELL DOCTRINE”

  1. Is that what the Gombeen Man said in 2016?

  2. Can you show one single statement in 2016 that in any way shape or form argues the second point? Because the current chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, before he decided to be a hypocrite stated:

    If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.

    He didn’t qualify it with if there is a Republican president in 2016 and a Democratic Senate. They are making it up to cover up for their hypocrisy. As I’m sure you know.

  3. They’re indeed making up the rule as they go along.

    The local twitterers have their marching orders, and are doing the Fox News shuffle on this.

  4. McConnell described Obama as a lame-duck president on the issue of Garland’s nomination because the GOP held the Senate majority. He also said that it was the will of the Republican Conference in the Senate is that the nomination should not be filled. It was on that basis that he urged an intemperate president not to nominate. Those conditions do not apply today.

  5. “McConnell described Obama as a lame-duck president on the issue of Garland’s nomination because the GOP held the Senate majority. He also said that it was the will of the Republican Conference in the Senate is that the nomination should not be filled. It was on that basis that he urged an intemperate president not to nominate. Those conditions do not apply today.”

    He said Obama was a lame-duck because there was an election in 2016, not because the Republicans controlled the Senate. So again can you provide one single statement in 2016 that in any way shape or form qualifies the block on appointments but mentions anything about partisan control of the Senate?

  6. Poor Pete.

    Nice Rube Goldberg argument though

    Rube Goldberg

  7. McConnell is a total stinking hypocrite, even by GOP standards. He’s so far up Trump’s ass he’s like a colonoscopy.

  8. What’s the best choice

    a) spend a two hour lunch with Ted Cruz

    b) spend a two hour lunch with Mitch McConnell

    c) Spend six months in Attica Correctional facility

    https://www.prisonpro.com/content/attica-correctional-facility

  9. The only thing worse is being lectured on ethics by Pelosi and Schumer.

  10. This will backfire on the GOP if they bulldoze it through before election day. It will energise the Democrat base like crazy. And what goes around comes around. The chances of the Democrats winning control of the senate just got better. By 4 November the SCOTUS could be the only thing the GOP is left with.

  11. What’s wrong about Schumer’s ethics?

    Serious question

    He’s a little too in love with his own face in front of a tv camera, but what else is wrong with him

    He actually has a personality, something the other two don’t seem to have.

  12. Schumer, like all politicians, has no ethics. If his role was reversed, he would be acting just like McConnell. I don’t think he is as bad as Pelosi though, who seems to have a really hateful streak (ripping up the speech etc.)

    I’m not, BTW, defending McConnell here. I think he was wrong in 2016. I think a good compromise would be to let Trump make his nomination per the constitution, and have the Senate take it up after the election if Trump wins.

  13. That’s not a compromise.

    That still rewards McConnell for what he did in 2016, still gives him the benefit of his ever-changing ” rule “.

  14. That’s more of a “compromise” than any Republican will give you. There’s the special senate election in Arizona that becomes effective the day after election day. The balance of the Senate could quickly shift by one. That’s why the R’s want to get this done quickly, by hook or by crook.

    It’s interesting that Trump is considering a Cuban-American. Can you imagine Florida hanging in the balance while Dems beat up on a Cuban!?

  15. Now, both parties are ” all in ” on identity politics.

    Florida remains in the Biden column, but close.

    If Trump picks a Cuban American for electoral reasons, I think that he’s a dope. He’s got those Cuban votes anyway.

    Florida as always is interesting.

    The Latinos are no monolith. The Cubans like Trump, the Puerto Ricans and other latins mostly despise him. There are almost as many Puerto Ricans as Cubans there now. There are many Puerto Ricans in the Orlando area now. And they all can vote.

  16. Charles –

    Dems never compromise. Remember the rules – when they win they have a mandate, when Republicans win they must compromise in bipartisan spirit. The left has always demonstrated that only power matters and that they will do anything to get it. Conservatives should play by their rules for a change.

    So screw them. Remember how they treated Brett Kavanaugh. Remember that they called him a gang rapist in front of his family. Remember that they fabricated terrible lies about him. You want to compromise with those people? Screw them.

  17. It’s easy to see how the politics of this could play in the Dems’ favour. Let’s assume that Trump’s pick is bulldozed through before election day. That will be the SCOTUS securely in conservative hands for a decade at least (maybe 20 years) and Roe v Wade will be doomed.

    In that case, who will be more motivated to vote on 3 November? The conservatives and evangelicals, who will already have got their prize (and many of them despise Trump) or the Democrat base who will be out for revenge by winning both the White House and Senate? As I say, what goes around comes around.

  18. Remember that they fabricated terrible lies about him.

    A woman made credible allegations which the GOP senate decided to ignore.

    Just like at least 23 women have made allegations against Trump. But just like beer boy’s accuser they are all damned as sexually promiscuous liars. All 23 of them.

  19. The McConnell doctrine is tactually much simpler than Pete’s 2 step claims. It is the doctrine of adopting and changing whatever procedure is needed to win. It would be more honest if they simply admitted it rather than going through the farce of claiming the ‘principle’ isn’t different from how they behaved in 2016.

  20. Peter

    The charges against Kavanaugh were unprovable

  21. Just like at least 23 women have made allegations against Trump. But just like beer boy’s accuser they are all damned as sexually promiscuous liars. All 23 of them.

    That was pretty much the summary, and some of them were utterly absurd.

    Anyway, babies in their mother’s wombs should rest a bit easier now that the defender of partial-birth abortion – a crime against humanity – is now back with Satan:

    https://www.cnsnews.com/article/washington/terence-p-jeffrey/supreme-court-defender-partial-birth-abortion-dies

    This is partial-birth abortion…….

    https://americanrtl.org/sites/default/files/images/PBA-original-diagrams.jpg

  22. The charges against Kavanaugh were unprovable

    Maybe, but if Kavanaugh had been a Democrat POTUS nomination I have a funny idea that the GOP senate might just have reacted differently. Just a wild hunch you understand.

  23. Allan

    I’m astonished that you have’t dragged Ginsberg’s Jewish heritage into this, as in “Jewish bitch, rot in hell” or some such.

    There, I’ve given you an opening.