Bill DOES realize he’s a CLINTON, doesn’t he?
Bill Clinton offered some unintended comic relief when he weighed in with some thoughts about what should happen in light of the empty SCOTUS seat.
Needless to say, he obviously thinks that the only fair way forward is to insist on the position that most favors the Leftist cause.
To do otherwise would smack of some sort of political hypocrisy, you see.
President Bill Clinton: "You can't keep a democracy if there's one set of rules for one group and another set for everybody else." pic.twitter.com/gyfZs6aUA6
— The Hill (@thehill) September 20, 2020
‘Let’s remember the committments and the comments that Mitch McConnell made. I think it would be good for Senator McConnel and make him feel better when he gets up in the morning if he (laugh) he prove he isn’t being a hypocrite at the time and he just stuck with his position. And I think all the other Republicans should be asked to do the same. But you… you can’t keep a democracy if there’s one set of rules for one group and another set for everybody else.’
Wait — was he trying to be serious?
Because it’s only been a couple of weeks since his wife openly said to hell with the democratic process.
You don’t really think we’ve already forgotten THIS, have you? WATCH: Hillary Says That ‘Joe Biden Should Not Concede Under ANY Circumstances’
Let’s help poor Bill out:
If the Senate was controlled by the Dems, they would be within their rights not to vote on Trump’s pick. It’s really not difficult to not be a partisan hack.
— LB (@beyondreasdoubt) September 21, 2020
Ginsberg herself had an opinion on the matter:
In 2016, RBG broke precedent and weighed in on President Obama's right to replace Antonin Scalia. “There is nothing in the Constitution,” she said, “that says the president stops being president in his last years.”https://t.co/yeFnCwdDu4
— Marc Thiessen (@marcthiessen) September 19, 2020
As did that Constitutional Scholar Obama:
Just dug up this clip of Obama in 2016:
"When there is a vacancy on the SCOTUS, the President is to nominate someone, the Senate is to consider that nomination… There's no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off-years. That's not in the Constitution text." pic.twitter.com/vrOi3DrkJN
— Kelb Hull (@CalebJHull) September 19, 2020
Let’s be honest here. If Schumer had the majority you would block him. And if you could pull it off, that would be your prerogative. And if he held the majority when Garland was nominated, he would have filled Scalia’s seat.
Schumer does NOT have the majority. So he does NOT hold the power to block this appointment. Too bad, so sad. Elections, as you like to remind us, have consequences.
As for ‘Democracy’… your party is already cooking up another Impeachment process EXPLICITLY for no other reason than to block a SCOTUS appointment.
As Shapiro succinctly points out:
Republicans: We should nominate a justice to fill a vacant seat, and since we control a majority in the Senate, we should vote to confirm.
Democrats: If you fill this vacant SCOTUS seat, we'll pack the court.
Media: WHY ARE REPUBLICANS VIOLATING INSTITUTIONAL NORMS
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) September 21, 2020
WE are not the ones trying to rewrite how the country works on the fly. That’s you guys.
Bill Clinton is a fraud. We have a record of how he and Hillary have conducted themselves and know they would continue to do so given the chance.
They, of all people, don’t get to lecture us about democracy, or especially, about some people playing by a separate set of rules.
The last word goes to Lindsey Graham:
1. I forgot how good this was.
2. Everyone underestimates the extent to which the Kavanaugh experience has radicalized fair minded conservatives when it comes to court fights. https://t.co/Zw0SCAIwLt
— Josh Holmes (@HolmesJosh) September 21, 2020