Remember when McConnell denied Marrick Garland his constitutional right to be on the Supreme Court

[Chasstev365]

and all the Democratic Senators said he should resign?

YEAH, ME NEITHER!

[still_one]

1. SC Court

[FBaggins]

2. He had a constitutional right to be on the SC?

That's a new one.

One could reasonably claim that he had a right to a vote... or at least a hearing. He didn't have a right to win the vote.

And Democrats didn't fuss at the time, because we expected to win the White House.

[lame54]

3. I think we all know what he means

[kelly1mm]

5. I think the op meant what he wrote. Why would you think differently? Nt

[lame54]

7. Because i give him the benefit...

Of the doubt that he understands that a vote takes place before the seating

I'm very sure he thinks he has a right to a vote and not the right to a yes vote

[kelly1mm]

8. Then the op should have wrote that. I think it unlikely that the Republican

Controlled Senate would have confirmed him even if somehow the vote was forced upon them.

[PoliticAverse]

11. As Ruth Bader Ginsberg put it on the issue of the courts forcing the Senate to consider Garland

“If the Senate is not acting, what can be done about it?” Ginsburg asked rhetorically. “Even if you could conceive of a testing lawsuit, what would the response be? ‘Well, you want us to vote, so we’ll vote no.’ 

[Chasstev365]

6. Oh, OK: Let's be technical:

President Obama had the constitutional right to nominate Garland and the Senate has no valid reason to to have hearings and a vote!

Are you satisfied now?

[FBaggins]

9. Still no

Nobody expected Garland to get past the Senate, including President Obama. He was nominated so that Republicans would have to own voting him down.

Democratic senators didn't want him to be confirmed, because they expected Hillary to win the White House and Democrats to retake the Senate. We would therefore have a far more progressive supreme court nominee who we could confirm.

[kelly1mm]

10. No, because the Senate even if it had a vote could have voted no. It is not like

They have to explain why they vote how they do ......

[kelly1mm]

4. No, because no one has a constitutional right to be on the SC. He may have

Had a right to a vote on his appointment but not to the actual seat. Technically, I think it may be the Presidents right to have his nominee voted on, not the appointee themselves.