Hacker News Reader

Comment by cozuya | Hacker News Reader

So Republicans can change the agreed upon rules (norms), lie about it, and then change the rules again, to get what they want while they're in power, but when the Democrats are in power, they have to play by the Republican's rules?

In 1988, AN ELECTION YEAR, the Dems controlled the senate and still confirmed Kennedy who was put forward by Reagan of course, 97-0. But when Mitch McConnell spits in the face of Obama and Merrick Garland, Dems are supposed to just sit and take it?

Once again, elections have consequences, and we'll see what they are very soon.

By the way this is academic as Manchin has said he won't do it.

View on HN

> So Republicans can change the agreed upon rules (norms), lie about it, and then change the rules again, to get what they want while they're in power, but when the Democrats are in power, they have to play by the Republican's rules?

The only agreed upon "rules" are what the legislature passes. "Norms" don't really mean much; those are just glorified pinky promises.

You're basically comparing "norms" to laws, but those two are not the same. The fact that there are 9 justices on the Supreme Court isn't a norm that we all just shake hands and agree on, it's what's currently set by legislation. Mitch McConnell never violated any law, nor did he change the rules via legislation. He (and the GOP) exercised the power to advise and consent (or not) to a nomination. If the people had wanted the kind of nomination he refused to consent to, they would have voted for a different Chief Executive, and a different Senate. But alas, that did not happen; those are the rules of the game.

What you (and the so called "academics") are advocating for is changing the rules of the game. Notwithstanding the merits of that, it is in no way comparable to just playing hardball by the existing rules, and to argue otherwise is pretty disingenuous.

> In 1988, AN ELECTION YEAR, the Dems controlled the senate and still confirmed Kennedy who was put forward by Reagan of course, 97-0

That’s because Kennedy was Reagan’s third try to fill that seat after Democrats blocked the first two. In late 1987, a year before the election, Patrick Leahy gave Kennedy an ultimatum that if Senate Democrats didn’t like the next appointment, they’d hold the seat open until after the 1988 election. That was against a vastly more popular President than Obama—Reagan had won his election in 1984 by 18 points.

A completely disingenuous bad faith response. Merrick Garland, a VERY close to center moderate, was not EVEN GIVEN A HEARING. Justice Kennedy was, and was confirmed. Tell us all (no one is watching any more) why its "fair" that Garland was not given a hearing. PLEASE.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com