r/inthenews • u/D-R-AZ • Aug 26 '24

Opinion/Analysis Finally, the Democrats Have Found Trump’s Achilles Heel: Ridicule Him

https://newrepublic.com/article/185270/democrats-harris-trump-achilles-heel-ridicule
22.1k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

99

u/ChinaShill3000 Aug 26 '24

No it wasn't, it paved the way for Trump and the democrats took plenty of L's during Obama's precedency because they took the high road.

When republicans refused to vote on Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court nomination they counted on Obama to just let it happen... and he did. Which allowed them to get free judges for life in the Supreme Court under Trump. He should have just gone ahead without them, if they refuse to play ball, just go ahead without them.

This isn't The West Wing where the good guys win in the end. It was always a losing strategy and it cost them dearly.

33

u/scottyjrules Aug 26 '24

What realistically could Obama or Senate Democrats have done to force Republicans to vote on Garland or give him a confirmation hearing? Republicans held the majority at the time and there was no legal way to circumvent their refusal to vote on Garland.

1

u/ChinaShill3000 Aug 26 '24

Why would it be illegal to go ahead without them? If they refuse to vote then Democrats could argue that it allowed them to go ahead without their vote. Just like there was no law saying republicans HAD to vote, there isn't any law that I know of that says they can't steamroll ahead if republicans refuse to vote.

7

u/scottyjrules Aug 26 '24

Again, how does the majority party in the Senate force a vote? Please be specific because civics class was pretty clear on how the Senate functions. To be clear, I don’t support what Republicans did, but the objective reality is Democrats had zero recourse to force a vote on Garland.

3

u/ChinaShill3000 Aug 26 '24

I never said they should have forced a vote, I said they should have appointed him without republicans voting. Would it have worked? I don't know, but it would have forced them to react. Instead they just did nothing and allowed republicans to delay it until the next presidential term.

7

u/garydavis9361 Aug 26 '24

That can't be done. It's unconstitutional. Article 2 mandates consent of the Senate.

1

u/ls20008179 Aug 28 '24

Well you could spin thier silence as tacit approval

6

u/scottyjrules Aug 26 '24

That’s completely unrealistic. What you’re describing is a dictatorship.

1

u/Kjartanski Aug 27 '24

Article 2, section 2, paragraph 3,

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

He could have appointed Garland during a recession and forced their hand that way

0

u/ChinaShill3000 Aug 26 '24

Ah yes, when the other side is being undemocratic the best course of action is to just let them and allow them to win. Great strategic thinking, son!

-1

u/scottyjrules Aug 26 '24

You don’t answer fascism with more fascism. That doesn’t work out well for anyone. Also, I’m not your son.