if by do this, I assume you mean hold a vote when politically convenient.
There are a couple of problems with Republican excuses. First and foremost, while the Constitution does not specify when the Senate should consider SC confirmations, as a reasonable person I would have to conclude the Founders meant as soon as possible. There is no verbiage regarding political power structures etc, just advise and consent. Second, Republicans are now using historical records of when past confirmations were held as their reason for holding hearings. This belies the reality of the facts. The facts are the reason for the record is when a party held power their nomination was considered and when the executive branch did not control the Senate, their nomination was not considered. Republicans however did not say that. What they said was let the voice of the people be heard.
Their argument was an obvious distraction and disingenuous. It is all about power. The truth was too crass for Republicans to let the people hear it.
_________________________ ignorance is the enemy without equality there is no liberty Get off the crazy train!!! ... dump Trump
I think they do. I'm not a Democrat nor a Republican. But when they change their stances depending on gaining political advantage or a perceived political advantage, that's why I remain a neutral, remain non-affiliated. A short history on SCOTUS nominations.
2007 Schumer stated the Democrats shouldn't vote on any SCOTUS nominee from G.W. Bush if an opening occurs during his last year and half of his presidency.
2016 McConnell no vote on Garland 2016 Schumer a vote on Garland needs to occur, contradicts his 2007/8 stance. 2016 Ginsberg "There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being the president in his last year," Ginsburg said in a 2016 New York Times interview in which she called for Garland to receive a confirmation vote in the Senate. As for whether the Senate should take up a vote on Garland, Ginsburg said at the time, "That's their job."
2020 Schumer, no vote on any Trump nominee. Contradicts his 2016 stance 2020 McConnell, a vote will occur on Trump's nominee. Contradicts his 2016 stance 2020 Ginsberg, Ginsburg, whose death was announced Friday, reportedly told her granddaughter Clara Spera, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed." Contradicts her 2016 stance.
So I sit back and watch all the fun. It's really fun to watch these party leaders falling all over themselves trying to explain their contradictions of stances. One side for and other against one election year, then they reverse to being against and for the next election year and so on.
It's high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first instead of their political party. For way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.
Loc: Port Angeles, WA
Virtually all of it, on both sides, has to do with ad hominem attacks. Everybody seems more interested in conflict that just about anything. People are attacked and not the ideas. I find it all very strange. Attacks on Trump have little to do with the constant nonsense he spouts as he has made that, somehow, acceptable. Its interesting. There is a group trying to get the debate tested for reality vs. whatever. I think its called truth testing. The simple fact is that truth testing can get complicated.
Trump says that all the covid testing is increasing the number of people getting the virus. This is, on one level, actually correct its just not stated correctly. Covid testing is not increasing the number of people getting the virus so much as increasing our knowledge in how many more people we have discovered that already been infected. Its two different things! What he is really saying is that he knows there are lots of people that have been infected but he doesn't really care and would rather not know! THAT is what he is, basically, saying but nobody says that. Instead they just laugh and say he is crazy. If, however, they took time out to understand our dear leader, then they would understand the problem.
Trump has a number of problems. One of those we see all the time is his obvious dislike to having people telling him about stuff going south. To deal with that, and his problem dealing, he tries, very hard, to shut down those who would tell him things he considers to be attacks due to his complete inability to deal with problems. THAT IS A PROBLEM! I just don't get it. Trump has pretty much failed at virtually anything he has tried, Marriage, Business, Presidency, you name it, he has screwed it up! He qualifies as one of the worst businessmen of the century! This is a man who actually blew through close to the almost half a billion dollars given to him by his daddy! Nobody with knowledge of his history would doubt this stuff. The interesting thing is that he has managed to change the discussion, about just about anything you can think off. He is VERY good at that! Instead we are having all these really stupid arguments about silly things! BOTH SIDES! Its just flat out crazy!
There is actually a book, incidentally, that explains, exactly, how Trump deals with stuff. Its called "Gaslighting America: Why We Love It When Trump Lies to Us" it was written by a lifelong Republican and actually explains much, is actually cheap, and available for very little as an ebook.