We both agree that Garland should have had a vote, up or down. At that time, the Senate was still under the 60 vote rule so he might not have received the 60 votes needed, which imo, made the blocking of the vote even more dumb, politically. I also think the Dems should not have blocked the idea that Bush had regarding all judicial nominees. He wanted every nominee from that point on, regardless of who was in the WH, to have an up/down vote within 180 days; Dems wanted to play politics and refused to even consider such an idea. Now, because of the politics both parties have played over the decades, we now have Trump filling up the lower courts with his picks because of the rule change that the Dems made under Obama. But even that hasn't stopped the party hacks from continuing to play politics. As Willie Nelson sings in his newest song, "Vote'em Out!"
HOWEVER, that was not the point of the OP.
CNN going out of it's way to try to make Repubs and Trump look bad, even if they have to use false information that they are too lazy to correct. Remember, they reported on that very subject many times over the last several years with the correct information at hand (i.e. the last time it really happened).
So now let's see how many people will continue to fully support CNN as an "honest broker" of news and also see just how many will admit that CNN is in the bag for the Democrats. |
