Last year, Obama nominated a highly-qualified person to the Supreme Court but the Republicans, using their “block everything” strategy that they’d held during all eight years of the Obama administration, refused to “advise and consent” as the Constitution requires and didn’t even hold a single hearing on the nominee — something completely unprecedented in American history.
Now they’re upset that Democrats are planning to do something similar to them.
Oh, you big babies. You can dish it out but you can’t take it.
“But this is different,” they say. “We didn’t think the President should appoint someone when there was an election near, because they people should decide this.”
Well, guess what? The people did decide. The people supported Hillary Clinton by a pretty big margin. The Electoral College may have decided differently, but that’s not what you said. The majority of the people didn’t want you or your President to pick the next Supreme Court Justice.
How’s this, then? The President shouldn’t appoint a Supreme Court Justice when he is being investigated for treason. Isn’t that much better reason to deny it? Oh, right — it’s very different when it’s your leader who is accused of crimes that could have him impeached and removed soon.
Typical Republican logic: “Never hold us to the same standards by which we hold you!”
ventrellaquest.com 
Conservative legislators also managed to sidestep the Constitutional requirement to reapportion the House after each census throughout the 1920s, fearing that increased urban representation would jeopardize their control. That was the only decade in which the House of Representatives was not reapportioned.
LikeLike