What the Constitution Actually Says about Supreme Court Judges | National Review

Yes, true.

McConnell made a decision back then, which was based upon circumstances of that particular time. In a recent tweet, he explained that seeing the Democrats' despicable behavior, he has changed his stance on the issue and now supports filling the vacancy. He. Changed. His. Mind.

Have you ever changed your mind on something based on new facts or situations? is it a bad thing to evolve your thinking on particular subjects?

If we revoked authority to act based upon someone changing their stance on an issue, the great majority of the Democrat Party would be out of a job, in particular, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, etc.

SSG(P) (Join to see) - McConnell went on record in 2008 about his crusade to make Obama a 1 term president. He spent the entire 8 years blocking everything he could, including judicial nominations. It was his actions that were despicable. Nothing can justify his flip-flop. Nothing can shield him from the charge of hypocrisy.

Can you honestly say the Democrats wouldn't have done the same thing if given the chance (prior to the so called precedent)? If you believe they would have acted in good faith, I have a bridge to sell you. I don't like the flip flop politics either, as I've already stated to you in agreeing it was hypocritical, but let's not try to claim either party would take the so called high ground here.

Countless times I've noted the positions and actual words uttered by Democrats running for office and then completely change their position once elected. When pointed out, the response I typically get is "they changed their mind, so what?"...

The thing is here, whether they voted on Garland or not, Obama still would not have been successful. The GOP would not have voted for him. Either way, it would have been Clinton's or Trump's choice.

Thanks!