You’re applying the behavior of Republicans under Trump in 2024 to their behavior in 2016 under Mitch McConnell, which is not a fair way to interpret history.

The Republicans’ primary goal has always been to consolidate power, a strategy evident even before Trump’s influence. This was evident in 2016 when McConnell blocked Merrick Garland’s appointment. It wasn’t just about denying Obama a win; it was about maintaining control over the Supreme Court. By holding the position open, they ensured a conservative majority with Gorsuch’s appointment in 2017.

While their actions under Trump have often seemed erratic and without principle, the decision to block Garland was a calculated, strategic move rooted in the same pursuit of power. Viewing their behavior solely through the lens of recent events, like the border bill, ignores the broader, consistent strategy they have employed over the years.

The move to block Garland was a clear demonstration of their long-term strategy to secure judicial power, not an isolated act of obstructionism. This context is crucial for understanding the continuity in their approach to power, rather than seeing it as a sudden shift in behavior.

This isn’t a bill and this wasn’t 2024. Mitch McConnell was responsible for stonewalling Garland’s appointment to the supreme court. Trump was responsible for killing the bill. Trump is an idiot, McConnell is just evil. They don’t play the same way at all. They almost certainly would have passed that legislation if Trump hadn’t interfered.

It was a lifetime appointment to the most powerful position in the country, assuming you have a like-minded majority. If he were a federalist, it would have been a gift to them on a silver platter.

We’re dealing with counterfactuals here, but attributing their increasingly irrational behavior today to all their actions in the past is a terrible way to interpret history.

He is not. If he were, why would the republicans have stonewalled his nomination for Supreme Court Justice? It doesn’t make sense.

He has participated in some events, like debates, with the federalist society, but he is not a member.

Do all the research in the world and you will not find any connection there.

Legally, we weren’t convicting him of adultery, he’s a convicted felon for trying to hide it in order to subvert the election.

Even though the entire case is predicated on adultery, it is not a legal fact, so they’re covering themselves from a libel lawsuit.

I’m not a lawyer, however, so that’s training from my journalism degree years ago talking. Someone with better knowledge can correct me.

She’s a federal judge and not subject to state oversight. She answers to the federal government.