Yeah. It's exactly the same.
Refusing to have a vote on someone to a relatively minor executive branch position that nearly everyone recognizes is qualified, has the widespread support of colleagues from both parties around the country, etc., and using the refusal to seat someone to a legally created position in a legally created board in an attempt to prevent the board from operating.
vs.
Contentious arguments and votes for someone to fill a lifetime appointment on the courts who has reactionary views, is divisive, wants to undo established law and precedent that goes back decades, etc. Or arguments and votes for someone to fill a cabinet-level appointment (someone in line for the presidency) who has alcohol and womanizing problems (which opens them up to attempted blackmail in an extremely sensitive position), etc.
Tower was voted down (53:47) by his former colleagues in the Senate. He had a vote. Bork was voted down as well. Thomas got a vote and won.
The nuclear option was about judicial filibusters/cloture votes.
Yeah, it's exactly the same. Of course.
Not.
I'm having trouble seeing how Cordray's recess appointment is similar to the things you've brought up. Help me out.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Scott.
