Bad, bad move by Sen. McCain......

[nat4900]

The current Senate, under McConnell, will soon rue the day that they did not EVEN allow a hearing for the SCOTUS nominee, Garland.

Garland is a relative "moderate" judging from his judicial history; somewhat like a Kennedy whose decisions have gone either left or right.

With Hillary a fairly sure bet to sit in the oval office next January and with the SCOTUS at an even 4-4 stalemate, the extra seat MUST be filled, and probably with a much more left-leaning nominee.

If the axiom of "to the victor belong the spoils" holds true, Clinton should be able to nominate whomever she wants AND if the senate does not wish to abandon its Constitutional responsibility, it MUST advice and consent and not sit on its arse.

McCain, whom I like for some of his other views, is dead WRONG when he recently stated: "I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton......would put up. I promise you."

Is this just partisan bitterness by the old dog, McCain? Or is it a preamble of how dysfunctional the senate plans to be? We have often heard that Obama refused to work with Congress, and if McCain's promise materializes, WHICH SIDE would be at fault?

 

[bendog]

The current Senate, under McConnell, will soon rue the day that they did not EVEN allow a hearing for the SCOTUS nominee, Garland.

Garland is a relative "moderate" judging from his judicial history; somewhat like a Kennedy whose decisions have gone either left or right.

With Hillary a fairly sure bet to sit in the oval office next January and with the SCOTUS at an even 4-4 stalemate, the extra seat MUST be filled, and probably with a much more left-leaning nominee.

If the axiom of "to the victor belong the spoils" holds true, Clinton should be able to nominate whomever she wants AND if the senate does not wish to abandon its Constitutional responsibility, it MUST advice and consent and not sit on its arse.

McCain, whom I like for some of his other views, is dead WRONG when he recently stated: "I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton......would put up. I promise you."

Is this just partisan bitterness by the old dog, McCain? Or is it a preamble of how dysfunctional the senate plans to be? We have often heard that Obama refused to work with Congress, and if McCain's promise materializes, WHICH SIDE would be at fault?

She needs to stick with Garland.

Dem senators to Clinton: Stick with Garland

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It’s partisan bitterness, contempt for the democratic process, and disdain for our republican form of government.

It’s incumbent upon the Senate to respect the will of the states when they elect Clinton president in December, and to confirm her appointments to the Supreme Court in a timely manner, consistent with the will of the states.

 

[g5000]

McCain, whom I like for some of his other views, is dead WRONG when he recently stated: "I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton......would put up. I promise you."

Stupid shit like that is how we ended up with the 17th Amendment. Political gamesmanship at the state legislature level left a lot of empty seats in the Senate, and so the dumbasses had their power to appoint taken from them.

 

[Vastator]

The current Senate, under McConnell, will soon rue the day that they did not EVEN allow a hearing for the SCOTUS nominee, Garland.

Garland is a relative "moderate" judging from his judicial history; somewhat like a Kennedy whose decisions have gone either left or right.

With Hillary a fairly sure bet to sit in the oval office next January and with the SCOTUS at an even 4-4 stalemate, the extra seat MUST be filled, and probably with a much more left-leaning nominee.

If the axiom of "to the victor belong the spoils" holds true, Clinton should be able to nominate whomever she wants AND if the senate does not wish to abandon its Constitutional responsibility, it MUST advice and consent and not sit on its arse.

McCain, whom I like for some of his other views, is dead WRONG when he recently stated: "I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton......would put up. I promise you."

Is this just partisan bitterness by the old dog, McCain? Or is it a preamble of how dysfunctional the senate plans to be? We have often heard that Obama refused to work with Congress, and if McCain's promise materializes, WHICH SIDE would be at fault?

It's not obligated to give consent if they feel the nominee isn't in the best interest of the nation. Its called checks, and balances. They could withold confirmation for the entire duration of her presidency. And it would be perfectly legal.

 

[oreo]

The current Senate, under McConnell, will soon rue the day that they did not EVEN allow a hearing for the SCOTUS nominee, Garland.

Garland is a relative "moderate" judging from his judicial history; somewhat like a Kennedy whose decisions have gone either left or right.

With Hillary a fairly sure bet to sit in the oval office next January and with the SCOTUS at an even 4-4 stalemate, the extra seat MUST be filled, and probably with a much more left-leaning nominee.

If the axiom of "to the victor belong the spoils" holds true, Clinton should be able to nominate whomever she wants AND if the senate does not wish to abandon its Constitutional responsibility, it MUST advice and consent and not sit on its arse.

McCain, whom I like for some of his other views, is dead WRONG when he recently stated: "I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton......would put up. I promise you."

Is this just partisan bitterness by the old dog, McCain? Or is it a preamble of how dysfunctional the senate plans to be? We have often heard that Obama refused to work with Congress, and if McCain's promise materializes, WHICH SIDE would be at fault?

Yeah, I brought this topic up a couple of months ago myself. That Republicans should have accepted Garland--because that's who THEY WANTED. But the far reich wing nut cases had their way again with the party, and since they're certain to lose the Senate--they'll get someone they don't want, and would have wished after the fact that they had appointed Garland to SCOTUS.

 

[nat4900]

It's not obligated to give consent if they feel the nominee isn't in the best interest of the nation. Its called checks, and balances. They could withold confirmation for the entire duration of her presidency. And it would be perfectly legal.

Perhaps "legal" but ethically that would suck.......Of course, give even a simple majority of democrats in the senate (with the VP also voting), the rules could be changed to make a justice's confirmation possible with just a simple majority...........GOP senators....beware !!!

 

[occupied]

The current Senate, under McConnell, will soon rue the day that they did not EVEN allow a hearing for the SCOTUS nominee, Garland.

Garland is a relative "moderate" judging from his judicial history; somewhat like a Kennedy whose decisions have gone either left or right.

With Hillary a fairly sure bet to sit in the oval office next January and with the SCOTUS at an even 4-4 stalemate, the extra seat MUST be filled, and probably with a much more left-leaning nominee.

If the axiom of "to the victor belong the spoils" holds true, Clinton should be able to nominate whomever she wants AND if the senate does not wish to abandon its Constitutional responsibility, it MUST advice and consent and not sit on its arse.

McCain, whom I like for some of his other views, is dead WRONG when he recently stated: "I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton......would put up. I promise you."

Is this just partisan bitterness by the old dog, McCain? Or is it a preamble of how dysfunctional the senate plans to be? We have often heard that Obama refused to work with Congress, and if McCain's promise materializes, WHICH SIDE would be at fault?

It's not obligated to give consent if they feel the nominee isn't in the best interest of the nation. Its called checks, and balances. They could withold confirmation for the entire duration of her presidency. And it would be perfectly legal.

It would be the last time the republicans will ever hold the senate.

 

[nat4900]

This is bad for the country on so many levels.........There are 3 or 4 current justices in their mid-70s, and we currently have a 4-4 tie with Kennedy often leaning left and Thomas lost without Scalia's lap to sit on.

It seems that conservatives want the 3 youngest and most right wing justices to be the only ones left in the SCOTUS....However, the repercussions of a co-nothing senate will be devastating for the GOP in 2018.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The current Senate, under McConnell, will soon rue the day that they did not EVEN allow a hearing for the SCOTUS nominee, Garland.

Garland is a relative "moderate" judging from his judicial history; somewhat like a Kennedy whose decisions have gone either left or right.

With Hillary a fairly sure bet to sit in the oval office next January and with the SCOTUS at an even 4-4 stalemate, the extra seat MUST be filled, and probably with a much more left-leaning nominee.

If the axiom of "to the victor belong the spoils" holds true, Clinton should be able to nominate whomever she wants AND if the senate does not wish to abandon its Constitutional responsibility, it MUST advice and consent and not sit on its arse.

McCain, whom I like for some of his other views, is dead WRONG when he recently stated: "I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton......would put up. I promise you."

Is this just partisan bitterness by the old dog, McCain? Or is it a preamble of how dysfunctional the senate plans to be? We have often heard that Obama refused to work with Congress, and if McCain's promise materializes, WHICH SIDE would be at fault?

It's not obligated to give consent if they feel the nominee isn't in the best interest of the nation. Its called checks, and balances. They could withold confirmation for the entire duration of her presidency. And it would be perfectly legal.

Until a Republican is in the WH at which time it will become important to fill the vacancies in a timely fashion.

 

[occupied]

The current Senate, under McConnell, will soon rue the day that they did not EVEN allow a hearing for the SCOTUS nominee, Garland.

Garland is a relative "moderate" judging from his judicial history; somewhat like a Kennedy whose decisions have gone either left or right.

With Hillary a fairly sure bet to sit in the oval office next January and with the SCOTUS at an even 4-4 stalemate, the extra seat MUST be filled, and probably with a much more left-leaning nominee.

If the axiom of "to the victor belong the spoils" holds true, Clinton should be able to nominate whomever she wants AND if the senate does not wish to abandon its Constitutional responsibility, it MUST advice and consent and not sit on its arse.

McCain, whom I like for some of his other views, is dead WRONG when he recently stated: "I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton......would put up. I promise you."

Is this just partisan bitterness by the old dog, McCain? Or is it a preamble of how dysfunctional the senate plans to be? We have often heard that Obama refused to work with Congress, and if McCain's promise materializes, WHICH SIDE would be at fault?

It's not obligated to give consent if they feel the nominee isn't in the best interest of the nation. Its called checks, and balances. They could withold confirmation for the entire duration of her presidency. And it would be perfectly legal.

Until a Republican is in the WH at which time it will become important to fill the vacancies in a timely fashion.

There will never be another republican president.

 

[nat4900]

Until a Republican is in the WH at which time it will become important to fill the vacancies in a timely fashion.

The "best" way to ensure a democrat majority of 60 in the senate in 2018, would be for current republicans to sit on their ass during the next 2 years.

 

[nat4900]

There will never be another republican president.

Well, there could be if the GOP can find a sane, Latina woman to run....LOL

 

[Political Junky]

McCain is disturbed.

 

[nat4900]

McCain is disturbed.

Too bad, really. I like McCain as one of the few reasonable republicans...for the most part.....but when the guy is sweating his re-election in a vivid red state like AZ, he tends to state stupid things....Perhaps it may be time for McCain to go live in one of those 5 or 6 homes he owns.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

McCain is disturbed.

Too bad, really. I like McCain as one of the few reasonable republicans...for the most part.....but when the guy is sweating his re-election in a vivid red state like AZ, he tends to state stupid things....Perhaps it may be time for McCain to go live in one of those 5 or 6 homes he owns.

I agree. I have respect for his service and for the most part, he's reasonable and respectful. That being said, when he gets politically against the wall, he toes the partisan line.

What he did with that woman at the town hall in '08 was straight class. I fear there's no place for that anymore.

 

[nat4900]

What he did with that woman at the town hall in '08 was straight class. I fear there's no place for that anymore.

PRECISELY !!!! Most of my respect for McCain stems from that exchange....and you and I well know that someone like Trump could NEVER, EVER rise to that level as McCain did.

Hopefully, the guy just spoke out of anger (and who could blame him with Trump as the GOP candidate,) and he'll revisit his stance.

 

[Rustic]

The current Senate, under McConnell, will soon rue the day that they did not EVEN allow a hearing for the SCOTUS nominee, Garland.

Garland is a relative "moderate" judging from his judicial history; somewhat like a Kennedy whose decisions have gone either left or right.

With Hillary a fairly sure bet to sit in the oval office next January and with the SCOTUS at an even 4-4 stalemate, the extra seat MUST be filled, and probably with a much more left-leaning nominee.

If the axiom of "to the victor belong the spoils" holds true, Clinton should be able to nominate whomever she wants AND if the senate does not wish to abandon its Constitutional responsibility, it MUST advice and consent and not sit on its arse.

McCain, whom I like for some of his other views, is dead WRONG when he recently stated: "I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton......would put up. I promise you."

Is this just partisan bitterness by the old dog, McCain? Or is it a preamble of how dysfunctional the senate plans to be? We have often heard that Obama refused to work with Congress, and if McCain's promise materializes, WHICH SIDE would be at fault?

It doesn't matter if Barry chooses or the hildabeast, they are all going to be fucked up progressives for nominees in the pocket of the puppet masters of the progressive career politician...
Anyone that they choose will be extremely political… Fact

 

[Rustic]

It’s partisan bitterness, contempt for the democratic process, and disdain for our republican form of government.

It’s incumbent upon the Senate to respect the will of the states when they elect Clinton president in December, and to confirm her appointments to the Supreme Court in a timely manner, consistent with the will of the states.

Who gives a shit

 

[Rustic]

The current Senate, under McConnell, will soon rue the day that they did not EVEN allow a hearing for the SCOTUS nominee, Garland.

Garland is a relative "moderate" judging from his judicial history; somewhat like a Kennedy whose decisions have gone either left or right.

With Hillary a fairly sure bet to sit in the oval office next January and with the SCOTUS at an even 4-4 stalemate, the extra seat MUST be filled, and probably with a much more left-leaning nominee.

If the axiom of "to the victor belong the spoils" holds true, Clinton should be able to nominate whomever she wants AND if the senate does not wish to abandon its Constitutional responsibility, it MUST advice and consent and not sit on its arse.

McCain, whom I like for some of his other views, is dead WRONG when he recently stated: "I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton......would put up. I promise you."

Is this just partisan bitterness by the old dog, McCain? Or is it a preamble of how dysfunctional the senate plans to be? We have often heard that Obama refused to work with Congress, and if McCain's promise materializes, WHICH SIDE would be at fault?

Yeah, I brought this topic up a couple of months ago myself. That Republicans should have accepted Garland--because that's who THEY WANTED. But the far reich wing nut cases had their way again with the party, and since they're certain to lose the Senate--they'll get someone they don't want, and would have wished after the fact that they had appointed Garland to SCOTUS.

You were confusing Republicans with conservatives, not even close to the same thing