Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The seat's not empty. You need to read up on how many Supreme court justices are needed.
Crimine FDR wanted like about 15
You think Thomas Roberts and Alito met a multinational that bothers them?Two wrongs don't make a right. This ship has to be put back on track. Retribution would feel good for a minute, but this is more important.If this is their position when HRC is elected she should just respond 'there will be a blanket veto on EVERY bill Congress sends to my desk to be signed until the proper Congress is elected and 'the people have had their say in a proper election'.
The time has come for the Democrats to cram this shit right back down the Republican's throats. The Republicans have decided the Constitution isn't valid anymore and they can ignore it.
Let's find out.
There's nothing more important than keeping globalist progressives out of the SC.
Sorry, Grampa. The Constitution is a recipe for how to structure and run the government. To me, the Republican senators refusing to advise and consent on a SCOTUS nominee for ten months is refusing to follow the Constitution's recipe. I didn't use the word "Unconstitutional." It is obstructing the flow of government as set forth by the Constitution.Can you explain how this is unconstitutional in YOUR OWN WORDS?WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain pledged Monday that Republicans will unite against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton puts forward if she becomes president, forecasting obstruction that could tie Capitol Hill in knots.
However an aide later clarified that McCain, R-Ariz., will examine the record of anyone nominated for the high court and vote for or against that person based on their qualifications.
McCain's initial comments came in an interview with Philadelphia talk radio host Dom Giordano to promote the candidacy of Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa.
"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered."
"This is the strongest argument I can make to return Pat Toomey, so we can make sure there are not three places on the United States Supreme Court that will change this country for decades," McCain said.
Yeah, right, nice attempt at a save by the aide. So the Republicans plan on another 4 years of do-nothing obstructionism if they don't get their way?
No one who values democracy or our form of government should vote for a single Republican in this election. Democrats will have no choice but to run the country if the Republicans refuse to participate.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/10/17/us/politics/ap-us-mccain-supreme-court-.html
What nominee did the dems refuse to confirm ... since Bork?
There's the problem. 90 senators would not find Garland's views to be ... controversial.Bork said the constitution permitted states to outlaw fucking birth control .. in NINETEEENEIGHTYSEVENRubber stamp?
They wouldn't even give the guy a hearing
Until Bork they mostly followed a "President should always get his Judge" agreement.
Bork got a full hearing
Republicans have refused Garland even a phone call
Bork got a hearing and those voting against him gave specific reasons for their vote.
Cowardly Republicans will not even do that
But again, the gop was ok with Obama getting two nominations. And presumably Hillary will also get two in one term.
After that .. possible culture wars.
Imo that was more or less lip service. The gop just wanted to make sure the dems didn't get 3 Justices with Obama and another 2 with Hillary.
Assuming Hillary wins, I think they'll confirm Garland with 90 or so votes. The gop also knows Ginsburg is looking to retire, which will give Hillary two nominees. I assume they will confirm Ginsburg's replacement so long as "she" doesn't advocate an extremist view of the constitution, as did Bork, and now Kagan certainly doesn't and neither really does Sontomayor.
Hillary is under no obligation to re-nominate Garland.
Obama is under no obligation to appoint Garland if the Senate decides to try to confirm him after the election but before January 20th.
>>>>
WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain pledged Monday that Republicans will unite against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton puts forward if she becomes president, forecasting obstruction that could tie Capitol Hill in knots.
However an aide later clarified that McCain, R-Ariz., will examine the record of anyone nominated for the high court and vote for or against that person based on their qualifications.
McCain's initial comments came in an interview with Philadelphia talk radio host Dom Giordano to promote the candidacy of Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa.
"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered."
"This is the strongest argument I can make to return Pat Toomey, so we can make sure there are not three places on the United States Supreme Court that will change this country for decades," McCain said.
Yeah, right, nice attempt at a save by the aide. So the Republicans plan on another 4 years of do-nothing obstructionism if they don't get their way?
No one who values democracy or our form of government should vote for a single Republican in this election. Democrats will have no choice but to run the country if the Republicans refuse to participate.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/10/17/us/politics/ap-us-mccain-supreme-court-.html
again, she has already stated that she is going to appoint political hacks.McCain is not talking specifically of a nominee he does not approve of. He is talking about four more years of partisan constipation in the law making body of our country. I don't approve.WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain pledged Monday that Republicans will unite against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton puts forward if she becomes president, forecasting obstruction that could tie Capitol Hill in knots.
However an aide later clarified that McCain, R-Ariz., will examine the record of anyone nominated for the high court and vote for or against that person based on their qualifications.
McCain's initial comments came in an interview with Philadelphia talk radio host Dom Giordano to promote the candidacy of Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa.
"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered."
"This is the strongest argument I can make to return Pat Toomey, so we can make sure there are not three places on the United States Supreme Court that will change this country for decades," McCain said.
Yeah, right, nice attempt at a save by the aide. So the Republicans plan on another 4 years of do-nothing obstructionism if they don't get their way?
No one who values democracy or our form of government should vote for a single Republican in this election. Democrats will have no choice but to run the country if the Republicans refuse to participate.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/10/17/us/politics/ap-us-mccain-supreme-court-.html
You are an idiot.
Why does someone doing their job as described by the Constitution scare you?
There's the problem. 90 senators would not find Garland's views to be ... controversial.Bork said the constitution permitted states to outlaw fucking birth control .. in NINETEEENEIGHTYSEVENUntil Bork they mostly followed a "President should always get his Judge" agreement.
Bork got a full hearing
Republicans have refused Garland even a phone call
Bork got a hearing and those voting against him gave specific reasons for their vote.
Cowardly Republicans will not even do that
But again, the gop was ok with Obama getting two nominations. And presumably Hillary will also get two in one term.
After that .. possible culture wars.
They were OK with Obama getting two nominations when they maintained a 5-4 Conservative advantage
When it became time to lose their advantage....They took their ball and went home
There's the problem. 90 senators would not find Garland's views to be ... controversial.Bork said the constitution permitted states to outlaw fucking birth control .. in NINETEEENEIGHTYSEVENBork got a full hearing
Republicans have refused Garland even a phone call
Bork got a hearing and those voting against him gave specific reasons for their vote.
Cowardly Republicans will not even do that
But again, the gop was ok with Obama getting two nominations. And presumably Hillary will also get two in one term.
After that .. possible culture wars.
They were OK with Obama getting two nominations when they maintained a 5-4 Conservative advantage
When it became time to lose their advantage....They took their ball and went home
Politicians playing politics, what a fucking horror.
There's the problem. 90 senators would not find Garland's views to be ... controversial.Bork said the constitution permitted states to outlaw fucking birth control .. in NINETEEENEIGHTYSEVEN
Bork got a hearing and those voting against him gave specific reasons for their vote.
Cowardly Republicans will not even do that
But again, the gop was ok with Obama getting two nominations. And presumably Hillary will also get two in one term.
After that .. possible culture wars.
They were OK with Obama getting two nominations when they maintained a 5-4 Conservative advantage
When it became time to lose their advantage....They took their ball and went home
Politicians playing politics, what a fucking horror.
Ignoring an empty seat on the Supreme Court goes beyond mere politics
It is a dereliction of duty
I do not agree with either party obstructing the work of government. It just happens to be the Republicans. There is a significant difference, though, between what is happening/what McCain is proposing and Democrats shooting down Bush/Reagan nominees. The critical term is "shoot down." I didn't say Republicans need to approve the nominees. They need to do their job and hold hearings and discuss the nominees' credentials.WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain pledged Monday that Republicans will unite against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton puts forward if she becomes president, forecasting obstruction that could tie Capitol Hill in knots.
However an aide later clarified that McCain, R-Ariz., will examine the record of anyone nominated for the high court and vote for or against that person based on their qualifications.
McCain's initial comments came in an interview with Philadelphia talk radio host Dom Giordano to promote the candidacy of Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa.
"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered."
"This is the strongest argument I can make to return Pat Toomey, so we can make sure there are not three places on the United States Supreme Court that will change this country for decades," McCain said.
Yeah, right, nice attempt at a save by the aide. So the Republicans plan on another 4 years of do-nothing obstructionism if they don't get their way?
No one who values democracy or our form of government should vote for a single Republican in this election. Democrats will have no choice but to run the country if the Republicans refuse to participate.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/10/17/us/politics/ap-us-mccain-supreme-court-.html
How is this different vs. What Democrats do when Republican Presidents put forth nominees? Compare how many Obama and Bill Clinton nominees Republicans shot down vs. the number of Bush and Reagan nominees shot down by Democrats?
McCain is simply taking a page from the book of the late Ted Kennedy.
You failed your class on the Constitution....the Senate has the right to advise and consent...there is no mandate to give the President a nominee if they don't consent to them.....
This is called a check and a balance of power...it keeps one branch from accumulating too much power...
But don't worry...after the election the Republicans won't have the balls or the spines to actually follow through....
If the Senate doesn't like the nominee, they can vote NO. That's okay with me. No problem whatsoever.again, she has already stated that she is going to appoint political hacks.McCain is not talking specifically of a nominee he does not approve of. He is talking about four more years of partisan constipation in the law making body of our country. I don't approve.WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain pledged Monday that Republicans will unite against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton puts forward if she becomes president, forecasting obstruction that could tie Capitol Hill in knots.
However an aide later clarified that McCain, R-Ariz., will examine the record of anyone nominated for the high court and vote for or against that person based on their qualifications.
McCain's initial comments came in an interview with Philadelphia talk radio host Dom Giordano to promote the candidacy of Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa.
"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered."
"This is the strongest argument I can make to return Pat Toomey, so we can make sure there are not three places on the United States Supreme Court that will change this country for decades," McCain said.
Yeah, right, nice attempt at a save by the aide. So the Republicans plan on another 4 years of do-nothing obstructionism if they don't get their way?
No one who values democracy or our form of government should vote for a single Republican in this election. Democrats will have no choice but to run the country if the Republicans refuse to participate.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/10/17/us/politics/ap-us-mccain-supreme-court-.html
You are an idiot.
Why does someone doing their job as described by the Constitution scare you?
Hillary Clinton Has A Vision For The Supreme Court, And It Looks Like Sonia Sotomayor | Huffington Post
Why WOULDNT Congress not vote on a hack for the Supreme court that is SUPPOSED to be impartial?
I read Hillary will renominate the guy. He's older. But even if she has a small senate maj, I don't see the political payoff for her for not taking the compromise road. He's pro choice and pro taxing for healthcare.
There's the problem. 90 senators would not find Garland's views to be ... controversial.Bork got a hearing and those voting against him gave specific reasons for their vote.
Cowardly Republicans will not even do that
But again, the gop was ok with Obama getting two nominations. And presumably Hillary will also get two in one term.
After that .. possible culture wars.
They were OK with Obama getting two nominations when they maintained a 5-4 Conservative advantage
When it became time to lose their advantage....They took their ball and went home
Politicians playing politics, what a fucking horror.
Ignoring an empty seat on the Supreme Court goes beyond mere politics
It is a dereliction of duty
I see it as holding the line.
Quit whining, as Obama would say.
There's the problem. 90 senators would not find Garland's views to be ... controversial.
But again, the gop was ok with Obama getting two nominations. And presumably Hillary will also get two in one term.
After that .. possible culture wars.
They were OK with Obama getting two nominations when they maintained a 5-4 Conservative advantage
When it became time to lose their advantage....They took their ball and went home
Politicians playing politics, what a fucking horror.
Ignoring an empty seat on the Supreme Court goes beyond mere politics
It is a dereliction of duty
I see it as holding the line.
Quit whining, as Obama would say.
hat line would that be?
The imaginary line that says Conservatives should have an advantage on the court?
I think it will be a real test of Obama's disposition how he handles it--payback or get 'er done.I read Hillary will renominate the guy. He's older. But even if she has a small senate maj, I don't see the political payoff for her for not taking the compromise road. He's pro choice and pro taxing for healthcare.
Oh, I didn't meant to imply that she wouldn't nominate Garland again. I was saying that even if the Senate decides "Oh shit, Hillary won, we need to confirm Garland", that doesn't mean he will be seated on the Court.
1. Obama could withdraw the nomination on November 9th.
2. The Senate could vote to confirm, but Obama can decide not to appoint.
3. The Senate can take no action and come January 20th Clinton could nominate someone else.
>>>>
After leaving a seat empty for a year because they "wanted the people to decide"
I'd like to see how Republicans justify turning down a nomination after Hillary wins by a landslide
