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.
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?
The line you idiots crossed when your Justices started ignoring the Constitution based on feelings, fluffy bunnies, and unicorn farts.
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
Dems roadblocked Bush and Reagan appointments and claimed they were being patriotic. Imagine that.
From your OPIf 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.
McCain Suggests GOP Would Oppose Clinton Supreme Court Picks
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?
A blanket veto is just what republicans want. Grind the wheels of government to a halt. It would be nice if hilly cooperated.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.
That was the Aide, TN, backpedaling as fast as possible to cover McCain's controversial but entirely honest statement. I don't believe McCain would have said it if he hadn't been talking to Republican senators with exactly that in mind.From your OPIf 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.
McCain Suggests GOP Would Oppose Clinton Supreme Court Picks
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?
will examine the record of anyone nominated for the high court and vote for or against that person based on their qualifications.
It doesn't matter, it's time the Republicans were put in their place. They are not Americans anymore. Sorry.
That was the Aide, TN, backpedaling as fast as possible to cover McCain's controversial but entirely honest statement. I don't believe McCain would have said it if he hadn't been talking to Republican senators with exactly that in mind.From your OPIf 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.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?
will examine the record of anyone nominated for the high court and vote for or against that person based on their qualifications.
AWESOME POST!As an aside, why is the Left up in arms about this and completely uncaring about the "Executive Agreements" designed solely to PREVENT their "Advice and Consent" role in treaty's?
This is rhetorical, they ONLY want it when it's in their advantage to have it.
Considering the Democrats as Domestic Enemies tells me you are one of those who has gone too far.If you could go to jail for refusing for refusing to vote for a President's nominee to fill a position there would be THOUSANDS of 'Ex-' and 'Current' Democrats in jail right now who have engaged in this long-time partisan political bull shit.
To the Democrats whining about this now I offer YOU the same advice Barry offered up to Trump earlier: 'STOP YOUR WHINING!'
As far as 'violating the Constitution' goes, Barry has set a new US record for doing that during his time in office. For the record, refusing to vote for / preventing the election of a nominee that could potentially act in direct contradiction to the intents and purpose of the US Constitution would NOT be violating the Constitution but would be in reality PROTECTING the Constitution...against 'DOMESTIC Enemies'.
This has never happened before. Check it out.If you could go to jail for refusing for refusing to vote for a President's nominee to fill a position there would be THOUSANDS of 'Ex-' and 'Current' Democrats in jail right now who have engaged in this long-time partisan political bull shit.
To the Democrats whining about this now I offer YOU the same advice Barry offered up to Trump earlier: 'STOP YOUR WHINING!'
As far as 'violating the Constitution' goes, Barry has set a new US record for doing that during his time in office. For the record, refusing to vote for / preventing the election of a nominee that could potentially act in direct contradiction to the intents and purpose of the US Constitution would NOT be violating the Constitution but would be in reality PROTECTING the Constitution...against 'DOMESTIC Enemies'.
My point, exactly. Throw out the bums that refuse to do their jobs and refuse to do anything but warm a chair in Congress and collect a paycheck.All you cry baby libs have to do is win enough senate seats to approve Hillary's nominee on your own, go ahead good luck with that. Otherwise pound sand.
Considering it has been proven that the DNC has 'fixed' Primary elections, that massive fraud was witnessed/video-taped during the primaries, that Hillary/DNC-surrogate organizations have hired homeless and mentally ill Americans to disrupt and engage in violence at GOP events, that a ;political terrorist' who engaged in such activity was on Hillary's own campaign payroll and received over $16,000 to do so, that Wikileaks exposed their own personal e-mails confirming these tactics were being used, and now that liberals have endangered human lives by FIREBOMBING the GOP HQ in NC....something tells me you have closed your eyes to the fact that Liberals / the DNC / Hillary have gone too far!Considering the Democrats as Domestic Enemies tells me you are one of those who has gone too far.
touchéThat was the Aide, TN, backpedaling as fast as possible to cover McCain's controversial but entirely honest statement. I don't believe McCain would have said it if he hadn't been talking to Republican senators with exactly that in mind.From your OPIf 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.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?
will examine the record of anyone nominated for the high court and vote for or against that person based on their qualifications.
My point, exactly. Throw out the bums that refuse to do their jobs and refuse to do anything but warm a chair in Congress and collect a paycheck.All you cry baby libs have to do is win enough senate seats to approve Hillary's nominee on your own, go ahead good luck with that. Otherwise pound sand.
You are telling me that Democrats have never refused to bring a nominee or judge up for a vote before?This has never happened before. Check it out.
So is that your justification for becoming a lunatic along with them?Considering it has been proven that the DNC has 'fixed' Primary elections, that massive fraud was witnessed/video-taped during the primaries, that Hillary/DNC-surrogate organizations have hired homeless and mentally ill Americans to disrupt and engage in violence at GOP events, that a ;political terrorist' who engaged in such activity was on Hillary's own campaign payroll and received over $16,000 to do so, that Wikileaks exposed their own personal e-mails confirming these tactics were being used, and now that liberals have endangered human lives by FIREBOMBING the GOP HQ in NC....something tells me you have closed your eyes to the fact that Liberals / the DNC / Hillary have gone too far!Considering the Democrats as Domestic Enemies tells me you are one of those who has gone too far.
Harry Reid left hundred of GOP bills on his desk, refusing to allow them to come up for a vote. Where was that sentiment then?Throw out the bums that refuse to do their jobs and refuse to do anything but warm a chair in Congress and collect a paycheck.
