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

[Rustic]

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.

He is a progressive that makes him a spineless fucking coward. dip shit

 

[Rustic]

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.

He's a pussy whipped progressive bitch, that's why you like him. LOL

 

[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'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.

You mean there will never be a GOP establishment Republican president, that's a good thing. LOL

 

[Contumacious]

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?

Only someone profoundly retarded would support a biased, dishonest corrupt "judicial' system.


How can Americans tolerate a system in which the justices" toe their party lines.


.

 

[whitehall]

WTF? The left wing strategy is to intimidate republicans into voting for an Obama nominated Justice because anything Hillary gets her claws on (God forbid) will be far worse? Strange but typical logic from the convoluted left..

 

[nat4900]

How can Americans tolerate a system in which the justices" toe their party lines.

Of course justice knows NO "party"......The SCOTUS does NOT exist to find innocence or guilt, its exists as an arbiter of adherence to constitutional principles AND (perhaps even more important) also acts as the evolving conscience of a nation filled with diversities.

When the SCOTUS acts anachronistic, it fails.

 

[owebo]

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.

America won't last that long if hitlery wins....so it doesn't matter...

 

[Contumacious]

How can Americans tolerate a system in which the justices" toe their party lines.

Of course justice knows NO "party"......The SCOTUS does NOT exist to find innocence or guilt, its exists as an arbiter of adherence to constitutional principles AND (perhaps even more important) also acts as the evolving conscience of a nation filled with diversities.

When the SCOTUS acts anachronistic, it fails.

HUH?

Need a clue?

.

 

[nat4900]

HUH?

Need a clue?

There must be a grown up around that trailer park to help you............