Republicans Plan to Obstruct the Constitution -- Again

[PredFan]

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

Hey moron, there is nothing unconstitutional about it. Only a liberal can be that stupid.

Never said it was unconstitutional. Read the thread or shut up.

Yeah you did, unless you believe somehow that you can obstruct the constitution by obeying the constitution. That is a level of stupid I have seldom encountered.

 

[OldLady]

Predfan and Tilly, I already replied to this way back in the thread. I have no more to say about it.

 

[Divine Wind]

I guess you are right. Just let those that can't afford health insurance die. I didn't know the taxpayers paid for Emergency room care. Is that true?

People paying for health insurance or out-of-pocket medical bills pay for it through higher medical costs.

The problem with Obamacare is the same as the problem with low interest college loans; neither do anything to control costs.

 

[TooTall]

I guess you are right. Just let those that can't afford health insurance die. I didn't know the taxpayers paid for Emergency room care. Is that true?

People paying for health insurance or out-of-pocket medical bills pay for it through higher medical costs.

The problem with Obamacare is the same as the problem with low interest college loans; neither do anything to control costs.

I agree completely.

 

[Divine Wind]

....She later received a bill for over 200 thousand dollars. She's paying it off but most don't do that.

What happens to those bills is a result of what reagan did to our health care system in the 80s. At the time people were asking what about those who can't afford insurance? reagan's answer was sending them to the ER and all of those bills that aren't paid fall under what reagan and conservatives called "cost shifting." That is shift the unpaid bills to those who can pay.

The problem with that is thousands of Americans died. We started seeing donation cans at cash registers to help children not die because they had cancer and no insurance. We saw pancake breakfasts to raise money to pay for chemo therapy for kids.

On top of that the bills for those ER visits are at the highest cost. When a visit to a doctor's office would be cheaper.

The ER isn't free to Americans, we're paying higher costs for things in an ER and Americans are needlessly dying.

That was the point; the cost of the bills not paid is covered by the US taxpayers who do pay their bills.

The problem with Obama care, as noted previously, is that it doesn't control costs.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

Tough shit.....Then Clinton will juts have to nominate an acceptable candidate. Not some left wing activist loon.
It's called checks and balances for a reason.
Newsflash...The Congress does not exist to do the bidding of the Executive Branch. You may thing so after nearly 8 years of the Chief Ego of the United States has been occupying golf co...I mean the White House.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

She won't. And unless there is a change to the US Constitution, there is no mandate to confirm any nominee.
It worked that way when there was a GOP POTUS. The demos used the filibuster.
Senate rules no longer permit this. That is the result of the Dems using the so called nuclear option.
Now it's coming back to haunt them.
Newsflash. The percentage of votes by which a candidate wins is immaterial.
How you people on the left ever concocted the idea that Congress exists to do the bidding of the POTUS is a mystery.
You lefties are always bitching about bi partisanship....As long as decisions and policies coincide with your point of view.
When democrats are in the majority, suddenly instead of bipartisanship it's "fuck you"....

 

[Divine Wind]

She won't. And unless there is a change to the US Constitution, there is no mandate to confirm any nominee.
It worked that way when there was a GOP POTUS. The demos used the filibuster.
Senate rules no longer permit this. That is the result of the Dems using the so called nuclear option.
Now it's coming back to haunt them.
Newsflash. The percentage of votes by which a candidate wins is immaterial.
How you people on the left ever concocted the idea that Congress exists to do the bidding of the POTUS is a mystery.
You lefties are always bitching about bi partisanship....As long as decisions and policies coincide with your point of view.
When democrats are in the majority, suddenly instead of bipartisanship it's "fuck you"....

All great points. It never ceases to amaze me how many gymnastics and flip-flopping politicians do depending upon which party controls the WH and which party controls Congress.