One Tough Question Will Wipe The Slate Clean

[Flanders]

I am hearing a lot about Chris Wallace being a tough questioner. I heard that crap about “The Tough NY Press Corps” in 2000 who pounded on her with powder puffs.

Hillary first ran for the US Senate in 2000. In the years before 2000, and the 16 years since then, I have not heard a single media mouth ask her one tough question.

I have a legal question for Chris Wallace predicated on Hillary’s crimes making it to the Supreme Court: Did you check with Judge Napolitano when you were preparing for tonight’s debate?

​

The Supreme Court

Republicans have essentially let a seat on The Supreme Court remain vacant ever since Justice Antonin Scalia's demise, saying that President Obama should not be the one who picks who fills it. But it looks like more obstruction is in store even if a new president takes office. CNN reported that John McCain said on a radio show, "I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up." Soon three of the current Supreme Court judges will be in their eighties, bringing up the possibility of more vacancies.​

Topics for the Final Presidential Debate Include Debt and Immigration
By Deborah DSouza | October 19, 2016 — 7:32 AM EDT

What Can We Expect From Tonight's Presidential Debate?​

 

[DGS49]

If HRC nominates an ideologue, then the nominee should not be confirmed. Simple as that.

In the past 60 years, there has not been one Democrat-nominated USSC Justice who has turned out to be ANYTHING OTHER THAN a Leftist ideologue, but a small handful of Republican nominees have been huge disappointments for Republicans, especially Roberts. This is why we have abortion on demand, gay marriage, illegals drawing welfare checks, "birthright citizenship" (which is NOT in the Constitution), and a dozen other perversities of law.

If the Senate has one vital role, it is to try to ensure that the Supreme Court is guided by the U.S. Constitution, and not what the Justices think SHOULD BE IN the U.S. Constitution, as it is now.

HRC should be faced with a dozen tough questions, and a moderator with the balls to force her to at least address them. Not that Trump will be responsive to what is asked either.

 

[Flanders]

If HRC nominates an ideologue, then the nominee should not be confirmed. Simple as that.

In the past 60 years, there has not been one Democrat-nominated USSC Justice who has turned out to be ANYTHING OTHER THAN a Leftist ideologue, but a small handful of Republican nominees have been huge disappointments for Republicans, especially Roberts. This is why we have abortion on demand, gay marriage, illegals drawing welfare checks, "birthright citizenship" (which is NOT in the Constitution), and a dozen other perversities of law.

If the Senate has one vital role, it is to try to ensure that the Supreme Court is guided by the U.S. Constitution, and not what the Justices think SHOULD BE IN the U.S. Constitution, as it is now.

HRC should be faced with a dozen tough questions, and a moderator with the balls to force her to at least address them. Not that Trump will be responsive to what is asked either.

To DGS49: 100 percent on the money.

• 

 

[Flanders]

​

Trey Gowdy’s analysis of Hillary’s “transparency” ties in with Judge Napolitano’s clarification of “classified”:

​