McCain Claiming GOP Will Block any Clinton Supreme Court Nominee

[Sky High]

Hmmm...haven't democrats done the same thing in the past?



appears so.

that doesn't make this any better, but sure, drag whataboutsim into it, like that justifies anything.

[purebalance]

It just seems more damaging to the GOP than anything.

How is it damaging when that slot needs to be filled by a conservative in order to maintain balance? When Ginsberg goes I would expect someone of a like mind replaces her much like someone similar to Scalia should fill his.

[Anevers]

One day I'll find out how to get into this fantasy world Trump supporters all seem to inhabit. One day.

I believe this is how you get there:


On topic

Is anyone really surprised? Of course it's not looking good for the Republicans when it comes to the senate.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp201...aps/Oct17.html
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...=2016-forecast

[Edge-]

that doesn't make this any better, but sure, drag whataboutsim into it, like that justifies anything.

Also, IIRC the Democrats never delivered on this threat (like the GOP is doing right now) nor have they ever threatened to stonewall appointees in a GOP presidents first year.

This is a false comparison at best.

[purebalance]

that doesn't make this any better, but sure, drag whataboutsim into it, like that justifies anything.

Yes but it makes all of the other posts in this thread hilarious by acting like it's the first time and it's only the Republicans throwing tantrums.

[DarkTZeratul]

Hmmm...haven't democrats done the same thing in the past?



appears so.

There are a few key differences.
1. Senator Schumer is saying that they should vote to reject super-conservative justices nominated by Bush, which is absolutely their right. The GOP is flat-out refusing to give them a hearing at all.
2. Senator Schumer includes the caveat that they WILL accept one of his appointments if it's someone they genuinely feel should be on the Supreme Court. The GOP is flat-out refusing to appoint anyone nominated by Obama or Clinton, regardless of qualifications.

So... The duty of the Congress in confirming a Supreme Court justice is just to act as a rubber stamp, and not actually have a say, at all? Because that's what you're suggesting right now. You're saying that the Congress has to confirm the justice the PotUS appoints, period. That basically makes them completely useless.

The only other option is that they have the duty of not confirming an appointee if that's what they feel they should do, and you can't slap a time restraint on that, because that would again make the Congress pointless in this regard.

Congress does not have to confirm any appointee, no. But they DO have to consider the president's nomination and vote on them (either for or against), which they are flat-out refusing to do.

[Actarius]

I feel like I should be outraged or something, but I've almost gone numb to how childish the GOP is.

6 year temper tantrum about Obama being in the White House
Cue at least another 4 year tantrum if Clinton wins

Yay... politics are working?

[Jotaux]

How is it damaging when that slot needs to be filled by a conservative in order to maintain balance? When Ginsberg goes I would expect someone of a like mind replaces her much like someone similar to Scalia should fill his.

What you are saying has no bearing on the conversation since it would be blocked either way according to McCain.

[Nynax]

I have no idea what flint or what that stuff is, so...

They're not harming people by cutting in schools.

How are they dissolving worker rights?

Why should they expand it?

If people can't afford an education or healthcare then that's a position they've put themselves in. That's them hurting themselves, not GOP hurting them.

that "education people can't afford" that he is talking about...includes elementary and high school education...
And if you have no idea what Flint is...have you been living in a rock for two years? It was only a major news story for months...

anyway...any economist will tell you that the long term prosperity of a nation is greatly improved by an ever more educated public. But that's the thing, Progressives tend to look to a better future and conservatives tend to look to restoring/preserving the past.

[Beazy]

So... The duty of the Congress in confirming a Supreme Court justice is just to act as a rubber stamp, and not actually have a say, at all? Because that's what you're suggesting right now. You're saying that the Congress has to confirm the justice the PotUS appoints, period. That basically makes them completely useless.

The only other option is that they have the duty of not confirming an appointee if that's what they feel they should do, and you can't slap a time restraint on that, because that would again make the Congress pointless in this regard.

Yes and no, I think there is a clause where they waive their right to confirm a nomination if they fail to act within a "reasonable" time.

Do I know the regulation definition of "reasonable"? No, I dont. But im sure in the next few months, after this election, we will figure it out.

[A dot Ham]

The next time someone decides to do a mass shooting... lets point them in the direction of congress.

[Sky High]

Yes but it makes all of the other posts in this thread hilarious by acting like it's the first time and it's only the Republicans throwing tantrums.

AFAIK the dems didn't go through with it, nor are they the majority in what can be argued as being, historically speaking, the most useless congress ever. granted both sides being shitty towards one another needs to be called out sure. also I doubt the posts you're talking about are from people that don't know that.

[Deleted]

that "education people can't afford" that he is talking about...includes elementary and high school education...

So?

And if you have no idea what Flint is...have you been living in a rock for two years? It was only a major news story for months...

It sure wasn't here.

anyway...any economist will tell you that the long term prosperity of a nation is greatly improved by an ever more educated public. But that's the thing, Progressives tend to look to a better future and conservatives tend to look to restoring/preserving the past.

This is just conjecture.

[Stormspellz]

I have no idea what flint or what that stuff is, so...

They're not harming people by cutting in schools.

How are they dissolving worker rights?

Why should they expand it?

If people can't afford an education or healthcare then that's a position they've put themselves in. That's them hurting themselves, not GOP hurting them.

Flint, MI The emergency manager (who has unilateral control) appointed by the Governor cut corners switching a towns water supply source- Town got lead poisoning, months of denial and cover up, and Congress blocked financial aid for the disaster

harming in a physical sense, sure they aren't, but harming children futures certainly are.

"right to work", dissolving unions, passing legislation making it harder to sue companies by the workers, take your pick

ya, just let people die of preventable diseases, limit/cut access to health serves. No harm in that.

[Nynax]

How is it damaging when that slot needs to be filled by a conservative in order to maintain balance? When Ginsberg goes I would expect someone of a like mind replaces her much like someone similar to Scalia should fill his.

It's damaging because the moderate conservatives/moderates both parties need to win elections...are getting tired of the GOP's "No! We don't like that policy! We don't have a better idea...but we know we don't like that one!"

Why do you think congress approval ratings are at record lows? All the stalling is absolute bull shit. Unfortunately the basis of both keep egging their leaders on...

[May90]

Strange... Doesn't sound like McCain; he's always been more or less decent towards Hillary. Has the "alt-right" blight affected his thinking too?

[alexw]

Basically the matra of the GOP over the past 8 years and apparently continuing on moving forward is, "If we don't get our way we'll throw a temper tantrum and prevent anything from getting done!"

Stellar leadership there.

Basically old rural religious whites nolonger get to dictate policy and the direction of travel of the country. There isn't enough of them anymore and since they've grown so accustomed to having their own way they go mental when they don't. So given they can't get their way anymore they resort to blocking the majority getting theirs. Thankfully its a holding action at best. The liberal millennial tide is going to drown them in a decade or less.

[Deleted]

harming in a physical sense, sure they aren't, but harming children futures certainly are.

"right to work", dissolving unions, passing legislation making it harder to sue companies by the workers, take your pick

ya, just let people die of preventable diseases, limit/cut access to health serves. No harm in that.

I'm not seeing how any of this is hurting people.

[Dug]

Strange... Doesn't sound like McCain; he's always been more or less decent towards Hillary. Has the "alt-right" blight affected his thinking too?

Dude had Palin as his running mate... he's not all there. Cheers to him that he can sometimes be decent but at the end of the day... wacko

[Belize]

Golly, the Republicans REALLY want to lose Congress alongside the Whitehouse.