McCain: Senate GOP will block any Clinton SCOTUS nominees
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:21:31 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  McCain: Senate GOP will block any Clinton SCOTUS nominees
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: McCain: Senate GOP will block any Clinton SCOTUS nominees  (Read 1337 times)
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,174
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 17, 2016, 01:26:17 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
CNN

Wow, what a #maverick!

Democrats need to stop bullshtting and run with this.
Logged
Enduro
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,073


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2016, 01:31:31 PM »

He's willing to have the Supreme Court be deadlocked for 4 years? Is he going to even try to get a compromise choice?
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,618
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2016, 02:42:33 PM »

What did you guys think "be a check on a Clinton Presidency" means? This is a winning message for Senate Republicans.
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 17, 2016, 02:44:16 PM »

What did you guys think "be a check on a Clinton Presidency" means? This is a winning message for Senate Republicans.

Polling has shown that people haven't liked these games. Clinton will use this to help strengthen her now growing coattails.
Logged
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 17, 2016, 03:14:22 PM »

Disgusting. All Republicans must disavow.
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,072
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 17, 2016, 04:02:29 PM »

Why am I not surprised.

Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 17, 2016, 04:35:27 PM »

No confirmation. No budget.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,611
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 17, 2016, 04:48:29 PM »

What did you guys think "be a check on a Clinton Presidency" means? This is a winning message for Senate Republicans.

I'm sure it is. In Oklahoma.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 17, 2016, 04:49:44 PM »
« Edited: October 17, 2016, 04:54:34 PM by DavidB. »

Probably a smart thing to say in order to keep aboard angry Trumpists who might otherwise cause his race against Kirkpatrick to tighten because of McCain's unendorsement. It will work better for McCain than for Toomey, but that's probably the intended effect.

Disgusting. All Republicans must disavow.
lol
Logged
Cashew
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,559
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 17, 2016, 05:00:51 PM »

Good. This means the filibuster is on the way out.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,577
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 17, 2016, 05:06:15 PM »

Gah. The GOP should realize that some of the people open to voting for it actually prefer to have a supreme court that doesn't deadlock every other minute. Of course, I endorsed Kirkpatrick the minute she entered the race.
Logged
15 Down, 35 To Go
ExtremeRepublican
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,659


Political Matrix
E: 7.35, S: 5.57


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 17, 2016, 05:13:05 PM »

That is quite encouraging.  People forget that the Senate has equal say as the president.  Let's frame it as Hillary not nominating anyone acceptable to 60 Senators.
Logged
Cashew
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,559
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 17, 2016, 05:40:54 PM »

What happened to "let the next president decide"?
Logged
15 Down, 35 To Go
ExtremeRepublican
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,659


Political Matrix
E: 7.35, S: 5.57


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 17, 2016, 05:48:48 PM »

What happened to "let the next president decide"?

I have always supported a policy of a complete stop on confirming any liberal judges to any position.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,174
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 17, 2016, 06:00:47 PM »

That is quite encouraging.  People forget that the Senate has equal say as the president.  Let's frame it as Hillary not nominating anyone acceptable to 60 Senators.

Not everybody lives in ExtremeRetardation land, so that might be a tough message to work with.

But by all means, Republicans should run on it.  Please do.  Add to those coattails!
Logged
Green Line
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,577
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 17, 2016, 06:04:15 PM »

Hillary needs to put forward a nominee who can pass the Senate.  It's her Constitutional duty!
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 17, 2016, 06:04:52 PM »

I'm sure the Republicans defending McCain here would be just as happy if a Democratic Senator vowed to have his party block any Supreme Court nomination done by a Republican president. Seriously, these assholes deserve to be voted out for refusing to do their job for the sake of political gain.
Logged
Cashew
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,559
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 17, 2016, 06:22:41 PM »

Hillary needs to put forward a nominee who can pass the Senate.  It's her Constitutional duty!
But seriously if you guys go that route, an argument could be made that silence is consent, and any nominee not rejected in an up or down vote is approved, forcing them to stay for votes.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 17, 2016, 07:14:27 PM »

I wish we could send this piece of sh*t home in November.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 17, 2016, 07:24:24 PM »

I tend to think the Senate has no business rejecting a POTUS's nomination for anything unless the person is objectively unqualified for office or a conflict of interest would impede their ability to carry out the duties of the office.

Harriet Miers is an example of someone who was objectively unqualified (she went to a not-so-good law school, had done no significant writing on constitutional law, and hadn't practiced appellate law or taught or done anything that would have prepared her for a seat on the SCOTUS) and there was a conflict of interest due to her close relationship with the president (being a friend from Dallas and his White House counsel).

By contrast, I would disagree with Antonin Scalia on just about everything but there's no question he wasn't an extremely brilliant and qualified man, so if I were a senator voting on his confirmation, I'd vote yes.
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,463
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 17, 2016, 08:07:34 PM »

What did you guys think "be a check on a Clinton Presidency" means? This is a winning message for Senate Republicans.

This goes beyond being a "check".  The Senate is supposed to confirm the president's nominee unless there's actually a good reason not to.  It's shameful to block nominees simply for partisan reasons. 
Logged
15 Down, 35 To Go
ExtremeRepublican
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,659


Political Matrix
E: 7.35, S: 5.57


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 17, 2016, 08:14:53 PM »

What did you guys think "be a check on a Clinton Presidency" means? This is a winning message for Senate Republicans.

This goes beyond being a "check".  The Senate is supposed to confirm the president's nominee unless there's actually a good reason not to.  It's shameful to block nominees simply for partisan reasons. 

No, the Senate has an equal say as the president.  Both sides have to agree, or the candidate will not be confirmed.  Nowhere does it say that the Senate has to find a non-ideological reason to reject a nominee.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,577
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 17, 2016, 08:59:38 PM »

What did you guys think "be a check on a Clinton Presidency" means? This is a winning message for Senate Republicans.

This goes beyond being a "check".  The Senate is supposed to confirm the president's nominee unless there's actually a good reason not to.  It's shameful to block nominees simply for partisan reasons. 

No, the Senate has an equal say as the president.  Both sides have to agree, or the candidate will not be confirmed.  Nowhere does it say that the Senate has to find a non-ideological reason to reject a nominee.

But it has been a tradition to allow the president to appoint someone from their own party. That doesn't mean you should approve a Goodwin Liu, but if Clinton puts up Sirvansian or renominates Garland, you guys need to approve it. As much as you and McCain may disagree, your party's official position is "let the next president decide".
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: October 17, 2016, 09:25:27 PM »

Judicial activism has become endemic thanks to the appointment of liberal judges, so it's not strange Republicans are changing their attitude on approving the appointment of such judges. Lots of pearls are clutched ITT, but the Senate simply has these powers and it has them for a reason. Can't blame Republican senators for using them.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: October 17, 2016, 09:28:50 PM »

Judicial activism has become endemic thanks to the appointment of liberal judges, so it's not strange Republicans are changing their attitude on approving the appointment of such judges. Lots of pearls are clutched ITT, but the Senate simply has these powers and it has them for a reason. Can't blame Republican senators for using them.

Judicial activism is just a fancy way of saying "rulings I don't like."

Republican appointees engage in plenty of "judicial activism" too.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.046 seconds with 12 queries.