McCain: Senate GOP will block any Clinton SCOTUS nominees

[Indy Texas]

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.

[Indy Texas]

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.

[Indy Texas]

And now McCain is running like hell away from this comment. Sad!