Republican senator promises not to approve Hillary SC appointments

[ivwshane]

This is disgraceful! I want to know how anyone can defend McCain on this. Further proof that Republicans are anti American.

In a Monday interview, the senator from Arizona said that Republican nominee Donald Trump is not necessarily a better candidate than Hillary Clinton when it comes to appointing Supreme Court justices and “promised” that Republicans wouldn’t approve any Clinton nominee to the Supreme Court.

“I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up,” McCain told WPHT in Philadelphia. “I promise you. This is where we need the majority.”

http://www.salon.com/2016/10/17/joh...any-supreme-court-nominee-of-hillary-clinton/

What a scumbag!

 

[MongGrel]

Why would this be a surprise ?

They have been obstructing anything they can from even the first day Obama walked into Congress and some idiot was shouting "Liar".

They are the party of "gettin er done" don't ya know.

 

[Indus]

We already know he committed treason along with 46 other senators.. why would this surprise us?

 

[theeedude]

Voters should throw all the Republican bums out, otherwise this country can't function.

 

[Sunburn74]

Vote them all out. This is taking partisan politics to an extreme​

 

[pauldun170]

Way back when

In a swift statement designed to warn Barack Obama against even nominating a replacement, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) pledged to sit on his hands for the remaining 11 months of the president’s term.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the statement read. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

 

[sportage]

Well at least now they are assuming Hillary WILL WIN.
Baby steps?

Heck...
Hillary has always had a great record working with people on both sides of the isle.
This is all poppycock from a sore loser republican.
After Hillary is president, not only will they work with Hillary, they might actually like her.
Something quite different from Obama's experience.

 

[DrDoug]

Please, have pity on Ol' Walnuts... this is the guy who thought it was a good idea to pick the half-term governor of Alaska, Mooseolini, as his vice-presidential candidate. That's in the history books and nothing will ever change that fact.

Imagine going to your grave knowing that's history that you made...

 

[ivwshane]

Way back when

At least when they used that excuse it was some what palatable and had a very tiny sense of plausibility but to still block nominations after the election is over? That's a new low as far as I'm concerned.

 

[MongGrel]

Please, have pity on Ol' Walnuts... this is the guy who thought it was a good idea to pick the half-term governor of Alaska, Mooseolini, as his vice-presidential candidate. That's in the history books and nothing will ever change that fact.

Imagine going to your grave knowing that's history that you made...

History is going to make him out to be a true American here and be kind to him later isn't it ?

 

[DrDoug]

History is going to make him out to be a true American here and be kind to him later isn't it ?

As a kind of student of history, one thing that can't be controlled is the future and what effect it will have on the currently recorded version of a particular historical person/event/etc. Granted that the winners historically get to write the history books, I believe that changes in the information age as almost all historical information will be recorded and stored. At best, a person (or persons/organization) can affect the history of something in the short run but in the long run, historians will want to accurately reflect history and thus correct the record.

Either way, Walnuts is as horrible a Senator as he was an aviator, there is no reason for history to be kind to him.

Keating Five anyone?

 

[HomerJS]

Screw those grumpy old white men. HRC can just put in recess appointments. There already is a precedent.

 

[trenchfoot]

For now, it looks like McCain is adopting the time honored strategy whereby if you have to retreat, then deny anything and everything to your enemy as possible, OR, stand your ground and take the enemy (and the nation) down with you.

Negotiating for amicable conditions before surrendering seems to be out of the question, sadly.

It seems though, when the Repubs take a stand like that, the Dems will refuse to demand an unconditional surrender and reap all the spoils as the Repubs have shown they would do. Instead, the Dems would rather give more than the defeated deserves to get what they want.

That's what frustrated me the most during Obama's first term.

 

[trenchfoot]

Screw those grumpy old white men. HRC can just put in recess appointments. There already is a precedent.

I may be wrong, but if I recall, the Repubs have a way of blocking recess appointments via not "technically" going out on recess?

 

[agent00f]

This is disgraceful! I want to know how anyone can defend McCain on this. Further proof that Republicans are anti American.

http://www.salon.com/2016/10/17/joh...any-supreme-court-nominee-of-hillary-clinton/

What a scumbag!

Worth noting McCain was considered one of the more reasonable republicans, which I supposed is still the case now that Trump is standards-bearer.

 

[MongGrel]

As a kind of student of history, one thing that can't be controlled is the future and what effect it will have on the currently recorded version of a particular historical person/event/etc. Granted that the winners historically get to write the history books, I believe that changes in the information age as almost all historical information will be recorded and stored. At best, a person (or persons/organization) can affect the history of something in the short run but in the long run, historians will want to accurately reflect history and thus correct the record.

Either way, Walnuts is as horrible a Senator as he was an aviator, there is no reason for history to be kind to him.

Keating Five anyone?

I misunderstood something there, so my bad.

I thought you were referring to Dubya myself.

 

[DrDoug]

I misunderstood something there, so my bad.

I thought you were referring to Dubya myself.

A political blog I used to hang out at likes to refer to McCain as either Gramps or Walnuts... I thought Walnuts fit quite well so I still use it. Gdub is a whole 'nuther nightmare for history to deal with...lol

 

[ivwshane]

Screw those grumpy old white men. HRC can just put in recess appointments. There already is a precedent.

Nope! The has court already struck down Obama appointments done during a "recess". The Republicans have also done a great job of never going into recess in the first place.

I think it's time for some second amendment remedies! (I half jokingly kid)

 

[ivwshane]

Worth noting McCain was considered one of the more reasonable republicans, which I supposed is still the case now that Trump is standards-bearer.

The key word being "was". His reasonableness has long since left the station. The guy is full onboard the crazy partisan express.

 

[agent00f]

The key word being "was". His reasonableness has long since left the station. The guy is full onboard the crazy partisan express.

I think McCain is a pragmatist instead of idealist, and he knows where the prevailing winds in the GOP are blowing.

 

[theeedude]

The Republican party is too dysfunctional to allow it anywhere near running the country or to even allow it the power to obstruct.
I am so happy that we in California gave the Democrats a supermajority and banished the GOP into the weeds so they couldn't obstruct. All of the sudden, all the problems we were told were intractable started getting solved. The only intractable thing was GOP's dysfunction.

 

[ivwshane]

I think McCain is a pragmatist instead of idealist, and he knows where the prevailing winds in the GOP are blowing.

If he was talking about what Republicans would do and not what he himself would do I might agree with you but he wasn't. He didn't say the Republicans will be united, he said, "we will be united".

Running the SC without a full bench isn't a form of pragmatism I'm aware of.

 

[MongGrel]

The Republican party is too dysfunctional to allow it anywhere near running the country or to even allow it the power to obstruct.
I am so happy that we in California gave the Democrats a supermajority and banished the GOP into the weeds so they couldn't obstruct. All of the sudden, all the problems we were told were intractable started getting solved. The only intractable thing was GOP's dysfunction.

Ya never know.

 

[trenchfoot]

The key word being "was". His reasonableness has long since left the station. The guy is full onboard the crazy partisan express.

I recall the moment when the worm turned for McCain: He became the Repub's presidential candidate and in that instant, he whipped his wheel hard right to keep the Tea Party nut jobs from burning down the house the GOP built.

From there on in after his defeat, even though I saw him working the back channels of the legislature as the more practical smooth operator that he is, he's had to pay credence to the wingnut base to keep his seat by appearing to be at times as nutty as they are.

Now if he could only control his urges to be the womanizer that he likes to be, it looks like he still has some kind of value that the GOP in decline can tap into.

 

[agent00f]

If he was talking about what Republicans would do and not what he himself would do I might agree with you but he wasn't. He didn't say the Republicans will be united, he said, "we will be united".

Running the SC without a full bench isn't a form of pragmatism I'm aware of.

What I mean by pragmatist here is that he doesn't have absolute ideals of his own, but does what is expedient for the moment. At the moment the hardliners and Trumpets still dominate the GOP.