danivon wrote:Doctor Fate wrote:danivon wrote:On the SCOTUS thing, the filibuster part is not the issue, so much as that Republicans - and leadership Republicans - were on record saying they would block whoever Obama nominated, before Garland was named, and refused to convene the nominations hearings when he was.
Actually, it is the issue. If you want it to be a political issue, the GOP stalling on Garland was on the ballot in November. They won.
There was more to it than just stalling on Garland:
http://www.npr.org/2016/10/17/498328520 ... inton-wins?
"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," he declared.
McCain said that's why it is so important that Republicans retain control of the Senate.
Interesting. I'd like to see the broader context. However, the issue remains: it was on the ballot. Voters who were interested in the Supreme Court voted for Trump.
Sure, that was also part of the political gamble, but it is a clear statement of not just blocking nominees from the President in their last year, but blocking any nominee from one with a new mandate.
That just doesn't sound like McCain. His "son," Graham, said "elections have consequences" as he merrily voted for Obama's nominees. So, I'm not convinced by one sentence uttered by McCain. Sorry.
Basically, if Hillary had won, you would be seeing Republicans saying what the Democrats are now, basically, and if the Republicans had also lost the majority in the Senate they would likely be talking filibuster too.
Speculation.
Yup, just as I suspected:John McCain made the case for a GOP Senate majority – and offered Republicans an opportunity to walk away from Donald Trump – when he told a Philadelphia radio station he would work to block any Supreme Court nominee put forward by a President Hillary Clinton.
"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," the Arizona Republican told 1210 WPHT-AM Philadelphia on Monday morning, in an appearance arguing in favor of re-electing Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered."
A spokeswoman later walked back his comments, promising the senator would consider each nominee individually.
"Sen. McCain believes you can only judge people by their record and Hillary Clinton has a clear record of supporting liberal judicial nominees,” McCain spokeswoman Rachael Dean said in a statement. “That being said, Sen. McCain will, of course, thoroughly examine the record of any Supreme Court nominee put before the Senate and vote for or against that individual based on their qualifications as he has done throughout his career."
Liberal groups, like thinkprogress, have a habit of yanking things out of context--or providing no clarification. The goal of leftist groups right now is to keep their base on the edge of rioting, or, better yet, burning a thing or two to the ground.
Doctor Fate wrote:Yeah, one of my liberal friends said we're two nations. All I can say is I pity the pacifist who declares war.
Don't assume that liberals are pacifists.
Oh, liberals are vicious--against property, or against hopelessly outnumbered conservatives. However, if a civil war broke out it would be gun aficionados versus those who think guns are "icky." My money would be on the "icky" people to do the thumping.