Jump to content

McCain: Republicans may block ANY of Clinton's SCOTUS nominees


Recommended Posts

580508291a000067145b9f6d.jpeg?cache=2oac

 

So, you are threatening obstruction from day one, huh, cons? If the people elect Hillary Clinton she will have a mandate to see to it that this government functions. She is not going to put up with your shit for long. If it takes something akin to an executive order, or even reorganizing the very fabric of our institutions, it will be done. She isn't asking your idiot representatives to do their jobs, SHE IS TELLING THEM. You better learn to play ball or your asses will end up on the bench permanently.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-mccain-hillary-clinton-supreme-court_us_58050653e4b0162c043d4c9a?section=&

 

(Full article at above link)

 

 

The main pretext Republican senators have offered for leaving open the Supreme Court seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia is that the next president, not Barack Obama, should be the one to fill it.

But now that his party’s nominee, Donald Trump, seems headed for a loss in November, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) appears to be changing his tune ― and may be signaling that more unprecedented obstruction is on the horizon if Hillary Clinton wins the White House.

“I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up. I promise you,” McCain said Monday, according to CNN.

Three justices will be in their 80s during the next administration, making the prospect of retirement and more vacancies likely.

The Arizona senator didn’t specify if the Senate not hold confirmation hearings or take a vote on them at all ― as they have done to Obama’s choice, Merrick Garland, already the longest-waiting nominee in history ― or if it means voting them down no matter who the nominees are.

Other Republicans are ready to reject any name Clinton puts forward, under a theory that Democratic nominees to the high court don’t vote “independently” from party interests.

111021_hillary_clinton_ap_328.jpg?w=605&

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that McLame`s reelection strategy? He got in a sput with the deplorables over ditching Trump. Now he's promising to block SC appointments to make it up to them.

 

McLame is the most pathetic congress critter, remember how he folded on torture to kiss Bush's ass

Link to comment
Share on other sites

580508291a000067145b9f6d.jpeg?cache=2oac

 

So, you are threatening obstruction from day one, huh, cons? If the people elect Hillary Clinton she will have a mandate to see to it that this government functions. She is not going to put up with your shit for long. If it takes something akin to an executive order, or even reorganizing the very fabric of our institutions, it will be done. She isn't asking your idiot representatives to do their jobs, SHE IS TELLING THEM. You better learn to play ball or your asses will end up on the bench permanently.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-mccain-hillary-clinton-supreme-court_us_58050653e4b0162c043d4c9a?section=&

 

(Full article at above link)

 

 

The main pretext Republican senators have offered for leaving open the Supreme Court seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia is that the next president, not Barack Obama, should be the one to fill it.

But now that his party’s nominee, Donald Trump, seems headed for a loss in November, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) appears to be changing his tune ― and may be signaling that more unprecedented obstruction is on the horizon if Hillary Clinton wins the White House.

“I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up. I promise you,” McCain said Monday, according to CNN.

Three justices will be in their 80s during the next administration, making the prospect of retirement and more vacancies likely.

The Arizona senator didn’t specify if the Senate not hold confirmation hearings or take a vote on them at all ― as they have done to Obama’s choice, Merrick Garland, already the longest-waiting nominee in history ― or if it means voting them down no matter who the nominees are.

Other Republicans are ready to reject any name Clinton puts forward, under a theory that Democratic nominees to the high court don’t vote “independently” from party interests.

111021_hillary_clinton_ap_328.jpg?w=605&

You got it cupcake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that McLame`s reelection strategy? He got in a sput with the deplorables over ditching Trump. Now he's promising to block SC appointments to make it up to them.

 

McLame is the most pathetic congress critter, remember how he folded on torture to kiss Bush's ass

 

 

Yeah, that was pathetic. Even after Rove went after his family by calling his adopted daughter "a black love child." Sickening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Yeah, that was pathetic. Even after Rove went after his family by calling his adopted daughter "a black love child." Sickening.

The GOP has a long disgusting reputation they can't live down. The Douche has taken it to new levels..with fomenting violence with his rigged election talk and his daily psychotic ramblings on Hillary.

The moron actually said today he's "winning in the polls."

Roflmao

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She may have to "Foster" cooperation

Hmm, yes, like have the FBI investigate the Speaker of the House, find something to file charges on, and let the Justice Department give him 20 years. A few of these, and the crust will be broken.

 

We need three more Justices to ensure we will always hold the Supreme Court rulings and the court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need three more Justices to ensure we will always hold the Supreme Court rulings and the court.

This is a huge possibility, and will most likely happen. Hillary will take the white house and hold it for the next eight years. In the meantime, we have a vacant seat and two justices at the ages of 80 and 83, who will very likely retire during Hillary's tenure. It's over for Republicans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

580508291a000067145b9f6d.jpeg?cache=2oac

 

So, you are threatening obstruction from day one, huh, cons? If the people elect Hillary Clinton she will have a mandate to see to it that this government functions. She is not going to put up with your shit for long. If it takes something akin to an executive order, or even reorganizing the very fabric of our institutions, it will be done. She isn't asking your idiot representatives to do their jobs, SHE IS TELLING THEM. You better learn to play ball or your asses will end up on the bench permanently.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-mccain-hillary-clinton-supreme-court_us_58050653e4b0162c043d4c9a?section=&

 

(Full article at above link)

 

 

The main pretext Republican senators have offered for leaving open the Supreme Court seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia is that the next president, not Barack Obama, should be the one to fill it.

But now that his party’s nominee, Donald Trump, seems headed for a loss in November, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) appears to be changing his tune ― and may be signaling that more unprecedented obstruction is on the horizon if Hillary Clinton wins the White House.

“I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up. I promise you,” McCain said Monday, according to CNN.

Three justices will be in their 80s during the next administration, making the prospect of retirement and more vacancies likely.

The Arizona senator didn’t specify if the Senate not hold confirmation hearings or take a vote on them at all ― as they have done to Obama’s choice, Merrick Garland, already the longest-waiting nominee in history ― or if it means voting them down no matter who the nominees are.

Other Republicans are ready to reject any name Clinton puts forward, under a theory that Democratic nominees to the high court don’t vote “independently” from party interests.

111021_hillary_clinton_ap_328.jpg?w=605&

 

 

January 30, 2017

"Senate Democrats are going to try to bring down President Donald Trump's Supreme Court pick no matter who the president chooses to the fill the current vacancy.

 

With Trump prepared to announce his nominee on Tuesday evening, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said in an interview on Monday morning that he will filibuster any pick that is not Merrick Garland and that the vast majority of his caucus will oppose Trump’s nomination. That means Trump's nominee will need 60 votes to be confirmed by the Senate.

 

“This is a stolen seat. This is the first time a Senate majority has stolen a seat,” Merkley said in an interview. “We will use every lever in our power to stop this.”

 

It’s a move that will prompt a massive partisan battle over Trump’s nominee and could lead to an unraveling of the Senate rules if Merkley is able to get 41 Democrats to join him in a filibuster. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) also reminded her Twitter followers on Sunday night that Supreme Court nominees can still be blocked by the Senate minority, unlike all other executive and judicial nominees.

 

Any senator can object to swift approval of a nominee and require a supermajority. Asked directly if he would do that, Merkley replied: “I will definitely object to a simple majority” vote."

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/senate-democrats-filibuster-supreme-court-pick-234368

mitch-mcconnell-recently-received-a-1000

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...