Skip to comments.Johnny Isakson, David Perdue reject long-term Supreme Court stonewall
Posted on 11/06/2016 4:01:49 PM PST by Dacula
Georgias two senators said they will consider Supreme Court nominees based on their individual merits in the new year, effectively rejecting a strategy some Republican colleagues have floated should Hillary Clinton win the presidency on Tuesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at politics.blog.ajc.com ...
Let’s not let them have a chance. Elect Trump.
Go Trump or go home!
I didn’t. Not. A. Single. One.
Ok well I guess that tells us that Johnny feels safe that he would come out with this. I seriously considered leaving his spot blank, but I wanted President Trump to have the House and Senate.
There would be nothing wrong with the strategy of the Republicans would do it the way the Democrats would. Namely: pretend to give them a fair hearing and then vote against them anyway. Preferably after completely destroying their character on national television.
I will only because Trump cannot do it on his own. However, if Trump loses this will be the last election I ever participate in. No reason to because there will be no sense in doing so. These faux conservative NeverTrumps can return back to the Democrat Party from whence they came, and the Republicans can disband, and the RINO’s can finally join the Democrat ranks as well to ensure their political power for evermore.
I seriously considered leaving his spot blank
What makes you think that republicans would EVER work with Trump.
Their dyNASTY is at stake.
This is why the GOP needs to collapse—no matter what happens in the presidential election.
If we do not have a Republican Congress and Senate, it will do no good to elect Trump.
Yes it will block Hillary, but Trump wouldn’t be able to get a thing done.
I’d rather take a chance on getting RINOs in line, that getting Democrats in line.
Well, seems to me court vacancies should be filled eventually.
But the Senate should use advice and consent. If a pres Hillary tries to appoint wise Latinas or Other liberal radical types, the Senate should vote no. Vote no until a pres Hillary nominates a reasonable person.
And make sure the Senate stays in session always so she can’t pull this recess appointment horse blank.
That means they will follow Orrin Grant Hatch and confirming or co-sponsoring all of Mrs. Bill’s appointees.
RINO’s striking yet again!!!!! MFers!
Isakson can’t even point to a single accomplishment after 12 years in DC. He’s pathetic.
Just like they do now, they'll do nothing to stop Illary! Drain the swamp!
That's one thing that got us into this mess.
Vote for the incumbent and then pick them off in the next primary. If we can't get them out in the primary then something is wrong.
If Dems win statehouse control they can control the redistricting process. If they win the House and the Senate they control everything.
Lay off of the ...
What are we really losing?
From the article:
"If you dont even hear what somebodys got to say you dont have all the information."
That is a responsible, professional attitude, so long as one is sure to consider at the same time the history and record of the candidate - so as to calculate any threat the candidate presents to Constitutional principles.
IMO, Clinton might not view Garland as a reliable liberal vote and if elected she would ask Garland to withdraw his nomination. She is accustomed to having her way and most likely would prefer to very quickly nominate her own more radical candidate.
So, for the moment I will continue to plan to vote for Johnny under the theory that he is preferable to a Dem.
I DID leave Isakson as a blank. Seriously considered leaving Loudermilk a blank as well .. his speech in the Cobb repubbie convention wasa lytany of "who I spoke with in Washington last week" ... Not a single conservative statement in it. Anywhere.