Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Alaska The LIST of GOP Senators weakening on voting for a SCJustice.

Interviewing a guy that stands zero chance of going beyond the nomination is a waste of time. Obviously you have no history of SCOTUS nominations in election years. Remember what your VP Biden said??? Thought not...

Your right...Lets just wait for Bernie or Hillary and then we will see some really Liberal nominations and you will will be begging Obama to come back!!

How many of your clients know how intent you are on destroying their right to carry firearms?

So.....I own firearms...I support the 2nd A and I destroying their right to carry firearms?


You are a curious little man! Not a very smart one but curious none the less.

How can you delude yourself into believing you support the 2A? That is some curious strong stuff you are smoking! Supporting Zero, Hillary, or Bernie is anything but and your support for Zero last go around is plenty of proof.

Liar, moron, or delusional; your only choices.

Sure didn't take Jeff Flake long to forget what State he took an Oath to Represent.

No...No...and No.

I guess I don't see how meeting him equates to appointing him or even voting on him. If I were a senator I'd want to meet each candidate face to face and find out for myself about them. I'd ask the hard questions, such as 2A, and see if the BS alarm went off. I'd rather tell them in person if I had no intent of voting for them.

Problem there is with the press... no secrets about the fact the nominee is anti-gun, he has a long record. Every step they get closer to actually voting means a vote is possible... that could turn out very bad. I realize folks getting their information from the media have no real idea of history as it pertains to previous SCOTUS decisions, but that is no excuse for going off into some place you do not need to be.

And you would have to be an idiot to not know exactly what his 2A stance is.

Guess I'm more in the camp that they should do their job and interview the nominees.


I'd grill each nominee hard on the 1st amendment and just what those words mean to the nominee and what, if any restrictions on that first amendment they find acceptable.

and then I'd move on to the 2nd and grill them just as hard on it.

To my way of thinking, instead of shirking your duty, you're doing exactly what you were elected to do, one of those being grilling SC nominees on where they stand on the Constitution and their interpretation of such.

I'd even ask "how would you have voted on Heller"


just my thoughts on the matter.

you take away the medias power to say you're shirking your duties and you get to point out in a public forum that you took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

couldn't appoint a SC justice that doesn't have the necessary respect for what far wiser men than they wrote over 200 years ago.

It's our God given right to speak our minds and to be armed.

So potentially opening a can o' worms is doing your job? Creating a media circus is doing your job? Doing what the most recent similar situation R nominations did not get from the Ds is doing your job? All when the record clearly shows what a piece of work the nominee is?

Sorry, but that is a poor way of looking at it. Just grandstanding when there is real work to be done...

Just have to agree to disagree big fella

I don't see it as grandstanding when while doing one of your elected duties you point out why a nominee shouldn't be voted on for failing to believe in the very document you took an oath to defend & protect