10m ·
My decision regarding a Supreme Court nomination is not the result of a subjective test of ‘fairness’ which, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It is based on the immutable fairness of following the law, which in this case is the Constitution and precedent. The historical precedent of election year nominations is that the Senate generally does not confirm an opposing party’s nominee but does confirm a nominee of its own.
The Constitution gives the President the power to nominate and the Senate the authority to provide advice and consent on Supreme Court nominees. Accordingly, I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the President’s nominee. If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications.
Must be what a Lisa Graham meant when she said “we have the votes”
Seems like McConnell could sway Rinos on the fence with removal from committees.
Think Mitt is worried about his next election?
Think Mitt is worried about his next election?
Not this early in the game.
He won’t be up for re-election until 2024.
I’m wondering if it has something to do with his religious beliefs, even a dick head like Romney can see that the left is totally anti religion, cept of course Islam.
If Romney fails to vote for a pro-life judge the LDS church needs to excommunicate his sorry ass.
his niece probably slapped him around
I intend to vote based upon their qualifications.
Watch out for this one. He might consider anyone more conservative than AOC to be unqualified.
Threats of financially supporting a chickenchitts next political opponent moves mountains.
10m ·
My decision regarding a Supreme Court nomination is not the result of a subjective test of ‘fairness’ which, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It is based on the immutable fairness of following the law, which in this case is the Constitution and precedent. The historical precedent of election year nominations is that the Senate generally does not confirm an opposing party’s nominee but does confirm a nominee of its own.
The Constitution gives the President the power to nominate and the Senate the authority to provide advice and consent on Supreme Court nominees. Accordingly, I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the President’s nominee. If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications.
Like he was the ONLY republican who voted to impeach Trump, in the senate vote?
I don't trust him any further than I could throw him.
What an understatement.
To say I'm surprised is another understatement. That does not mean this leopard has changed his spots, though. He is still the living embodiment of RINO.
Lets wait until the votes are in
I do not trust Mitts at all!
Yes, that last sentence about qualifications is the hidden trick. He can vote "No" and claim he fulfilled his promise. Don't be surprised if that's exactly what transpires.
Guessing promised immunity should his China or was it Ukraine dealings with Hunter Biden come out or promised that they wouldn't come out?
Senator Mitt Romney is a Moderate who has a record of voting with Trump about 75-80 percent of the time. Whatever he votes this time will keep him in the news.
The comment about excommunication got me - if that is a possibility, and the churches really cared about their dogma, why have Pelosi and a whole bunch of other Catholics not been excommunicated for their stand on abortion? I do not think that the churches care, as long as they get their slice of the pie, whatever it may be.
The comment about excommunication got me - if that is a possibility, and the churches really cared about their dogma, why have Pelosi and a whole bunch of other Catholics not been excommunicated for their stand on abortion? I do not think that the churches care, as long as they get their slice of the pie, whatever it may be.
Don't group all churches together like that. There are plenty of churches that DO care.
Another one worried about Epsteins flight logs.
I think McConnel quietly told him there was a broom closet in the basement that would be a good office for a senator without any committee assignments...
Yes, that last sentence about qualifications is the hidden trick. He can vote "No" and claim he fulfilled his promise. Don't be surprised if that's exactly what transpires.
That was my initial impression, but the fact is she was confirmed by the Senate previously as an Appeals Judge so there is that...
I wouldn't trust Mittens in the schidthouse with a muzzle on, but there have probably been some threats made privately if he doesn't toe the line. He's the classic example of a politician whose favorite color is "plaid"!
Possibly for once the Reps got smart and ponied up more money.
However he votes he still needs to be voted out at the end of his term.
When ever I see, or hear Mitts...my mind flashes to that McCain Moment of the thumbs down on the Senate floor on the repeal of O'Care. Over the top stagecraft, and it's in Mitts DNA.
Stxhunter: It seems "mittens" has been hit with an appropriate dose of "reality"!
I would not trust that low life son of a bitch any further than I could throw him.
He is on his last term as Senator from Utah - I would surmise.
GO TRUMP
MAGA
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy
You could knock me over with a feather. I thought for sure Mittens would oppose the vote.
He loves being in the limelight.
I think McConnel quietly told him there was a broom closet in the basement that would be a good office for a senator without any committee assignments...
Yep.
I wonder if the anger in Utah over his impeachment vote has turned on a light in that thick skull.
The comment about excommunication got me - if that is a possibility, and the churches really cared about their dogma, why have Pelosi and a whole bunch of other Catholics not been excommunicated for their stand on abortion? I do not think that the churches care, as long as they get their slice of the pie, whatever it may be.
She probably thinks piety is something they sell in a truck stop.
Dude talks outta both sides of his mouth. I'll believe when I see it.
He has only said he will vote. Not how he'll vote. He voted for impeachment when he damn well knew Trump wasn't in the wrong. He donates millions to the Utah church. They will not excommunicate him ever.
Dude talks outta both sides of his mouth. I'll believe when I see it.
Yep. POS will vote..... with the Commie DemoRats.
Apparently his hate for Donald Trump doesn’t run so deep that he is willing to risk an election defeat. Politics will do that to the spineless!
He has only said he will vote. Not how he'll vote. He voted for impeachment when he damn well knew Trump wasn't in the wrong. He donates millions to the Utah church. They will not excommunicate him ever.
Yep - the guy is full on reptile.
Good time hear, but to be picky precedent is bullschit jmho. He's the current president and there's an opening. No other argument is required.
...He is still the living embodiment of RINO.
Funny you say that. For the longest time, whenever I see the word "RINO", I swear the mental image of Romney appears instantly.
Surprising indeed. I'm guessing that ol' Take-a-Dive Mitt senses his own vulnerability and is taking steps out of self-preservation at playing ball for once.
I doubt the folks in Utah would take very kindly at him squandering a golden opportunity to put a conservative on the SC.
10m ·
My decision regarding a Supreme Court nomination is not the result of a subjective test of ‘fairness’ which, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It is based on the immutable fairness of following the law, which in this case is the Constitution and precedent. The historical precedent of election year nominations is that the Senate generally does not confirm an opposing party’s nominee but does confirm a nominee of its own.
The Constitution gives the President the power to nominate and the Senate the authority to provide advice and consent on Supreme Court nominees. Accordingly, I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the President’s nominee. If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications.
Saying you will vote upon ain't the same as saying you will vote for.
10m ·
My decision regarding a Supreme Court nomination is not the result of a subjective test of ‘fairness’ which, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It is based on the immutable fairness of following the law, which in this case is the Constitution and precedent. The historical precedent of election year nominations is that the Senate generally does not confirm an opposing party’s nominee but does confirm a nominee of its own.
The Constitution gives the President the power to nominate and the Senate the authority to provide advice and consent on Supreme Court nominees. Accordingly, I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the President’s nominee. If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications.
Saying you will vote upon ain't the same as saying you will vote for.
Correct.
Never trust a proven traitor.
