Slog - Comments on John McCain vs. the Supremes

Comment by Cato the Younger Younger

Cato the Younger Younger — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:54:55 -0800

As long as McCain speaks in tounges and prays over the nation before all speeches announceing his court nominees and practices the "correct" form of Chritianity then we will all be fine. PRAISE JESUS! *ahem*

Comment by DOUG.

DOUG. — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:56:39 -0800

Big surprise. Weren't those the four Gore votes in Bush v. Gore (2000)?

Comment by PC

PC — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:00:30 -0800

1. was this post rewritten ?

2. please quote the passage that presents the "possibility that he cribbed" the story about drawing a cross on the ground. There's no link and even in Eli's story there's no link. We wouldn't want to just crib unsubstantiated statements just because the're on the internets. Let's see the passage that was supposedly cribbed we can have more facts please.

Comment by Chris from N.O.

Chris from N.O. — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:09:08 -0800

And this is precisely the reason that any Hillary supporters planning to vote for McSame need to pull their head out of their a**e* and get with the program. Unless of course they like rich white men to tell them how to act and what to do with their bodies.

Comment by ru shur

ru shur — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:27:25 -0800

@2: there's some research at dailykos but the gist of it is that he made no mention of this story until he first ran for President and has changed details over the years.

Comment by donkeykongjr

donkeykongjr — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:32:22 -0800

There's no "mendaciousness" here. There's an enormous difference between who McCain would *nominate* to the Supreme Court and who he'd be willing to merely *confirm.*

You might recall Al Gore voted to confirm Scalia. That doesn't mean Gore would ever have nominated someone like Scalia, despite what some of those asshole Nader voters would have had you believe back in 2000.

Incidentally, Scalia was confirmed 98-0.