[rabscuttle385]

No, it's not a misstep. McCain's adviser (and former Rat) McKinnon said something quite interesting the other day, apparently.

Quote:

...“the guy who would have a really tough position would be John McCain who’s down there in a tough re-election battle, but he really likes Hillary and I know he’d want to vote for her.”

Now, given that McCain said in 2005 that

"I am sure that Sen. Clinton would make a good president...I have no doubt that Sen. Clinton would make a good president."

I really would like to hear what McCain has to say in the day and age of Obama, Pelosi, and Read about Secy. Clinton.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

My fear with JD is that he's doing too much attacking and not enough talking about the issues or what he would do for AZ.

What he should have done with this Supreme Court thing is talk about the need to confirm only strict constructionists and reject radical leftists. Say that as your Senator, I will not vote for radical justices without mentioning McCain.

Unfortunately, the real world isn't FR. People still see McCain as an elder statesman and not the notorious turncoat as we do. When they see Hayworth continuously attacking McCain they're going to get turned off. That internet ad by McCain was devastating, because the narrative shows JD as an unhinged kook.

[scrabblehack]

I. 6. No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

Hillary was elected for the term of Jan 2007 - Jan 2013. Now I believe that the salary of Secretary of State was reduced so she could get the job, and that a position on SCOTUS would have to be similarly reduced.

Of course that would leave us with the difficult situation of having one associate justice at a lower pay grade than the others.

Much was made about the legislative calendar and the confirmation? calendar during the "nuclear" option discussion. Appointments can never be anything other than "Shall Person X be confirmed to the office of Y?"

But additional amendments can always be offered on bills, with arguments for and against. That is the purpose of the filibuster.

As I recall, Hatch's name was floated after the Bork rejection because as a Senator he would likely receive courtesy that another court nominee would not.

What I'm asking is, when legislation to reduce the pay of a federal judgeship is considered, is that voted on before the confirmation? I would think it would have to be. That vote could be filibustered; thus Senatorial courtesy (if it still exists) could be preserved but Hillary would still be denied the seat.

Whether that's a good strategy (others are more liberal than Hillary) is another story.