Obama planning to nominate a new Justice to US Supreme Court

[mheslep]

He said he can't imagine the senate approving a nominee that wasn't approved by the NRA. Listen to what he says ...

Scooped

https://www.physicsforums.com/index.php?posts/5420432

 

[Evo]

Scooped

https://www.physicsforums.com/index.php?posts/5420432

And you saw my edited response to Russ that I am still awaiting an answer.

Edit: Didn't see Russ's post, but I still feel that the NRA has too much influence. I do feel that if the NRA says no, the nominee has no chance. Russ, what do you think, would the Senate go against the NRA?

 

[russ_watters]

Edit: Didn't see Russ's post, but I still feel that the NRA has too much influence. I do feel that if the NRA says no, the nominee has no chance. Russ, what do you think, would the Senate go against the NRA?

Sure: The Senate has gone against the NRA on USSC justices. Recently:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/07/16/nra-opposes-sotomayor-cites-hostile-view-of-gun-rights/
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Supr...gan-confirmation-vote-nears/story?id=11155576

The makeup of the Senate is different now, but if the percentages held, Sotomayor would still have been confirmed (18% of Republicans voted in favor of confirmation) with today's Senate. I didn't check Kagan's numbers. I didn't have a strong opinion of Kagan, but I found Sotomayor's comments on race a bit disturbing and was surprised her confirmation was so easy.

He said he can't imagine the senate approving a nominee that wasn't approved by the NRA.

and NFIB. I know you didn't originate the false paraphrase, but you only fixed half of it.

 

[Evo]

Sure: The Senate has gone against the NRA on USSC justices. Recently:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/07/16/nra-opposes-sotomayor-cites-hostile-view-of-gun-rights/
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Supr...gan-confirmation-vote-nears/story?id=11155576

The makeup of the Senate is different now, but if the percentages held, Sotomayor would still have been confirmed (18% of Republicans voted in favor of confirmation) with today's Senate. I didn't check Kagan's numbers. I didn't have a strong opinion of Kagan, but I found Sotomayor's comments on race a bit disturbing and was surprised her confirmation was so easy.

and NFIB. I know you didn't originate the false paraphrase, but you only fixed half of it.

I word for word wrote his comments. Perhaps you missed it.

 

[russ_watters]

I word for word wrote his comments. Perhaps you missed it.

You copied and pasted the quote fine, but you still paraphrased it wrong when you said it in your own words: the paraphrase was pretty much word for word right up to the point where you cut it off unfinished.

 

[Evo]

You copied and pasted the quote fine, but you still paraphrased it wrong when you said it in your own words: the paraphrase was pretty much word for word right up to the point where you cut it off unfinished.

My video cut off where I stopped, What did I miss?

 

[russ_watters]

My video cut off where I stopped, What did I miss?

Huh? I'm talking about your words. Here:

He said he can't imagine the senate approving a nominee that wasn't approved by the NRA.

You cut that off, unfinished. I'll be clear -- you should have said this:

He said he can't imagine the senate approving a nominee that wasn't approved by the NRA and NFIB. [last two words added]

 

[Evo]

Huh? I'm talking about your words. Here:

You cut that off, unfinished. I'll be clear -- you should have said this:

Oh, I finished that off in this post https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...o-us-supreme-court.859200/page-4#post-5420490

 

[russ_watters]

Oh, I finished that off in this post https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...o-us-supreme-court.859200/page-4#post-5420490

I'm not sure why we aren't connecting here, but what I quoted from you was a direct copy and paste from that post. Those were your only words of paraphrase in the post and I copied and pasted them into the quote box. As of this writing, the part I point out that it is missing still isn't there.

In any case, like I said before, this is a complete nothingburger. Even if the initial false paraphrase of the article ("veto", one issue and not two) had been true, it would still not be a significant issue. One-issue benchmark voting is very common (at least, that is what people say if you ask them). For example, 21% say they would only vote for a candidate who shares their views on abortion:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183449/abortion-edges-important-voting-issue-americans.aspx

 

[Evo]

'm not sure why we aren't connecting here, but that was a direct copy and paste from that post. Those were your only words in the post and I copied and pasted them into the quote box.

So can you see the entire post now?

I can't imagine that a republican majority in the United States Senate would want to confirm in a lame duck session a nominee opposed by the National Rifle Association the National Federation of Independent Businesses that represents small businesses that have never taken a position on a supreme court appointment before they're opposed to this guy I can't imagine that a Republican majority senate, even if it were assumed to be a minority would want to confirm a judge that would move the court dramatically to the left, that's not going to happen.

We aren't discussing abortion.

 

[russ_watters]

So can you see the entire post now?

Yes. The words I pointed out that are missing are still missing.

We aren't discussing abortion.

Agreed: I thought we were discussing the unreasonableness of one-issue benchmark voting?

 

[Evo]

Yes. The words I pointed out that are missing are still missing.

What is missing? I mention both the NRA and the National Federation of Independent Businesses, which is a Republican lobby group. I copied Verbatim what McConnell said in the interview, I left out nothing in that video, so I am truly at a loss, no clue what you are talking about.

 

[russ_watters]

What is missing? I mention both the NRA and the National Federation of Small Businesses.

Where? Again, here are your words:

He said he can't imagine the senate approving a nominee that wasn't approved by the NRA.

Here is how it should have been worded:

He said he can't imagine the senate approving a nominee that wasn't approved by the NRA and NFIB. [last two words added]

No, you did not mention the NFIB. *I* added the words here (and in my previous post), to point out that they are missing from your post.

I'm really confused. Are you referring to the part where you copy/pasted parts of the article? Yes, those quotes say NFIB. But I'm referring to *your words*, which still don't. The truncation in *your* paraphrase is the same error they made when they truncated it and ran with the truncated version.

 

[Evo]

No, you did not mention the NFIB. *I* added the words here (and in my previous post), to point out that they are missing from your post.

I'm really confused. Are you referring to the part where you copy/pasted parts of the article? Yes, those quotes say NFIB. But I'm referring to *your words*, which still don't. The truncation in *your* paraphrase is the same error they made when they truncated it and ran with the truncated version.

Russ, you're losing it, once more here is what I posted https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...o-us-supreme-court.859200/page-4#post-5420490

can't imagine that a republican majority in the United States Senate would want to confirm in a lame duck session a nominee opposed by the National Rifle Association the National Federation of Independent Businesses that represents small businesses that have never taken a position on a supreme court appointment before they're opposed to this guy I can't imagine that a Republican majority senate, even if it were assumed to be a minority would want to confirm a judge that would move the court dramatically to the left, that's not going to happen.

Do you see it now? I've only reposted this at least 3 times for you. National Federation of Independent Businesses IS the NFIB, it is a Republican lobbyist.

 

[Astronuc]

Senator's comments on court nominee stir up conservatives
http://news.yahoo.com/senators-comments-court-nominee-stirs-conservatives-191349157--politics.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Republican senator's remarks expressing support for Senate consideration of President Barack Obama's Supreme Court pick have angered conservatives . . . .

A lot of grief for doing one's job, it seems.

 

[mheslep]

Senator's comments on court nominee stir up conservatives
http://news.yahoo.com/senators-comments-court-nominee-stirs-conservatives-191349157--politics.html
A lot of grief for doing one's job, it seems.

Holding hearings to get TV face time while doing nothing to change the outcome might be part of the job for some, though harder to find in the Constitution.

 

[jim hardy]

Hard not to be cynical, isn't it? Our elected representatives ought to be the most mature, sincere and deliberate among us.

Maybe the French have the right idea. "Sure, we expect crooked politics. But if you corrupt our food you're done for.".

 

[Hornbein]

Hard not to be cynical, isn't it? Our elected representatives ought to be the most mature, sincere and deliberate among us.

Maybe the French have the right idea. "Sure, we expect crooked politics. But if you corrupt our food you're done for.".

"Politics is show biz for ugly people."