News Obama planning to nominate a new Justice to US Supreme Court

[Mark44]

On principle why do you think it's a good idea?

The NRA is one of many groups that lobbies for various policies and for or against various political appointments. I, along with virtually every other of my fellow NRA members, wants a nominee to the Supreme Court to protect the Second Amendment. The Founders believed that the citizens of this nation would not be able to maintain their freedom if unarmed.

Just in case anyone doesn't know it, the Second Amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There are way too many on the Left, from Michael Bloomberg on down, who would gladly infringe upon this amendment, either wholesale, if they could, or little by little, with gun registration, lawsuits against companies manufacturing firearms and ammunition, and lots of other regulations.

The NRA is a public office? I don't remember seeing them on a ballot.

Nor have I seen NARAL or any number of other groups on the ballot, either, but so what?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I, along with virtually every other of my fellow NRA members, wants a nominee to the Supreme Court to protect the Second Amendment.

I want my freedom of speech protected too. Should we require the porn industry to approve of a nominee? Seems like a lot of power to give special interest groups.

 

[russ_watters]

It is an unfortunate reality that a lot of politicians on both sides have benchmark issues that are non-negotiable to them. The only thing I see surprising here is that he's so explicit about it.

Note, however, that he's being misquoted/misinterpreted here. What he actually said is this:

"...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 [and] the National Federation of Independent Businesses."

He didn't say they have veto/approval power, only that he couldn't imagine a nominee that both organizations (not one or the other) opposed of. A much weaker statement than their interpretation of it. This is a nothingburger that they are trying to hype beyond what it is. But the source is ThinkProgress, so...

 

[Evo]

Just in case anyone doesn't know it, the Second Amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

To me the key here is "militia", we are no longer in need of a local militia, so there is no longer a need for people to keep and bear arms to form a militia. I think the 2nd Amendment became obsolete a long time ago and needs to be removed. We're not going to start another gun thread, I'm not against people owning guns, this is about the insane (IMO) revelation that the NRA is being allowed by our Senate to decide on the next Supreme Court Justice.

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?

 

[Derek Francis]

I'm not trying to vilify responsible gun owners, but I personally don't see the point of collecting scores of guns and needing assault rifles.
Mod note: Deleted trolling comment

 

[Mark44]

To me the key here is "militia", we are no longer in need of a local militia, so there is no longer a need for people to keep and bear arms to form a militia.

The recent rulings of the Supreme Court follow the original intent of the writers of the constitution, that it doesn't refer to an "official militia," but rather to the plain old folks who picked up their rifles and stood against the Redcoats. See the Heller decision.

I think the 2nd Amendment became obsolete a long time ago and needs to be removed.

Your sentifment is exactly why I am a member of the NRA -- there are too many people who believe the Constitution doesn't mean what it says.

 

[Evo]

The recent rulings of the Supreme Court follow the original intent of the writers of the constitution, that it doesn't refer to an "official militia," but rather to the plain old folks who picked up their rifles and stood against the Redcoats. See the Heller decision.

Your sentifment is exactly why I am a member of the NRA -- there are too many people who believe the Constitution doesn't mean what it says.

Many things no longer have any use or meaning. Times have changed drastically over the past 200 years, things that the people that wrote the constitution couldn't ever dream of, if they were here today, I'm sure they would re-write it. We have police, we have sheriffs and state troopers, a National Guard, we have the military, none of these things existed when the constitution was written. It's obvious that parts of the Constitution are grossly obsolete, it's old, things have changed.

 

[Mark44]

I'm not trying to vilify responsible gun owners, but I personally don't see the point of collecting scores of guns and needing assault rifles.

Virtually no one in the US has an "assault rifle," which by definition has a selector switch so that it can be fired in full-auto mode. The guns that an ordinary citizen can purchase are semi-auto only.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

This has been interesting, but let's make sure we don't turn this into a gun rights debate

 

[Mark44]

Times have changed drastically over the past 200 years, things that the people that wrote the constitution couldn't ever dream of, if they were here today, I'm sure they would re-write it. It's obvious that parts of the Constitution are grossly obsolete, it's old, things have changed.

Times have changed, yes, but people haven't. What parts are grossly obsolete? Apart from the 3/5 of a person for slaves, I can't think of anything that is "grossly obsolete." The Framers were wise enough to leave room for changes to the Constitution, which they deemed to be too important to be left only to majority rule.

 

[Evo]

Times have changed, yes, but people haven't. What parts are grossly obsolete? Apart from the 3/5 of a person for slaves, I can't think of anything that is "grossly obsolete." The Framers were wise enough to leave room for changes to the Constitution, which they deemed to be too important to be left only to majority rule.

The fact that some people are clinging to the 2nd amendment and skewing it to make it mean what they want it to mean instead of what it says - for the need of a local militia. just becasue special interest groups have fought tooth and nail to keep the 2nd amendment doesn't mean it's right or relevant. It means there is a strong lobby for guns.

But let's return to the NRA's control of the Senate.

 

[Mark44]

I want my freedom of speech protected too. Should we require the porn industry to approve of a nominee? Seems like a lot of power to give special interest groups.

As Russ said, McConnell was misquoted in this thread.

I want my Freedom of Speech protected, as well, and it is under attack in a number of our nation's colleges. Speakers (such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Christina Hoff Sommers) who are invited to speak at college commencement exercises, but aren't allowed to, for fear of hurting the feelings of oversensitive college students. There's a sizable fraction of students in colleges who will deny people the right to speak if they don't agree with the speakers' opinions.

 

[Mark44]

The fact that some people are clinging to the 2nd amendment and skewing it to make it mean what they want it to mean instead of what it says - for the need of a local militia.

Like I said, the Supremes have interpreted "militia" as not meaning an official body such as the National Guard. It was very clearly the intent of the Founders that the citizens of this country should be armed, and that arms should not be limited to just official groups. "An armed society is a polite society." If you like, I'm sure I can dig up the reasoning from the Federalist Papers.

To my way of thinking I personally am in the militia, as are most of the people on my street.

 

[Evo]

Like I said, the Supremes have interpreted "militia" as not meaning an official body such as the National Guard. It was very clearly the intent of the Founders that the citizens of this country should be armed, and that arms should not be limited to just official groups. "An armed society is a polite society." If you like, I'm sure I can dig up the reasoning from the Federalist Papers.

To my way of thinking I personally am in the militia, as are most of the people on my street.

And I think that is so wrong in today's world. I think it is scary, IMO. This isn't 200 years ago, we don't have a need to form a militia.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

And I think that is so wrong in today's world. I think it is scary, IMO.

Agree to disagree and let's get back on topic

 

[mheslep]

Voters already did decide at the ballot box in 2012 to keep Obama for a second term. I've never heard of a case in which a president (and their party) had to win two elections in order to keep all of their presidential powers for one term. One election means one full term.

I think it's always been understood that the right for Senators to deny a SCOTUS pick only in extreme cases, such as them being wholly unqualified. It's generally always been that the SCOTUS pick would be accepted so long as they're actually an experience judge and they haven't molested any children or something like that.

Maybe take another look at the US Constitution. The President *has* his power ... to appoint. He can appoint one, two, fifty nominees. Roosevelt in fact threatened to appoint as many judges as necessary (i.e. stack the court) to get legal sanction for his legislative proposals. But the President confirms none. That power belongs to the Senate, which also was fairly elected.

Also, for what's been "generally" been the case, automatic approval of well qualified judges went out the window with the failure to confirm Judge Robert Bork to the SCOTUS in the 1980s if not before.

 

[mheslep]

Well Mitch McConnell says no Supreme Court Justice can be approved unless the NRA (National Rifle Association) approves them. So the NRA gets to pick our new Supreme Court Justice?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/2b741dea-644c-34d1-b7e2-e870df0a0b68/ss_mcconnell%3A-no-new-supreme.html?nhp=1



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/24/opinion/the-senate-defers-to-the-nra.html?_r=0

That's a misleading take on what McConnell actually said, as are most things coming out the TP

 

[Evo]

That's a misleading take on what McConnell actually said, as are most things coming out the TP

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

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.

The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) is a conservative lobbying organization with its headquarters in Nashville, Tennessee and offices in Washington, D.C. and in all 50 state capitals. NFIB's lobbying efforts are focused on the impact of current and proposed legislation on businesses (primarily small businesses) and professional practices at all levels of government but primarily at the federal and state levels. Its political action committee is called https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Save_America%27s_Free_Enterprise&action=edit&redlink=1 Trust. The federation claims to be nonpartisan but historically has contributed more to business-friendly Republican candidates for office. NFIB claims a membership base of about 350,000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_Independent_Business

 

[jim hardy]

We don't all think that's bad.

 

[Evo]

This is getting way off topic though. Let's get back to the supreme court justice issue.

 

[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."