stevelyn
Member
Exactly!
They now publicly oppose Kagan's confirmation, but they endorse someone whose vote for her is in the bag? They're either retarded or bi-polar.
NRA may endorse Harry Reid..... Sellout #... I am loosing track
- Thread starter LittleHarryNut
- Start date
- Status
Exactly!
They now publicly oppose Kagan's confirmation, but they endorse someone whose vote for her is in the bag? They're either retarded or bi-polar.
TexasBill
Member
I've got to agree: Reid was one of those who joined Kay Bailey Hutchinson's brief to the Supreme Court favoring a pro-gun ruling. He voted in favor of blocking aid to international organizations that would impair Second Amendment rights. When Attorney General Holder tried to push a renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban, Reid wrote him a letter saying the issue was a non-starter and telling him to enforce the laws on the books. Sounds like the kind of Senator the NRA should support, regardless of party affiliation.
JohnBT
Member
Aw jeez, there you go bringing facts into the thread.
TexasBill
Member
How is Kagan going to destroy gun rights? She's replacing Justice Stevens who dissented from the majority opinion in both Heller and McDonald. Sotomayor replaced Souter who voted the same way. Two liberals replace two liberals (both of whom were appointed by Republican Presidents) - The balance on the court remains the same.
Any of you guys ever read "Chicken Little?"
There is a reason the NRA is the most influential and effective lobby in Washington - and it is because they understand and play the big boy game of politics - sometimes it is not pretty and sometimes it is not pure. There is also a reason that there are other gun rights advocate organizations like the JPFO, GOA, SAF, and numerous state level organizations. If you don't like one this is always another.
Frankly the NRA would be stupid not to endorse Reid and if you don't understand that then you don't understand real world politics. If you want to understand then read my previous post.
As to all the whining about Kagan - she is replacing a liberal justice - she will be no more liberal than Stevens was, she will be no more unsupportive of the 2nd amendment than Stevens was. Besides does anyone really think that the president is going to nominate someone who is supportive of gun rights - Kagan will be placed on the court - that has been and is a fait accompli - even if she would have been defeated the next nominee and the next nominee and the next nominee would be no different. Eventually one would have to be approved and they would be no better than Kagan.
If you want a conservative supreme court nominee or one that is supportive of the RKBA then you have to elect a president who is conservative or supportive of gun rights. Our current president was on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation - a major player and funder of the gun control movement - he is not going to nominate anyone to the court that doesn't reflect his values.
Yes Reid will vote for Kagan - he can hardly do otherwise as leader of the Senate and leader of his party in the senate.
Seems some here let their hatred of a man or their political partisanship override their reason. I don't like Senator Reid as a senator and I would not vote for the man - but the NRA would be right to endorse him and wrong not to as long as he has earned it through meeting the NRA's criteria for endorsement.
Frankly the NRA would be stupid not to endorse Reid and if you don't understand that then you don't understand real world politics. If you want to understand then read my previous post.
As to all the whining about Kagan - she is replacing a liberal justice - she will be no more liberal than Stevens was, she will be no more unsupportive of the 2nd amendment than Stevens was. Besides does anyone really think that the president is going to nominate someone who is supportive of gun rights - Kagan will be placed on the court - that has been and is a fait accompli - even if she would have been defeated the next nominee and the next nominee and the next nominee would be no different. Eventually one would have to be approved and they would be no better than Kagan.
If you want a conservative supreme court nominee or one that is supportive of the RKBA then you have to elect a president who is conservative or supportive of gun rights. Our current president was on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation - a major player and funder of the gun control movement - he is not going to nominate anyone to the court that doesn't reflect his values.
Yes Reid will vote for Kagan - he can hardly do otherwise as leader of the Senate and leader of his party in the senate.
Seems some here let their hatred of a man or their political partisanship override their reason. I don't like Senator Reid as a senator and I would not vote for the man - but the NRA would be right to endorse him and wrong not to as long as he has earned it through meeting the NRA's criteria for endorsement.
Why should we accept a replacment just because he/she will only replace another liberal who is retiring? What would happen if suddenly one of the current 5 conservatives were to die? Suddenly that one becomes very important. We should never compromise our beliefs or values...period...Why give the sky a remote chance that it could fall, particularly when we can do something about it by challenging it? There are three branches of the government. The judicial branch has only 9 members that can effect a large change in our society because they do so for their entire lives with no possibility of recall or election...should we not just be alittle more choosy as to who we let go in this position? I cannot believe that in all of AMERICA she is the best we got? I cannot believe that our republican members on the comittee gave her a pass....what is wrong with our country and what is wrong with the NRA?
floridaboy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 334
Did Reid vote for the Clinton AW ban? I admit that I don't know, but am sure that others here do. Endorsing candidates based strictly on certain gun related votes is one reason I no longer belong to the NRA. I'm fairly sure Reid supported Eric Holder for AG, a known anti. My suspicion is that he has supported various and sundry other anti's too. Compromise got us to a point where we rely on an ever less originalist Supreme Court. And while recent Court decisions have been laudable, they were both 5-4. We can't afford more Progressives on the Court, or in the Senate/Congress.
Last edited:
The president gets to pick who he nominates and the senate controlled by the presidents party votes their approval or not - traditionally nominees are approved unless there is some skeleton in their closet - this tradition stems from the fact that both parties want to be able to appoint their nominees when they have the presidency, particularily should the other party control the senate. People act as if Kagan were not approved then the next nominee would be pro-gun - well it ain't gonna happen - take a look at the list of prospective appointtees dicussed before Kagan was nominated and not one of them was pro-RKBA.
The republicans in the senate know that there may come a day when they have a republican president and a democratic senate again and they will want to get their nominees to the court approved. Therefore they will not begrudge the president his choice unless there is some outstanding problem with them. If the senate played the way you advocate - do you think Roberts or Alito would be on the bench?
As I said, don't like the appointments made, then vote in a new appointer.
The republicans in the senate know that there may come a day when they have a republican president and a democratic senate again and they will want to get their nominees to the court approved. Therefore they will not begrudge the president his choice unless there is some outstanding problem with them. If the senate played the way you advocate - do you think Roberts or Alito would be on the bench?
As I said, don't like the appointments made, then vote in a new appointer.
The NRA has announced that it will consider a vote to confirm Kagan as a negative mark on someone's NRA rating. In a year when incumbents -- Reid near the top of the list -- are rightfully scared, that's one of the most significant moves they can make.
Sound trivial? Well, the last time I checked, the Constitution didn't name the NRA as the 4th branch of the Federal Government. Political carrots and sticks are what the NRA has to work with. That's all.
News flash for those who have been hitting the bong too much to notice: Obama was never going to nominate Eugene Volokh to the Supreme Court. If Kagan is not confirmed, the next nominee will not be Eugene Volokh, either. It could be someone of a far lesser intellectual pedigree, someone who is far less interested in seeing various sides to the debate, chosen simply to pander to a minority group. That could NEVER happen, right?
Personally, I'd like to see someone different replace Stevens. That's one reason why I (confession alert!) held my nose and voted for John McCain, even though I hated myself for it. John McCain got a C rating from the NRA, which is shockingly bad for an Arizonan veteran, and something tells me that we might have seen some anti-gun legislation, had he been elected, and then I'd REALLY hate myself.
Politics sucks. The only thing worse is when people start running around in the street chopping off heads. And that's what happens when we don't have a political system where ugly fights and dirty alliances happen without the streets running with blood.
That is not the NRA's fault...
Sound trivial? Well, the last time I checked, the Constitution didn't name the NRA as the 4th branch of the Federal Government. Political carrots and sticks are what the NRA has to work with. That's all.
News flash for those who have been hitting the bong too much to notice: Obama was never going to nominate Eugene Volokh to the Supreme Court. If Kagan is not confirmed, the next nominee will not be Eugene Volokh, either. It could be someone of a far lesser intellectual pedigree, someone who is far less interested in seeing various sides to the debate, chosen simply to pander to a minority group. That could NEVER happen, right?
Personally, I'd like to see someone different replace Stevens. That's one reason why I (confession alert!) held my nose and voted for John McCain, even though I hated myself for it. John McCain got a C rating from the NRA, which is shockingly bad for an Arizonan veteran, and something tells me that we might have seen some anti-gun legislation, had he been elected, and then I'd REALLY hate myself.
Politics sucks. The only thing worse is when people start running around in the street chopping off heads. And that's what happens when we don't have a political system where ugly fights and dirty alliances happen without the streets running with blood.
That is not the NRA's fault...
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
No, he was one of only 8 Democratic senators to rebel against the Clinton arm-twisting and vote against the Feinstein amendment when it came up. That took some courage.
I don't know. I do know that Reid totally shut down Holder when Holder started mouthing off about a new AWB.
I know a lot of people who disagree with him on other issues would like to think he fits the anti-gun stereotype, but he just doesn't. And if the NRA is going to be rating him and his opponent and endorsing one of them, I want them to make that decision on his gun record, not his record on health care/environment/military policy/abortion/whatever. If I want to know about a candidate's positions on those other issues, I'll go to organizations that specialize in those other issues.
TexasBill
Member
The next Justice to retire will likely be Ruth Bader Ginsberg. At 77, she's the oldest member of the Court, has had cancer twice and just lost her husband of 56 years. So another liberal-for-liberal swap could be in the cards.
Among the Court's conservatives, Roberts is 55, Scalia is 74, Alito is 60, Thomas is 62 and Kennedy is 73. Breyer is 71, Sotomayor is 56. Kagan, if confirmed, is 50.
Of course, the wild card is death (isn't it always?). Scalia (who is good friends with Ginsburg, by the way), Kennedy and Breyer aren't exactly spring chickens. And January 20, 2013 is a ways off (January 20, 2017 is even farther).
The reality, though, is the fact two decisions (Heller and McDonald) have set legal pro-gun precedents and the Supremes don't like overturning their decisions. Based on how long Justices seem to last, Roberts, Alito and Thomas seem like safe bets, even if Obama wins a second term, so they will be able to argue in favor of the decisions even if Obama gets to nominate three more Justices. In addition, the rulings expanded the power of the federal government and affirmed a civil right, also things unlikely to be overturned on a whim.
By the way, those of you screaming about Reid and spreading FUD about the liberals should remember something that pertains to a Supreme Court decision: from 2001 to 2007, when Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, the House of Representatives could have overturned the DC gun ban, making Heller moot. The House can overturn any law or ordinance made by the city-level honchos in the District of Columbia. As you may have noticed, the Republicans did nothing.
Among the Court's conservatives, Roberts is 55, Scalia is 74, Alito is 60, Thomas is 62 and Kennedy is 73. Breyer is 71, Sotomayor is 56. Kagan, if confirmed, is 50.
Of course, the wild card is death (isn't it always?). Scalia (who is good friends with Ginsburg, by the way), Kennedy and Breyer aren't exactly spring chickens. And January 20, 2013 is a ways off (January 20, 2017 is even farther).
The reality, though, is the fact two decisions (Heller and McDonald) have set legal pro-gun precedents and the Supremes don't like overturning their decisions. Based on how long Justices seem to last, Roberts, Alito and Thomas seem like safe bets, even if Obama wins a second term, so they will be able to argue in favor of the decisions even if Obama gets to nominate three more Justices. In addition, the rulings expanded the power of the federal government and affirmed a civil right, also things unlikely to be overturned on a whim.
By the way, those of you screaming about Reid and spreading FUD about the liberals should remember something that pertains to a Supreme Court decision: from 2001 to 2007, when Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, the House of Representatives could have overturned the DC gun ban, making Heller moot. The House can overturn any law or ordinance made by the city-level honchos in the District of Columbia. As you may have noticed, the Republicans did nothing.
alsaqr
Member
Aw, you ruined it. You brought more facts into the game.
That "conservative" congress could have rolled back the Hughes amendment too but they did not. That congress could have voted to allow concealed carry in national parks but they did not.
Our president at the time could have cancelled the administrative restrictions on importation of guns and ammo put in place by Clinton but he did not. That president could have overturned the ban on semi-auto weapons put in place by his dad but he did not.
Yep, that congress and that president did nothing for law abiding gun owners. Now we have NRA haters whining about a real pro-gun politician, Harry Reid.
The NRA haters make the Brady bunch very happy.
- Status
