The GOP Outsourced Judicial Nominations To The NRA Or Something

Democrats have a fevah and it’s more and more gun control, ie, taking a means of personal protection away from law abiding citizens, leaving them at the mercy of law breakers, often emboldened by Leftist gun and legal system policies. And, the NRA drives them bonkers, as we see in this NY Times opinion piece by Linda Greenhouse

How the G.O.P. Outsourced the Judicial Nomination Process.

The massacre of children and teachers in Newtown, Conn., didn’t do it. Neither did the mass murder of worshipers in Charleston, S.C., nor of county employees in San Bernardino, Calif., nor of people at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla. Nor, most likely, will the recent coldblooded murders of police officers persuade the Republicans in Congress to enact even modest measures to make it harder for people to get their hands on weapons of destruction.

Funny how the last two didn’t persuade Leftist that perhaps the is a problem in Islam.

If the affirmative act of passing legislation is out of reach, it seems to me that there is one thing an aroused and disgusted public ought to focus on: reclaiming the judicial confirmation process from the National Rifle Association.

Over the past seven years, Senate Republicans have outsourced the confirmation process to the gun lobby. This is not hyperbole, but fact. The N.R.A.’s instant and evidence-free denunciation of Judge Merrick B. Garland, President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy, may have appeared to be just piling on, since Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, had already announced that no nominee would even be granted a hearing. But in fact, it was merely the tip of the iceberg.

Missing is that Judge Garland had four chances to vote with the 2nd Amendment, and voted against it all four times.

Regardless, this is all about how the GOP is in the pocket of the NRA, to which I say: “so what?” The NRA is standing up for the Constitution, and not just the 2nd Amendment. If any judge is willing to betray, to go against the 2nd Amendment, might they be willing to do the same with the others? A judge who is unwilling to uphold our founding documents, which set the Way Government Acts, should not be anywhere near a courtroom.

Furthermore, let’s consider that the Democrats have sold their souls to be in the pockets of other interest groups, such as the entertainment industry, trial lawyers, public and private sector unions, but they all pale in comparison to their worshiping at the feet of abortion groups like Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and Emily’s List. There is no issue more important to Democrats than being pro-abortion. There is no minor restriction on abortion that they will allow.

  • Restricting non-relatives from taking an underage girl across state lines to have an abortion? Dems say “hell no!”
  • Requiring parental notification? Dems say “hell no!”
  • Restrictions on late term abortion, even close to the due date? Dems say “hell no!”
  • Requiring any medical standards at abortion facilities? Dems say “hell no!”
  • Shutting down protests and Free Speech by pro-life citizens? Dems say “hell yes!”

Whenever a Republican nominates someone for a judgeship, the very first thing Democrats will trot out is their position on abortion. They can couch it in any term they like – pro-choice, a woman’s right to choose, women’s health, etc – but, it is all the same: a deeply held belief that the unborn can be casually discarded for convenience.

Let’s also not forget that Dems align themselves with Islamic radical groups. They are thrilled by Iran getting nuclear weapons. They align themselves with groups that want to wipe Israel off the map, and often push for this same thing. They align themselves with Palestinian terrorists. They align themselves with the communist movement, which has killed hundreds of millions. They aligned themselves with Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers. They align themselves with horrible people like Tookie Williams, who murdered a police officer. They align themselves with the worst elements of Black Lives Matter, and denigrate police officers.

Those would be the same police officers that are supposed to protect citizens after the citizens have been disarmed. Go figure.

So, liberals can spare me their indignation about the NRA when they align themselves with baby killers and others.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

7 Responses to “The GOP Outsourced Judicial Nominations To The NRA Or Something”

  1. Dana says:

    The lovely Miss Greenhouse wrote:

    Nor, most likely, will the recent coldblooded murders of police officers persuade the Republicans in Congress to enact even modest measures to make it harder for people to get their hands on weapons of destruction.

    As nearly as I could tell, the only measures which could have prevented the “recent coldblooded murde(re)rs of police officers” from “get(ting) their hands on weapons of destruction” would be to make it illegal for people who had no previous criminal convictions of mental illness adjudications to own weapons.

    Which is, of course, what the left want.

    Now, what could have been done? Given that the killers were not otherwise legally barred from owning firearms, the only thing obvious would have been to scan their social media and computer searches to see if they were interested in Islamism. Anyone here think that the left would be OK with that?

  2. Jeffery says:

    Teach conflates the NRA’s desires with the 2nd Amendment.

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Of course, there will be disagreement in the details – the Amendment itself is quite vague. The NRA supported “infringing” the “right of the people to keep and bear Arms” in the 1930s and again in the 1960s.

    The NRA supported restrictions on automatic weapons, short-barreled shotguns, grenades, “silencers”, chemical weapons, exploding projectiles and bombs – all which a citizen could reasonably use to protect him and his family from criminals, invaders and tyrants.

    So the debate isn’t Constitutional it’s Opinion vs Opinion. The NRA has a line in the sand now opposing any further restriction or regulation. They are entitled to their well-funded opinion, and the majority of American voters are entitled to theirs.

    The 2nd Amendment is silent on auto vs semi-auto etc. The founders expected us to work out the details.

  3. Jeffery says:

    dana,

    Or the FBI could search for any links to right-wing or sovereign citizen groups. Recall the rash of sovereign citizen assassination of police officers a few years ago?

    Leftist radicals attacked and killed officers in the 60s and 70s, then far-right radicals took over. Alyn Beck and Igor Soldo killed in Las Vegas in 2014 by a couple who had left the Bundy compound. And remember murderer Richard Poplawski? And murderer Eric Frein?

    From a 2014 report:

    In the past five years alone, from 2009 through 2013, ADL has tracked 43 sep­a­rate vio­lent inci­dents between domes­tic extrem­ists (of all types) and law enforce­ment in the United States. These inci­dents include sit­u­a­tions in which shots are exchanged between police and extrem­ists (shootouts), sit­u­a­tions in which extrem­ists have fired at police but police sub­dued the extrem­ists with­out hav­ing to return fire, and sit­u­a­tions in which offi­cers had to use their firearms to pro­tect them­selves against extremists.

    Of these 43 inci­dents, fully 39 of them involved extrem­ists sport­ing some sort of extreme right-wing ide­ol­ogy. White suprema­cists took part in 21 inci­dents, while anti-government extrem­ists were involved in 17 more. An anti-Muslim extrem­ist was involved in one inci­dent (the other four inci­dents included one with a left-wing extrem­ist and three with domes­tic Islamic extrem­ists). In these shoot­ing inci­dents, the extrem­ists shot 30 offi­cers, 14 fatally. Many other offi­cers sus­tained non-gunfire injuries dur­ing some of these encounters.

    Since then, we’ve had a few more instances including the Dallas, Baton Rouge, St. Joseph MI, etc.

    The problem is radical/reactionary fundamentalism either religious or political.

  4. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    The 2nd Amendment is silent on auto vs semi-auto etc. The founders expected us to work out the details.

    Actually, no, they didn’t.

    When James Madison was writing what wound up becoming the Bill of Rights, he looked to the various Bills of Rights in the state constitutions. (Not all of them had them.) What he found were things saying that the states should not do certain things, a turn of phrase which allows some wiggle room. Mr Madison changed that, from should not to “shall not,” the imperative, which closed off the wiggle room.

    Some of the Amendments did leave some, given that words like “reasonable” and “cruel and unusual” allowed for interpretation and, I suppose, changing definitions. But when the First Amendment says that the “Congress shall make no law”, and the Second that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed,” there is no wiggle room.

  5. John says:

    Teach the job of the SCOTUS is to make sure that no laws are passed that violate the US Constitution
    When new laws are passed about the 2nd they will decide whether those new laws are constitutional
    Perhaps they will decide that only arms as the Founding Fathers knew of are (originality meaning of arms) covered by the US Constitution
    There are currently laws redtricting the types of “arms” perhaps in the future those laws might be changed
    The next POTUS will probably get two or three nominees
    NC is a battlefield state are you going to vote for Putin’s best friend who wants to dismantle NATO? Or Clinton ? Or not vote ?
    My state is solid blue I can write in who I want and not have to worry about Clinton not winning

  6. the Amendment itself is quite vague

    If that’s so, then Gov’t should err on the side of getting the hell out of our lives, as it was meant to be.

    Teach the job of the SCOTUS is to make sure that no laws are passed that violate the US Constitution

    Interesting. The Supreme Court sided with Heller and Citizens United, yet liberals are still caterwauling.

    But, not, that is not their job. Their job is to make sure that laws that are brought before the Court are constitutional, as well as multiple other issues. Article 3 Section 2. It is actually a job of the Congress to make sure they are passing laws that do not violate the Constitution, and of the President to not sign any that might violate the Constitution. It’s not to pass/sign something that might be un-Constitutional and let its way work through the courts over the years.

    The next POTUS will probably get two or three nominees

    What you’re implying, John, is that Supreme Court justices care less about the Constitution and more about a political ideology.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10612 access attempts in the last 7 days.