McConnell: No New Supreme Court Justice Until The NRA Approves Of The Nominee

The Republican Senate Majority leader apparently said today that the GOP shouldn't confirm President Obama's supreme court nominee because the NRA doesn't like him. I think this is dereliction of duty by that worthless politician who never does anything that isn't shady. He needs to do his job and have a hearing for the Senate to vet the nominee and vote on his approval, and not hold the American people hostage to an extremist organization.

thinkprogress.org...

Why did you link to thinkprogress and their spin on his words, instead of FNC for the actual interview and McConnell's actual words?

I watched the interview this afternoon and I'll admit the NRA drop was not the best way to describe Garland's anti-gun history, but it was a side comment at the very end of the interview and not the cornerstone of his argument.

As an aside, I think the Senate should have confirmation hearings for Garland and give him and up/down vote. Preferably down, because of his anti-gun and other political activism.

Who cares what the NRA thinks?

They do not represent the individual firearm owner and only serves to push the agenda of manufacturers.

This SCOTUS nominee deserves to scrutinized on the issue, but the NRA's opinion is not worth a lick of consideration.

originally posted by: CB328
The Republican Senate Majority leader apparently said today that the GOP shouldn't confirm President Obama's supreme court nominee because the NRA doesn't like him. I think this is dereliction of duty by that worthless politician who never does anything that isn't shady. He needs to do his job and have a hearing for the Senate to vet the nominee and vote on his approval, and not hold the American people hostage to an extremist organization.

thinkprogress.org...

Now , a question for you. All you mentioned was the NRA. Even with the "rag" website they did at least put another part in. The National Federation of Independent Businesses. Two major groups in the US. And how in the Hades is this holding the US hostage ? You do realize that holding off nominating a SCOTUS was Obama and Biden's own idea , yes ?
Please learn a bit about US policy and who enacted those policies first

McConnell is a nasty little weasel. He's doing what he thinks will help him keep his head above water come reelection time. In reality, he'd give 0bama anything he wanted if he could get away with it..

originally posted by: CB328
The Republican Senate Majority leader apparently said today that the GOP shouldn't confirm President Obama's supreme court nominee because the NRA doesn't like him. I think this is dereliction of duty by that worthless politician who never does anything that isn't shady. He needs to do his job and have a hearing for the Senate to vet the nominee and vote on his approval, and not hold the American people hostage to an extremist organization.

thinkprogress.org...

I actually agree with McConnell for once.

We can't have anyone on the bench that will erode our 2nd amendment rights. It is good to see him standing up for us for a change. I don't care if the nominee loves abortion and gays as long as I can have my guns we are good.

originally posted by: CB328
The Republican Senate Majority leader apparently said today that the GOP shouldn't confirm President Obama's supreme court nominee because the NRA doesn't like him. I think this is dereliction of duty by that worthless politician who never does anything that isn't shady. He needs to do his job and have a hearing for the Senate to vet the nominee and vote on his approval, and not hold the American people hostage to an extremist organization.

thinkprogress.org...

If your going to start a thread on the subject, try not to let your bias skew your position. This is what McConnell actually said:

On CNN, McConnell answered a question about whether the party's decision not to consider Garland would hurt GOP senators in tight races by saying that the National Rifle Association opposes Garland. "There’s a lot of interest on both sides of this issue," he said. - See more at: www.rollcall.com...

www.rollcall.com...
This was what he said, but I understand you using a partisan rag like Thinkprogress to back your obvious distaste for the NRA. Guess it's ok for someone to refute your spin with Fox News, right?

sounds good to me!

Sounds like another big fat mis-quote outright lie from StinkProgress.

But I "2nd" McConnell's motion !!

Isn't McConnell part of the same group of lying GOP leaders that Republican voters are trying to get out of Washington? What he promises means absolutely NOTHING, folks. Particularly if that promise involves delaying any part of Obama's agenda.

a reply to: Metallicus

Thing is, Garland has been supported by both R & Ds for past positions. He leans a little left, but a far cry from Scalia's support of the 2nd. Far as I know, he's not anti-gun, and doesn't have a history of being an activist judge(I don't like that term, but didn't have another descriptor handy). Congressional GOP are dragging their feet and being obstinate.

There's only one group that includes gun control on it's platform. The same group likes to include suicides in the data to pump up their numbers. The government and officials we put in office chip at our rights regularly, but any group that welcomes rights being rescinded for a false sense of security isn't a group I want any part of.

McC put that at the end for the repub Miranda code. See how it worked. You guys are so easy.

originally posted by: CB328
The Republican Senate Majority leader apparently said today that the GOP shouldn't confirm President Obama's supreme court nominee because the NRA doesn't like him. I think this is dereliction of duty by that worthless politician who never does anything that isn't shady. He needs to do his job and have a hearing for the Senate to vet the nominee and vote on his approval, and not hold the American people hostage to an extremist organization.

thinkprogress.org...

Is this supposed to spur conversation? Or is it just being posted from a soap box as propaganda?

Im not usually one to criticize sources....but really? Using Thinkprogress to support a policitical argument is like using the Bible to support a religious one. Its the very source of the woo that people will take issue with.

On topic: I can't stand McConnell. Not a fan of the NRA, although I pay my dues (while holding my nose). But the litmus test that is being misreported, if it were actually true, would be appropriate.

hey the fact that the nra doesn't support the guy is about the only thing out there that might actually even attempt to justify not at least venting the guy. there is very little to indicate just what his position is on many issues, and well there is the fact that he has been supported on both sides of the aisle in other appointments.

the fact that the guy might be (unless you looked more deeply into the case that is being referred to when they make this claim, you can't say for sure he is), against the constituional right to guns, is a far better justification to screwing around and just not doing your duty as our elected representative on the basis that the voters should have a say... That is not what the constitution says, it says the president, who yes, is elected by the people, is to nominate someone to fill the chair, and the congress, should advise and consent... not inconvenience the supreme court to over a year in hopes that you can use that empty chair to bring in a few more votes come election time! for the party that is oh, so concerned about their constitutional rights, they seem to have no issue with ignoring what it says when it's to their advantage to do so!
do your job, hold the hearings, or admit that you are either lazy bums, or you wish to turn that supreme court into just another political chip in the election pot of gold! if you hold the hearings and the majority of our elected presentatives find the guy unacceptable, fine... but to dely filling the seat for over a year is insane!!

originally posted by: introvert
Who cares what the NRA thinks?

They do not represent the individual firearm owner and only serves to push the agenda of manufacturers.

This SCOTUS nominee deserves to scrutinized on the issue, but the NRA's opinion is not worth a lick of consideration.

Seriously, I am so sick of the NRA. And yes I am a gun owner.

What? Are we now under the dictatorship of the NRA? They "forced" definement of the 2nd amendment to their specifications. Which is not the meaning of the 2nd amendment. It should never have happened.

One of the requirements of the gun range I went to was you had to sign up to the NRA. They force people to join.

a reply to: Snarl

After 8 years of the Senate derailing everything Obama did and more filibusters than every other senate in history before combined. You sir are delusional.

a reply to: CB328

I must admit my ignorance in this matter.
What would be so terrible for them to have a hearing for any who Obama sent to them; then simply reject them out of hand and be done with it.
Their job is to "advise and consent". There is nothing wrong with them simply turning down who ever the president sends up for the position. This just means they didn't approve and, having done their job,they can wait as long as the need for another candidate.

Assuming this is true, some of the responses here are funny. The right wing usually claims to hate government handouts and lazy people who collect government checks without doing any work. Some even say that welfare recipients should have mandatory community service and similar programs, because at least they'd be working in exchange for taxpayer money.

Yet those same people have no problem with 100 elected Senators getting paid $174,000-$223,500 in taxpayer money every year without doing their jobs? Seriously?! And that doesn't include the yearly MRA allowances they get, which ranges from $1,270,129 to $1,564,613 a year. How hypocritical can you get?

Oh yeah, I forgot the magic rule. It's all about the way it's presented.

Bad wording: I receive almost $2 million dollars a year in taxpayer money for my salary and my "expense report", and I still won't do my job.

Good wording: Taxpayers pay me good money so I can hold up or block any suspicious government deals. The best way for me to do that is by refusing to do anything, job description be damned. (crowd goes wild)

LOL Maybe that's how I should be once I run for office? Give colorful reasons why I won't do my job and gullible constituents will just eat it up?

For the people that want to froth about the NRA comment understand the real reason he dropped the NRA name.. to deflect from him not doing his job.

The guy would do anything and blame anyone as long as he keeps his position and power, the NRA is being used as a shield plain and simple.

I am borderline on Garland, but he absolutely should have a hearing, if he is so bad he wont get the votes.

The supreme court has had it's first tied decision.

Valerie Hawkins and Janice Patterson’s husbands are the two members of PHC Development, LLC (PHC). Between 2005 and 2008, Community Bank of Raymore (Community) made four loans totaling more than $2,000,000 to PHC for the development of a residential subdivision. The Hawkins and Pattersons each executed personal guaranties to secure the loans. In April 2012, PHC failed to make the payments due under the loan agreements, and Community declared the loans to be in default, accelerated the loans, and demanded payment.

Hawkins and Patterson sued Community seeking damages and an order declaring their guaranties void and unenforceable. They argued that they had only been required to execute their guaranties because they were married to their respective husbands, which constituted discrimination based on their marital status in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). Community moved for summary judgment, and the district court granted the motion by holding that the wives, in joining their husbands’ loans, did not apply to a lender and therefore did not qualify as applicants that gain the protections of the ECOA. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

www.oyez.org...

So, the two wives, get stuck with a $2 million dollar debt their husband's created for their failed business, which they claim their signatures were a requirement for the loans to be given. And, the bank, instead of trying to first secure the assets of the business and go after the husbands to payment, first, they chose to go after the wives...
and nope the wives are not protected under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act..

maybe a full court would have came to the same decision, but we will never know that since well, that bank basically won by default.. probably leaving the wives wondering why they even bothered, and well, the rest of us with an interesting lesson.... don't sign any papers from the bank if you spouse ever wants to get a business loan!