Why they took this on, I cannot fathom.  Perhaps they are desperate?

Jim..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/01/nra-threatens-on-sotomayo_n_249288.html

WASHINGTON The National Rifle Association's threat to punish senators who vote for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has been met with a shrug by Democrats from conservative-leaning states and some Republicans who are breaking with their party to support her.

The gun rights group is used to getting its way by spooking lawmakers about the political consequences of defying its wishes. But it never before has weighed in on a Supreme Court confirmation battle. It was cautious about breaking that pattern, and it looks like a losing a fight to defeat President Barack Obama's first pick for the court.

Sotomayor is expected to easily win confirmation in a vote this coming week that could deflate the long-accepted truism in Washington that you don't cross the NRA.

Voting "yes" will include A-plus-rated and NRA-endorsed Democratic Sen. Max Baucus and his fellow Montanan, A-rated Sen. Jon Tester, as well as A-rated and NRA-endorsed Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, the only GOP leader to break with the rest of this party to back Sotomayor.

That's not to say that the NRA's late decision to wade in hasn't had an impact.

Many Republicans who were considered possible "yes" votes for Sotomayor including Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, Georgia Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, and Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison have come out against her after the NRA's announcement, citing gun rights concerns as an important reason.

Some Democrats who have high NRA ratings, including Alaska Sen. Mark Begich and Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, are on the fence.

Still, the NRA's threats seem to hold less potency on this vote. Asked whether he was worried about ruining his perfect NRA score and endorsement by opting to vote for Sotomayor, Nelson paused and said with a smile, "I'd probably have a good rating regardless."

   The ILA, the legal arm of the NRA, fights court battles, that's what it does.  It stands to reason that the makeup of the SCOTUS would then be of some degree of importance to them.  Sotomayor's record on 2nd Amendment issues runs from vague to questionable.  It therefore again stands to reason that the parent NRA would oppose her nomination, and exert whatever influence they have to prevent it.  Odd as it may seem, some people still stand on principle, even in the face of long odds.

gus.

 

 

 

 

The ILA, the legal arm of the NRA, fights court battles, that's what it does.  It stands to reason that the makeup of the SCOTUS would then be of some degree of importance to them.  Sotomayor's record on 2nd Amendment issues runs from vague to questionable.  It therefore again stands to reason that the parent NRA would oppose her nomination, and exert whatever influence they have to prevent it.  Odd as it may seem, some people still stand on principle, even in the face of long odds.

************************************

That makes sense to me.  Something I did between 2000 and 2008.  But, they are stupid to oppose somebody for the SC where they don't even really know the outcome of her votes on the subject.

Why?

They are trying to hold elected officials to a false standard.  Ben Nelson said it best..."I think I'm still going to be up there on their scorecard" [paraphrased]...

Talk about paranoid.  Unless you embrace me as your lover, you are my enemy?  ... fuck that.

And you, gus, have the temerity to tell us that we are "predicting doom"?  ... puh--leeeeeeeeeze!

Jim..

The ILA, the legal arm of the NRA, fights court battles, that's what it does.  It stands to reason that the makeup of the SCOTUS would then be of some degree of importance to them.  Sotomayor's record on 2nd Amendment issues runs from vague to questionable.  It therefore again stands to reason that the parent NRA would oppose her nomination, and exert whatever influence they have to prevent it.  Odd as it may seem, some people still stand on principle, even in the face of long odds.

************************************

That makes sense to me.  Something I did between 2000 and 2008.  But, they are stupid to oppose somebody for the SC where they don't even really know the outcome of her votes on the subject.

Why?

   Here is their statement: 

Sotomayor and Self-Defense

During Judge Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearing, Senator Tom Coburn asked the judge if there was a right to self-defense. Sotomayor hemmed and hawed, and stated that she couldn't recall a Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue.

Judge Sotomayor has shown an appalling lack of knowledge on Second Amendment issues, but this takes the cake. The Heller decision is full of comments about the right of self-defense, including these quotes:

"The requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."

"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right."

Self-defense is not only a right, it's an inherent right. If you don't get that, you don't deserve a spot on the Supreme Court.

 

And you, gus, have the temerity to tell us that we are "predicting doom"?  ... puh--leeeeeeeeeze!

    Umm...  I haven't done that since election night.  Before that time, there was eight years of a steady drumbeat of it, a matter of record on this board.  What else?

gus.