« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

National Rifle Association Totally Capitulates on Sotomayor

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  July 21st, 2009 at 12:35 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

It took me blogging at RedState pointing out that the NRA was missing in action on Sotomayor for the NRA to do anything about her nomination.

And when the NRA engaged, it did so by sending out a letter publicly telling Sotomayor what she needed to say so the NRA would not score her vote.

Apparently, it worked.

The NRA knows it cannot support Sotomayor’s confirmation. After all, Sotomayor actually said she did not know if there was such a thing as a “right to self defense” in the United States Constitution — don’t worry, she knows for sure there is an abortion right there.

Sotomayor believes that states can ban ownership of nunchucks by individuals who don’t want to own a handgun for self-defense.

In fact, Sotomayor is to the left of Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the issue of self-defense.

But while the NRA knows it cannot support Sotomayor and must oppose her, the NRA also knows that Senators will not pay attention unless the NRA “scores” the vote, i.e. negatively impacts a Senator’s gun rating if the Senator votes for Sotomayor.

The NRA, if you will recall, fell all over itself to avoid saying anything negative about Eric Holder, the most anti-gun Attorney General to ever reside at the DOJ. The NRA did not want to put Democrat Senators in awkward positions against their newly elected President.

In the same way, the NRA does not want to put Senators in awkward positions when it comes to Sonia Sotomayor. The NRA values its bipartisan reputation more than it values the second amendment.

For the first time in the NRA’s history, the NRA will oppose a nomination to the United States Supreme Court without scoring the vote.* In other words, Senators can vote for Sotomayor — the most anti-gun and anti-self defense nominee ever — and face no repercussions from the NRA.

David Keene of ACU, who has been in some hot water lately, is on the board of the NRA. If he wanted to really make amends quickly with conservatives troubled by the FedEx flap, he should push the issue with the NRA.

Let’s not hold our breath, however. We must keep our perspective. The National Rifle Association actively opposed legislation that would allow individuals to carry rifles into national parks. Perhaps it is time to become life members of Gun Owners of America instead of the NRA.

Charleston Heston rolls over in his grave today.

*I regret the error. I’ve found I cannot defend the claim and must retract it. My apologies. Notwithstanding that, the overall point remains — the NRA has capitulated on Sotomayor and has totally refused to put up a fight, just like with Eric Holder. If the NRA is not going to aggressively combat anti-2nd Amendment judges, why should we give them money?

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • E Pluribus Unum

    And there gonna hear from me.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    It’s a sign that it’s bedtime for Bonzo.

  • http://www.AmericanThinker.com Hammer2008

    When it came time to renew my membership earlier this year, I didn’t. The NRA seemed to off the reservation as it was. Money well saved it seems.

  • Tbone

    NT

  • lkdavis

    now they seem to be a bunch of gutless cowards too afraid of offending Obama. I miss Charlton Heston.

  • clement

    GOA? Are you serious? The organization that makes ANY bill an ‘anti gun bill alert’. Uh no,. They the butt of the jokes from those I speak with.

  • http://thefallenworld.wordpress.com/ wayneinnh

    They have tried to call me several times this week, their number has shown up on my caller ID on my home phone. I still have a few years left on my membership so it must be a fundraiser. I think I’ll forward my home phone to my cell today just in case they try again. They need to hear from us.

  • hoosierteacher

    Sotomayer is a blessing in disguise. First, let’s accept that any replacement for Souter is going to be a leftist. Now, of all the leftists that could be selected for SCOTUS, who least helps the left on the bench?

    Sotomayer’s notorius abrasiveness and poorly written opinions will only distance other members of the court (esp Kennedy), and any opinions she’s assigned to write won’t have staying power.

    Obama could have nominated a star (albeit leftist) to the bench and made an impact. Instead, he’s putting up a partisan with no interpersonal skills and a poor track record of being overturned and writing laughable opinions so that he can score points with the Hispanic base. (and FWIW, her few votes on abortion leaned pro-life and the pro-abortionists are skeptical of her).

    Frankly, while I would like senators to beat her down in hearings, I hope she sails to confirmation. If you really want the NRA to pressure senators (and it wouldn’t have any impact this go-around anyway), we could end up with any of a handful of brighter jurists on the bench for the left.

    Just my opinion.

  • safariman

    This was a forgone conclusion

  • farstar99

    I belong to both GOA and NRA, but unless they speak up LOUDLY AND NOW, on TV and in print, that will change. No endowment, either.

  • archer52

    After twenty years on the job, I learned when I was in a fight with a man bigger than me I often let him flail away for a while before I hit him. I found meeting him head on usually ended up with me getting whacked. However, once he stumbles a little bit, I usually took a leg out, dropped him to the ground then commenced to doing what needed to be done.

    The NRA trying to face down Obama head on would be a mistake. He has the Senate, the House and the media and a majority of the sheep in our nation. The NRA would be smart to step to one side and let him fumble around with healthcare, bombastic statements, oddly socialist foreign policy, higher taxes, until he has completely lost the respect of the people, upset his supporters, and has been revealed as the fool and hard line socialist he is. At that point the NRA should step in, kick his weak leg and take him the rest of the way down by pointing out Obama would love nothing more than to disarm the people, that is the only way dictators can rule them. A statement like that now would only make the NRA look foolish. A year or so from now, they’ll look wise. It is all about the timing.

    RW- www.truthandcommonsense.com

  • mirror61

    I am, at times, frustrated with the NRA and wonder if they are getting too PC, but I also believe that we have to pick our battles. They are replacing a left judge with an inarticulate left judge with a questionable (at best) judicial record, I tend to agree with hoosier.

  • peg_c

    And they’re getting no more $$. I’ve decided they’re in bed with our ideological enemies, they want the anti-gun forces to gain more power in order to justify the NRA’s constant beggings, or both. I’m done with them.

  • Scope

    I posted some comments made by Liberal Law Professor Jonathan Turley on one of GC’s diaries. He was against the nomination of Soto. He said he has read her many many opinions written, and one common thread among them is a lack of “intellectual depth.” Anyone Obama nominates will be leftist, and they will be replacing another Leftist. How far left they are, or how well they can articulate their decisions and opinions while serving, can make a difference in the validity of those decisions/opinions that can or cannot have long life-spans. I can’t see her writting anything that will be profound. She is no doubt a racist/sexist by her comments. She is racist by her associations with Puerto Rican Organizations and LaRaza. She would never vote to overturn Roe v Wade. She claims that judges do/should make policy. If I understand some of Robert Bork’s comments correctly, he said that when something comes before a court, it is because something is undecided. To come to a decision is in a way making policy. It is how you come to that decision, and what you rely on to make that decision, is what makes the difference between legislationg from the bench, or strictly adhering to the law. From what I have read/heard about Soto, I don’t see her as a trail blazer. She will surely vote in a manner not in keeping with the Constitution, but, I believe some others would be much worse such as Diane Wood or Harold Koh. Turley has called them “blazzingly brilliant.” I would add, they are also blazzingly much more dangerous that Soto. Unfortunately Obama gets to pick this one, and, he will never ever choose someone that we would agree with, not even 40% of the time. Let him have this one, but, fight to the ends of the earth should Ginsburg leave, and one of the above are nominated next.

  • lthurwitz

    I see allot of folks here angry, many seem like they want to abandon their closest ally over this. In the grand scheme of things, Soto might be better on gun rights than Suitor. Obama could have tried to jam a much worse (read left wing) nominee than he did. Of course given a second chance, I think he will.

    But The NRA, like everyone else has to pick its battle. I think they’ve played this well.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Really the only battle bigger than a Supreme Court nomination is the Presidency.

    If the NRA can only show up once every four years, then what good are they?

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    But it would influence future races when Democrats had their scores dropped.

  • lthurwitz

    We could have been presented with a much worse pick. Despite the dust up, I think Sotomayor will actually be to the right of any future Obama pick, and strong NRA opposition might have resulted in a replacement pick who is very restrictive on gun rights. I hope I’m right. I’m not pulling my NRA support yet.

  • The_Gadfly

    Personally, I’d prefer a straight up fight with them scoring the vote, but like Holder, I suspect this one is a forgone conclusion, especially after the miserable performance of Republican Senators on the Judiciary committee.

    The position the NRA is taking is to hold their fire. They have a reputation for winning almost all of their battles, and they are protecting that reputation. I get their monthly ILA magazine and they regularly criticize and deride Obama, Holder, et al for their anti-gun opinions. For the moment they are focused more on court battles based off the Holder decision which they will eventually win but they need to get back up to SCOTUS and in legislative battles that are expanding concealed carry laws that enhance the ability of people to carry guns where they believe they will be needed.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    that NRA coming down against SoSo would have derailed the nomination, so it’s not like their opposition would have brought us that much worse nominee.

    NRA, like all conservative groups, has to stand up and be counted. The jerks need to KNOW when they nominate a rabidly anti-gun candidate, that they’re gonna get an earful and a whole lot of nationwide TV ads from one of the more powerful groups there is.

    It is likely to have an effect on who they select for nominees, in that they’ll lean toward some less obviously anti-gun judges.

    But when the NRA does THIS, there are no brakes, no second thoughts, no hesitation in choosing the most pathetic candidates.