Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

Paragraph: Mays, speaking to a TV critics’ meeting Friday, pointed to several bottles she had filled with her tap water and challenged the room to taste or even smell it. There were no immediate takers. The activist, who said the battle over water safety continues, is among the residents portrayed in Lifetime’s movie titled “Flint,” debuting Oct. 28. Mays is played by Marin Ireland, who co-stars with Betsy Brandt, Jill Scott and Queen Latifah. Executive producer Neil Meron said the film is intended to spotlight what happened in Flint, including how a united community and “the voice of the people” can force officials to act. Mays said there have been successes, including the outcome of a lawsuit to get half of the service lines replaced, although not the main lines or interior plumbing. “So one of the things we hope come out of this is to let people know it’s still not over. It’s not even close to over,” she said. The movie is intended to honor Flint victims by telling the story “that even in a poor, broken, poisoned town, we banded together, and we fought. We fought, and we win.” In 2014, a switch of Flint’s water source and failure to add corrosion-reducing phosphates allowed lead from old pipes to leach into the water. Elevated levels of lead, a neurotoxin, were detected in children, and 12 people died in a Legionnaires’ disease outbreak that experts suspect was linked to the improperly treated water. An ongoing investigation has led to charges against 13 current or former government officials, including two managers who Republican Gov. Rick Snyder appointed to run the city. Last January, state officials said Flint’s water system no longer has lead levels exceeding the federal limit. The announcement was promptly met by skepticism from some residents, Mays among them, maintaining the system still contains lead and continues to cause illness. Brandt, the former “Breaking Bad” star who’s a native of Bay City, Michigan, not far from Flint, said the person she portrays, LeeAnne Walters, was among those driven to act when authorities failed to heed complaints about their children becoming ill. “As a mom, it just shakes you, because there’s some things that we just should be able to count on,” Brandt said. Claim: Lifetime movie ‘Flint’ dramatizes city’s water crisis.
Melissa Mays, a resident of Flint, Michigan, came armed to discuss the city’s tainted water crisis and a new Lifetime TV movie dramatizing it.

Paragraph: Fitness experts say users of the fitness machine, which is a favorite among Army Rangers, Navy Seals, and “The Biggest Loser” television series, reap total body, calorie-busting rewards. “It’s a great and tough cardio piece,” said Neal Pire, an exercise physiologist with the American College of Sports Medicine. “Picture a step mill that combines the lower and upper body, and you have Jacobs Ladder. Except instead of steps, you have rungs.”  Because the user climbs with arms as well as legs more muscles are working and more calories are burned. “As a rule the more muscle mass you utilize during any activity, the greater the oxygen consumed, which is directly correlated to the calories you consumed,” said Pire, president of Inspire Training Systems, in New Jersey. “Unlike stair climbers, you can’t hold on to the sides.”  Jacobs Ladder was invented by Steve Nichols, a fitness champion who injured his knees and back, according to Bob Palka, president of Jacobs Ladder, LLC. “He wanted to come up with a good workout that didn’t impact back and knees.” said Palka, who bought the patent and assets from Nichols in 1994. “Effectively it’s just climbing a ladder,” Palka said. People using the machine are placed at a 40-degree angle to put the spine in a more neutral position, relieve the back of stress and engage core muscles. Palka said on Jacobs Ladder the person’s body weight is lifted over a 12-inch (30.5-centemeter) step for fuller range of motion than the eight-inches of a step mill. “You control the speed,” he said.” The faster you go the faster the runners (on the ladder) come.”  Palka said about 50 to 60 percent of his Jacobs Ladders go to health clubs; some 10 to 15 percent go to the military and physical therapy facilities, respectively. Jacobs Ladder landed a recurring role on the TV show “The Biggest Loser” after trainer Jillian Michaels fell in love with it. “It tends to get your heart rate up,” said Palka, adding that other users, such as the FBI and the Army Rangers, are drawn to the intensity of the workout. John Trail, general manager of a Fitness First health club in Arlington, Virginia, uses Jacobs Ladder in functional circuit and interval training. “You can go for time or you can go for feet,” said Trail. “It’s not a fast-moving piece, but the fact that you’re using every muscle group means you can do 100 feet, rest, jump off, do 10 kettlebell swings, 10 short interval sprints, and burn a lot more calories than you would on an elliptical.”  Trail said a rock climbing buddy likes to climb Jacobs Ladder wearing a back pack for an endurance workout. A self-described competitive person, Trail has even raced with it. “We have two machines side-by-side, so we’ll go for 1,000 feet as fast as possible,” he said. “In under 10 minutes you can get a really good workout.”  He also uses it on clients with joint issues to get their heart rates up quickly. But despite its virtues, Pire said it’s unlikely Jacobs Ladder will supplant the treadmill anytime soon. “The tougher the machine, the more seldom you see it,” he said. “I haven’t seen many seniors hop on. The older population is concerned about balance and falling. And there’s some skill involved in climbing a ladder. But fans are ardent. “Those who use it are almost religious,” he said. Claim: Jacobs Ladder climbers reap tough fitness rewards.
Jacobs Ladder, a moving, angled, climbing machine, may be named after the Biblical stairway to heaven, but it packs such a challenging workout people have dubbed it the stairway to hell.

Paragraph: One of the constitutional powers of the President of the United States is to nominate and appoint judges of the Supreme Court, with the qualification that such appointments be undertaken with the “advice and consent of the Senate.”  This procedure — like many others crafted by Founding Fathers who did not anticipate the rise of political parties in America — has long since become enmeshed in partisan posturing. Whichever party holds the White House typically seeks to elevate a Supreme Court nominee who is ideologically aligned with their party, employing varying strategies to push their chosen nominee through the approval process depending upon whether they, the opposition, or neither party controls the Senate. One uncommon (but not unprecedented) circumstance presaging a Supreme Court battle occurred when Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia unexpectedly passed away on 13 February 2016, leaving President Barack Obama to nominate a replacement. (Although Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, over the last several decades most court vacancies have been created through the retirement or resignation of sitting justices rather than death, thereby providing Presidents with ample time to consider and nominate their replacements.) Since at the time of Antonin Scalia’s death, President Obama had less than a year remaining in his final office while the Republicans held a majority of seats in the U.S. Senate, the GOP served notice that they could simply delay confirmation of whomever President Obama nominated replace to Scalia until after the upcoming presidential election in the hopes that they might regain the White House and then put forth their own nominee instead. This chain of events, naturally, prompted criticisms about one side’s “playing games” with the Supreme Court confirmation process and the other side’s engaging in hypocrisy for objecting to something they themselves had advocated on previous occasions. This rhetorical battle was reflected in various images circulated by social media that portrayed members of both parties as opportunistic flip-floppers who justified whichever approach suited their side at the time. One such image featured quotes from Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader (and a Republican), advocating (in 2016) that Scalia’s seat remain open until after the next presidential election, while stating (in 2001) that the President “is entitled to tilt the judiciary in the direction that he feels appropriate”: 2016: The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president. 2001: My view now is that the President won the election, no matter what the margin, and is entitled to tilt the judiciary in the direction that he feels appropriate. Verifying the accuracy and meaning of the first quote is fairly straightforward: On 13 February 2016 (the day Scalia died), McConnell’s words were widely reported   Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Senate should not confirm a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia until after the 2016 election — an historic rebuke of President Obama’s authority and an extraordinary challenge to the practice of considering each nominee on his or her individual merits. The swiftness of McConnell’s statement — coming about an hour after Scalia’s death in Texas had been confirmed — stunned White House officials who had expected the Kentucky Republican to block their nominee with every tool at his disposal, but didn’t imagine the combative GOP leader would issue an instant, categorical rejection of anyone Obama chose to nominate. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” McConnell said, at a time when other elected officials, from Sen. Bernie Sanders to future Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer, were releasing statements offering condolences to the justice’s family, which includes 26 grandchildren. The second quote stemmed from hearings held in 2001 by a Congressional Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts regarding the judicial nomination and confirmation process (for all federal judicial appointments, not just Supreme Court justices), hearings that “focused on the vital question of what role ideology should play in the selection and confirmation of judges.”   Senator McConnell, as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, averred (in part) that the role of the Senate should largely be to examine “the competence and the integrity and the fitness of a judge to be on the bench” rather than a nominee’s political ideology, that the Senate should “defer to the President on the question of ideology,” that the President is “entitled for the most part to tilt the judiciary in the direction that he feels appropriate,” and that he (i.e., McConnell) had accordingly approved every one of judicial nominees put forth by President Bill Clinton (a Democrat):  I first began to deal with the Senate’s advise and consent role as a staffer here in 1969 and 1970 to a member of this Committee during the  Haynesworth and Carswell nominations, and subsequently wrote the only law journal article I wrote as a young man on that subject after those contentious nominations were concluded. I believed then and believe now that the appropriate role of the Senate is largely as Senator Kyl suggested, which is to judge the competence and the integrity and the fitness of a judge to be on the bench. I dutifully returned, gagging occasionally, every single one of the blue slips I received during the Clinton years positively. My view then and my view now is that the President won the election, no matter what the margin, and is entitled for the most part to tilt the judiciary in the direction that he feels appropriate. What I fear is going on with the hearing today is trying to establish a new litmus test for the Senate that has not existed in the past. I don’t understand why we are seeking to do that. As Senator Sessions pointed out, and I think Senator Kyl alluded to this as well, 377 of President Clinton’s nominees were approved. During 75 percent of his term, there was a Republican Senate here. During President Reagan’s years, during which he had during 75 percent of his tenure in office a sympathetic Senate, only a few more were confirmed, 382. That is why the safest place to be and the sound place to be and the place where the Senate has been most of the history of our country is largely deferring to the President on the question of ideology and judging the competence and the integrity of the nominee. I doubt if the Founding Fathers were aware that there would be a Judiciary Committee. It probably never occurred to them. When they said “advise and consent,” I think they were talking about the full Senate. Certainly, the Founding Fathers did not envision that there would be a bunch of co-presidents here. They did, after all, give the power to nominate to the President. McConnell concurred with a previous statement offered by Jon Kyl, a Republican senator from Arizona, who said (in part): I find it interesting that the argument that a candidate’s ideology should be a sufficient rationale for rejection is characterized as a bipartisan approach. I would think that bipartisanship would mean quite the opposite. Cooperation with the President on a bipartisan basis I don’t think begins with a threat that we are going to reject your nominees, no matter how competent they might be, if we don’t like their political ideology, as we interpret it to be. I think we should make no mistake that what is being suggested here is a significant departure from the way that nominees have traditionally been treated. Have there been exceptions? Quite assuredly so, but they prove the rule because they are exceptions to that general deference that has always been given to the President’s nominees. From a bipartisan point of view, it concerns me because I do believe it puts us on a very dangerous path of confrontation and contention here within the Congress, as well as in our relationship with the President, and also, as Senator Sessions has said, creates a very bad precedent. I also found it interesting that the Chairman alluded to President Bush’s campaign theme and frankly the reaction to that by his opponent, who made it clear that if President Bush were elected, he would be putting strict constructionists like Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court. That, of course, I think was a correct characterization of the tradition that a President does do that. A President has that right when he is elected, and he has been elected, by the way, even though it was a close election. President Bush is the President, and I think the Democrats who campaigned against him on the basis that he would try to appoint people that were consistent with his judicial philosophy were correct in saying that he would do that, that that would be the end result, because the Senate has always confirmed nominees more or less of the President elected, regardless of how close the election was. President Clinton, after all, never had a majority of the citizens of this country vote for him, but we gave significant deference to his nominees. My point is that for us as political figures — and this is our milieu, politics — to try to translate our political views onto a Court’s job and maintain balance by our confirmations, I think, is sheer folly. Instead, we should all revert to what has traditionally been our role, judging the competence of the candidate; the qualifications, including judicial temperament, the background; and also some look at judicial philosophy. Another image featured similar “flip-flopping” statements from Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, a Democrat who previously served as Senate Majority Leader: The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential appointees a vote. [19 May 2005]  We have that nasty little Constitution, which says they are obligated to hold hearings and they are obligated to vote. [1 March 2016]  As with the McConnell image, the quotes attributed to Reid were contradictory and presumably based on whatever course of action might be politically expedient for his party rather than on a consistent (non-partisan) political position. The provenance of these statements was also not difficult to ascertain: On 1 March 2016, Reid was quoted as follows in an article about Republican opposition to holding nomination hearings for Scalia’s replacement prior to the end of President Obama’s term: Before he traveled along Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House, [Senator] McConnell told House Republicans at their weekly meeting that he’s standing by his promise not to hold hearing or votes on an Obama nominee. Scalia was the leading conservative voice on the bench, and an Obama replacement could give liberals a five-vote majority. The president “made it very clear” in the meeting that he would consider any nominees recommended by McConnell and Grassley, according to Reid. But the GOP leaders did not offer up a list of names. Asked what leverage Democrats have to force a vote, Reid suggested they would continue to shame Republicans over their stance. “We have that nasty little Constitution, which says they are obligated to hold hearings and they are obligated to vote,” he said. “They swore to uphold the Constitution. They’re not doing that. They are walking away from that.” (Technically, the Constitution simply states that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the supreme Court”; that document is silent on whether the Senate is obligated to hold hearings and vote on such nominations.) Evidence of Sen. Reid’s 2005 statements was equally easy to come by: During a 19 May 2005 Senate session convened in consideration of the appointment of Priscilla Owen as a judge for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (which had, among other similar nominations, been blocked by filibustering Democrats): The Senate continued consideration of the nomination of Priscilla Owen as a judge for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. She was the first of seven nominations which had been filibustered by the Democrats, the minority party. The Republicans, who held a 55-vote majority, had proposed changing the confirmation process through a ruling from the President of the Senate, upheld by a majority of Senate, that votes on judicial nominees not be subject to a filibuster. This would be a change in the Senate rules which would allow confirmation by a simple majority vote without having to invoke cloture on debate. This was popularly referred to as the “nuclear option” because of its potential impact on the normal procedure of business in the Senate. Debate was evenly divided by time blocks allocated to each party. During those proceedings, Senator Reid maintained the wording of the Constitution did not require that “every nominee receive a vote”: The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give Presidential nominees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote. Claim: Images reproduce contradictory statements from U.S. senators Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid about the President's prerogative in appointing Supreme Court justices.

A minor quibble could be made about Reid’s speaking of judicial “nominees” and not Supreme Court “appointees,” but that difference seemingly had little bearing on the overall thrust of his statement.