Obama to Announce Supreme Court Nominee at 11 a.m. Today

[ThoughtCrimes]

The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, eventually went to the Supreme Court, which ruled the ban unconstitutional. While Garland’s actual decision was only to review the law and not to enforce it outright, the fact that he didn’t just agree to kill the ban may not sit well with conservatives.

Even more concerning for gun lovers is Garland’s 2000 decision in NRA v. Reno. In that case, the National Rifle Association fought against retention of background check information that is collected when people legally purchase guns. The NRA argued that the information was required to be immediately destroyed under the Brady Act. Then-Attorney General Janet Reno’s position was that it was necessary and allowed under the act to retain the data for six months in order to audit the background check system. Garland ruled in Reno’s favor, stating that her interpretation of the Brady Act was reasonable.

Nice Copy & Paste without attribution of a copyrighted piece you damn thief. At the bottom of the article one can read [ © 2016 LawNewz, LLC ], but you violated the fair use doctrine. Learn how to attribute/cite the SOURCE MATERIAL. By way of example at the bottom of the C&P, < Supreme Court Nominee Merrick Garland: Tough on Crime, but Soft on Guns? >

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Obama Chooses Merrick Garland for Supreme Court......UNACCEPTABLE

Help for ya, no matter who you are, you probably won't like 50% of his decisions. Let's mush on...

BUT

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Joseph Story
Supreme Court Justice

Maybe that was true once but it sure as shit ain't now. Now they can kill you in Kabul, Afghanistan, while drinking coffee in New Mexico...

ONLY in the fascists' GUN FREE ZONES.


.

The people we kill with drones love guns, sometimes have tons of them, and they are just as ******* dead eh? Keep that in mind,

Here you don't need a gun, you need a lawyer. We've at least gotten that far...

 

[Contumacious]

The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, eventually went to the Supreme Court, which ruled the ban unconstitutional. While Garland’s actual decision was only to review the law and not to enforce it outright, the fact that he didn’t just agree to kill the ban may not sit well with conservatives.

Even more concerning for gun lovers is Garland’s 2000 decision in NRA v. Reno. In that case, the National Rifle Association fought against retention of background check information that is collected when people legally purchase guns. The NRA argued that the information was required to be immediately destroyed under the Brady Act. Then-Attorney General Janet Reno’s position was that it was necessary and allowed under the act to retain the data for six months in order to audit the background check system. Garland ruled in Reno’s favor, stating that her interpretation of the Brady Act was reasonable.

Nice Copy & Paste without attribution of a copyrighted piece you damn thief. At the bottom of the article one can read [ © 2016 LawNewz, LLC ], but you violated the fair use doctrine. Learn how to attribute/cite the SOURCE MATERIAL. By way of example at the bottom of the C&P, < Supreme Court Nominee Merrick Garland: Tough on Crime, but Soft on Guns? >

Really?

Did you click on the html hyperlink ?

.

 

[SeniorChief_Polock]

He looks like Jerry Springer

 

[easyt65]

Doing their job is not crumbling. Give Advice and Consent. That means voting...

So you think 'servitude', doing Obama's and the Liberals' bidding is 'doing their job'?!


'Checks and Balances' does not mean 'do whatever the hell you want to and we'll make every step of the way easier for you'.

But that was FUNNY!

 

[Contumacious]

Obama Chooses Merrick Garland for Supreme Court......UNACCEPTABLE

Help for ya, no matter who you are, you probably won't like 50% of his decisions. Let's mush on...

BUT

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Joseph Story
Supreme Court Justice

Maybe that was true once but it sure as shit ain't now. Now they can kill you in Kabul, Afghanistan, while drinking coffee in New Mexico...

ONLY in the fascists' GUN FREE ZONES.


.

The people we kill with drones love guns, sometimes have tons of them, and they are just as ******* dead eh? Keep that in mind,

Here you don't need a gun, you need a lawyer. We've at least gotten that far...

No, I need my .357 Magnum.

You are free to carry a daisy.


.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Doing their job is not crumbling. Give Advice and Consent. That means voting...

So you think 'servitude', doing Obama's and the Liberals' bidding is 'doing their job'?!


'Checks and Balances' does not mean 'do whatever the hell you want to and we'll make every step of the way easier for you'.

But that was FUNNY!

Obama has done his part. Now it's the turn of the Senate. It's in the Constitution. You remember that old thing, right?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Obama Chooses Merrick Garland for Supreme Court......UNACCEPTABLE

Help for ya, no matter who you are, you probably won't like 50% of his decisions. Let's mush on...

BUT

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Joseph Story
Supreme Court Justice

Maybe that was true once but it sure as shit ain't now. Now they can kill you in Kabul, Afghanistan, while drinking coffee in New Mexico...

ONLY in the fascists' GUN FREE ZONES.


.

The people we kill with drones love guns, sometimes have tons of them, and they are just as ******* dead eh? Keep that in mind,

Here you don't need a gun, you need a lawyer. We've at least gotten that far...

No, I need my .357 Magnum.

You are free to carry a daisy.


.

If you think that will be a check on the powers of the government, I can't help you...

 

[SwimExpert]

I'm not afraid to lay my dick out...you of course don't have one.

Go cast some more votes for Trump.

 

[g5000]

Doing their job is not crumbling. Give Advice and Consent. That means voting...

So you think 'servitude', doing Obama's and the Liberals' bidding is 'doing their job'?!


'Checks and Balances' does not mean 'do whatever the hell you want to and we'll make every step of the way easier for you'.

But that was FUNNY!

It's the Senate's job to vote up or down on a nomination. That's the "consent" part. Why are you so terrified of the Senate performing its Constitutional duty?

 

[easyt65]

Obama has done his part. Now it's the turn of the Senate. It's in the Constitution. You remember that old thing, right?

Please point out in the U.S. Constitution where Congress must give Obama what he wants.....

Yeah, end of discussion.

 

[g5000]

Remember when the pseudo-cons bitched and bitched and bitched about Harry Reid spiking legislation and not allowing it to be voted on in the Senate?

Remember that?

Rank hypocrites!

 

[rightwinger]

The Founding Fathers put the Senate in place to stop the likes of Obama from behaving like a ******* Monarch.
Who was it that crowed: "Elections have consequences"?
Guess our 'Monarch-Lite' forgot that Senators are also elected.

So your saying that Obama doesn't have the right to nominate anybody? Or you are just blowing your racist shit again?

Obama has the 'right' to nominate a ******* dog turd. It's in the Constitution right?
The Senate, according to the Constitution has the 'right' when and if they want to consider Obama's dog turd.
If Obama hadn't been such a ******* asshole from day one the way he habitually bypassed and ignored Congress and the Senate then he may have been able to put his choice on the SC.

your kidding yourself if you think that the republicans would have ever been decent and willing to work with the president. in fact, your main criticism of him is born out of republican intransigence.

You seem to think that there is some requirement for Congress to "work with" a president. They are there to keep him in check. The branches are co-equal in order to handcuff the others when necessary.

They have a Constitutional obligation to fill Supreme Court vacancies

The Constitution says nothing about......when you get a President from your party

 

[g5000]

Obama has done his part. Now it's the turn of the Senate. It's in the Constitution. You remember that old thing, right?

Please point out in the U.S. Constitution where Congress must give Obama what he wants.....

Yeah, end of discussion.

They don't have to give him what he wants. They have to VOTE on his nomination.

 

[OldLady]

Sources say it's Merrick Garland, an anti gunnner

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama will nominate federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, congressional sources said Wednesday. The pick sets up a confrontation with Republicans who say they will refuse to consider his nomination in an election year.

Garland, 63, is the chief judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a court whose influence over federal policy and national security matters has made it a proving ground for potential Supreme Court justices.

News from The Associated Press

See how easy it would be for the Republicans to do their job and vote against him? They've even got a reason. Why won't they?

 

[SwimExpert]

Remember when the pseudo-cons bitched and bitched and bitched about Harry Reid spiking legislation and not allowing it to be voted on in the Senate?

Remember that?

Rank hypocrites!

Tu quoque.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, eventually went to the Supreme Court, which ruled the ban unconstitutional. While Garland’s actual decision was only to review the law and not to enforce it outright, the fact that he didn’t just agree to kill the ban may not sit well with conservatives.

Even more concerning for gun lovers is Garland’s 2000 decision in NRA v. Reno. In that case, the National Rifle Association fought against retention of background check information that is collected when people legally purchase guns. The NRA argued that the information was required to be immediately destroyed under the Brady Act. Then-Attorney General Janet Reno’s position was that it was necessary and allowed under the act to retain the data for six months in order to audit the background check system. Garland ruled in Reno’s favor, stating that her interpretation of the Brady Act was reasonable.

Nice Copy & Paste without attribution of a copyrighted piece you damn thief. At the bottom of the article one can read [ © 2016 LawNewz, LLC ], but you violated the fair use doctrine. Learn how to attribute/cite the SOURCE MATERIAL. By way of example at the bottom of the C&P, < Supreme Court Nominee Merrick Garland: Tough on Crime, but Soft on Guns? >

Really?

Did you click on the html hyperlink ?

.

Yes, Really. Having been the victim of a plagiarist who stole my intellectual property and money from my pocket, I'm just a litt6le prickly about other plagiarists I happen to come across, you Goddamn thief! Hiding the source within a hyperlink in the first sentence of two paragraphs of copyrighted material doesn't give the thief plausible deniability, asshole. Especially without any indication it is a QUOTE form the actual source.

 

[rightwinger]

Obama Chooses Merrick Garland for Supreme Court

CN chief counsel Carrie Severino said in a blog post that Judge Merrick’s record on the bench since 1997 “leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalia’s most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

If Republicans think he is unacceptable, hold hearings and vote on him

That is what Democrats did

 

[g5000]

easyt65 started a topic about Harry Reid and the Democrats blocking a vote in the Senate:

"Senate Democrats blocked legislation Wednesday aimed at boosting the scrutiny of some incoming refugees, after attempting to turn the debate into a referendum on immigration and Donald Trump's presidential campaign.

That's pretty much all you need to know about Harry Reid and the progressive partisan liberals that have infected this nation's federal government, putting their own petty partisanship above the lives and security of this nation and its citizens. What a POS![

That's pretty much all you need to know about easyt65.

He hates obstructionism...only when it suits him.

Hypocrite.

 

[Contumacious]

BUT

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Joseph Story
Supreme Court Justice

Maybe that was true once but it sure as shit ain't now. Now they can kill you in Kabul, Afghanistan, while drinking coffee in New Mexico...

ONLY in the fascists' GUN FREE ZONES.


.

The people we kill with drones love guns, sometimes have tons of them, and they are just as ******* dead eh? Keep that in mind,

Here you don't need a gun, you need a lawyer. We've at least gotten that far...

No, I need my .357 Magnum.

You are free to carry a daisy.


.

If you think that will be a check on the powers of the government, I can't help you...

When tyranny reaches a certain threshold Americans will react accordingly