Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland on the 2nd amendment

[Little-Acorn]

The Senate has already announced they will not consider any Supreme Court nominee this year, including Merrick Garland.

Sounds like in this case they have saved us from another loony liberal on 2nd amendment cases.

-----------------------------------------------

The 'Moderates' Are Not So Moderate: Merrick Garland

The ‘Moderates’ Are Not So Moderate: Merrick Garland

by Carrie Severino
March 11, 2016 8:21 PM

(snip)

Back in 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. The liberal District of Columbia government had passed a ban on individual handgun possession, which even prohibited guns kept in one’s own house for self-defense. A three-judge panel struck down the ban, but Judge Garland wanted to reconsider that ruling.

He voted with Judge David Tatel, one of the most liberal judges on that court. As Dave Kopel observed at the time, the “[t]he Tatel and Garland votes were no surprise, since they had earlier signaled their strong hostility to gun owner rights” in a previous case. Had Garland and Tatel won that vote, there’s a good chance that the Supreme Court wouldn’t have had a chance to protect the individual right to bear arms for several more years.

Moreover, in the case mentioned earlier, Garland voted with Tatel to uphold an illegal Clinton-era regulation that created an improvised gun registration requirement. Congress prohibited federal gun registration mandates back in 1968, but as Kopel explained, the Clinton Administration had been “retaining for six months the records of lawful gun buyers from the National Instant Check System.” By storing these records, the federal government was creating an informal gun registry that violated the 1968 law. Worse still, the Clinton program even violated the 1994 law that had created the NICS system in the first place. Congress directly forbade the government from retaining background check records for law abiding citizens.

Garland thought all of these regulations were legal, which tells us two things. First, it tells us that he has a very liberal view of gun rights, since he apparently wanted to undo a key court victory protecting them. Second, it tells us that he’s willing to uphold executive actions that violate the rights of gun owners.

(snip)

(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

 

[American_Jihad]

Merrick Garland, Obama's Court Pick, is the EPA's Favorite Judge
March 16, 2016
Daniel Greenfield

...

On the plus side, Garland hasn't been bad on War on Terror decisions. But that appears mainly to be down to a pro-government power bias in general. And that's where we come to his EPA record.

Garland is arguably one of the EPA's favorite judges. And Obama has doubled down on a Big Green Government agenda. Nominating a judge who is a moderate in some areas and who doesn't have a record as a radical activist may be his way of scoring a narrow win for his agenda while ignoring last year's battles. That sort of strategy has been fairly typical for Obama who focuses on momentary battles, setting aside one issue to win another one. Having scored his wins, he would like to lock them in. Garland would be a useful pick in that regard because of his lack of skepticism of government power. His image as a moderate could help create a consensus in favor of Obama's radical changes far better than a genuinely radical judge would.

And so the compromise might very well be a poison pill.

Merrick Garland, Obama's Court Pick, is the EPA's Favorite Judge

 

[Timmy]

Heard his bio on the news . Sounds extremely qualified .

 

[SwimExpert]

The Senate has already announced they will not consider any Supreme Court nominee this year, including Merrick Garland.

Sounds like in this case they have saved us from another loony liberal on 2nd amendment cases.

-----------------------------------------------

The 'Moderates' Are Not So Moderate: Merrick Garland

The ‘Moderates’ Are Not So Moderate: Merrick Garland

by Carrie Severino
March 11, 2016 8:21 PM

(snip)

Back in 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. The liberal District of Columbia government had passed a ban on individual handgun possession, which even prohibited guns kept in one’s own house for self-defense. A three-judge panel struck down the ban, but Judge Garland wanted to reconsider that ruling.

He voted with Judge David Tatel, one of the most liberal judges on that court. As Dave Kopel observed at the time, the “[t]he Tatel and Garland votes were no surprise, since they had earlier signaled their strong hostility to gun owner rights” in a previous case. Had Garland and Tatel won that vote, there’s a good chance that the Supreme Court wouldn’t have had a chance to protect the individual right to bear arms for several more years.

Moreover, in the case mentioned earlier, Garland voted with Tatel to uphold an illegal Clinton-era regulation that created an improvised gun registration requirement. Congress prohibited federal gun registration mandates back in 1968, but as Kopel explained, the Clinton Administration had been “retaining for six months the records of lawful gun buyers from the National Instant Check System.” By storing these records, the federal government was creating an informal gun registry that violated the 1968 law. Worse still, the Clinton program even violated the 1994 law that had created the NICS system in the first place. Congress directly forbade the government from retaining background check records for law abiding citizens.

Garland thought all of these regulations were legal, which tells us two things. First, it tells us that he has a very liberal view of gun rights, since he apparently wanted to undo a key court victory protecting them. Second, it tells us that he’s willing to uphold executive actions that violate the rights of gun owners.

(snip)

(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

Moron, the vote was on whether to grant a petition by the DC government for an appeal to be hears en banc. Garland voted to grant the petition, but the overall vote was to deny the petition. How the fuck do you read anything special out of that?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

He got Straight A's in high school.. That makes him really qualified.

 

[American_Jihad]

Obama's SCOTUS Pick Considered Anti-2A -- But Too Centrist for Liberals
Both sides up in arms.
3.16.2016
News
Trey Sanchez

On Wednesday, President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland as the replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia for the Supreme Court of the United States. Though Garland isn't an extremely liberal choice that was expected from the president, his questionable history siding against the Second Amendment is causing conservatives to writhe and is frustrating liberals who see him as too centrist.

Breitbart gave several reasons to be worried about Garland's nomination, including:

• Garland is considered anti-Second Amendment, noting that the National Review outed him for voting for "one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation," including an "illegal Clinton-era regulation that created an improvised gun registration requirement."
• Garland has favored environmental regulations.
• His positions on social issues, including abortion, are murky.

Breitbart also noted that Republicans have supported Garland in the past and suggested that would make him "harder for the GOP to oppose."

But liberals are also worried about Obama's choice because they view Garland as too centric and had hoped for a far-left judge.

A staffer at Huffington Post exclaimed on Twitter after hearing Obama's announcement:

Holy s***, unreal!

Salon cried, "Really?" Then added that he is "the epitome of a bland choice: a centrist, impeccably credentialed white man."

...

Obama's SCOTUS Pick Considered Anti-2A -- But Too Centrist for Liberals

 

[Little-Acorn]

Heard his bio on the news . Sounds extremely qualified .

He supports violating the 2nd amendment.

Completely unqualified.

 

[eagle7_31]

Obama's SCOTUS Pick Considered Anti-2A -- But Too Centrist for Liberals
Both sides up in arms.
3.16.2016
News
Trey Sanchez

On Wednesday, President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland as the replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia for the Supreme Court of the United States. Though Garland isn't an extremely liberal choice that was expected from the president, his questionable history siding against the Second Amendment is causing conservatives to writhe and is frustrating liberals who see him as too centrist.

Breitbart gave several reasons to be worried about Garland's nomination, including:

• Garland is considered anti-Second Amendment, noting that the National Review outed him for voting for "one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation," including an "illegal Clinton-era regulation that created an improvised gun registration requirement."
• Garland has favored environmental regulations.
• His positions on social issues, including abortion, are murky.

Breitbart also noted that Republicans have supported Garland in the past and suggested that would make him "harder for the GOP to oppose."

But liberals are also worried about Obama's choice because they view Garland as too centric and had hoped for a far-left judge.

A staffer at Huffington Post exclaimed on Twitter after hearing Obama's announcement:

Holy s***, unreal!

Salon cried, "Really?" Then added that he is "the epitome of a bland choice: a centrist, impeccably credentialed white man."

...

Obama's SCOTUS Pick Considered Anti-2A -- But Too Centrist for Liberals

leftist groups like salon maybe playing 'possom' on this, just try and turn the heat up. In a non Presidential year Garland might have something of a chance.

 

[HenryBHough]

His stupidity in allowing himself to be set up like this demonstrates his ineligibility.

 

[Timmy]

Heard his bio on the news . Sounds extremely qualified .

He supports violating the 2nd amendment.

Completely unqualified.

What was the case ? How about we read it . It's not like the court gets questions like "2nd amendment . What's up wit dat?"

 

[Searcher44]

The Senate has already announced they will not consider any Supreme Court nominee this year, including Merrick Garland.

Sounds like in this case they have saved us from another loony liberal on 2nd amendment cases.

-----------------------------------------------

The 'Moderates' Are Not So Moderate: Merrick Garland

The ‘Moderates’ Are Not So Moderate: Merrick Garland

by Carrie Severino
March 11, 2016 8:21 PM

(snip)

Back in 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. The liberal District of Columbia government had passed a ban on individual handgun possession, which even prohibited guns kept in one’s own house for self-defense. A three-judge panel struck down the ban, but Judge Garland wanted to reconsider that ruling.

He voted with Judge David Tatel, one of the most liberal judges on that court. As Dave Kopel observed at the time, the “[t]he Tatel and Garland votes were no surprise, since they had earlier signaled their strong hostility to gun owner rights” in a previous case. Had Garland and Tatel won that vote, there’s a good chance that the Supreme Court wouldn’t have had a chance to protect the individual right to bear arms for several more years.

Moreover, in the case mentioned earlier, Garland voted with Tatel to uphold an illegal Clinton-era regulation that created an improvised gun registration requirement. Congress prohibited federal gun registration mandates back in 1968, but as Kopel explained, the Clinton Administration had been “retaining for six months the records of lawful gun buyers from the National Instant Check System.” By storing these records, the federal government was creating an informal gun registry that violated the 1968 law. Worse still, the Clinton program even violated the 1994 law that had created the NICS system in the first place. Congress directly forbade the government from retaining background check records for law abiding citizens.

Garland thought all of these regulations were legal, which tells us two things. First, it tells us that he has a very liberal view of gun rights, since he apparently wanted to undo a key court victory protecting them. Second, it tells us that he’s willing to uphold executive actions that violate the rights of gun owners.

(snip)

(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

Moron, the vote was on whether to grant a petition by the DC government for an appeal to be hears en banc. Garland voted to grant the petition, but the overall vote was to deny the petition. How the fuck do you read anything special out of that?

Trying to use that vote to present Merrick as "anti-2nd'' conforms to the rights habitual fallback on dog-whistle tactics when desperate. - weak sauce too. Even Breitbart couldn't come up with much of a case to dismiss him peremptorily;

1. Garland is considered anti-Second Amendment. As the National Review noted last week: “Back in 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation” and voted “to uphold an illegal Clinton-era regulation that created an improvised gun registration requirement.” Obama will use his pick to pursue a gun control agenda.-controversial

2. Garland has favored environmental regulations. As SCOTUSblog noted in 2010: “On environmental law, Judge Garland has in a number of cases favored contested EPA regulations and actions when challenged by industry, and in other cases he has accepted challenges brought by environmental groups.” That could be very important, with Obama’s Clean Power Plan in the balance.

3. Garland’s positions on abortion and social issues are murky. Some liberals are worried that Garland may not be unambiguously pro-choice. Richard Wolf of USA Today writes: “During 19 years at the D.C. Circuit, Garland has managed to keep a low profile. The court’s largely administrative docket has left him without known positions on issues such as abortion or the death penalty.”

4. Garland would maintain the Court’s demographic profile. He is the second Chicagoan Obama has nominated. He is no “wise Latina,” and is the first man Obama has chosen. But Garland, like Scalia, is a graduate of Harvard Law, keeping the number of Crimson justices at five. If confirmed, he would also be the fourth Jew on the Court, preserving the odd exclusion of evangelical Protestants.

5. Republicans have supported Garland in the past. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)41%
in particular has been outspoken in his support for Garland as the best Republicans could expect from the Clinton administration. More recently, he suggested he would welcome Garland’s nomination but predicted that Obama would make a more ideological pick. That makes Garland harder for the GOP to oppose.

Certainly nothing there that is prima facie evidence sufficient to reject him without hearings.

 

[B. Kidd]

His stupidity in allowing himself to be set up like this demonstrates his ineligibility.

He was so honored, he cried like Boehner. Beyond that, all I can add is..........."Ribbit.........ribbit...........ribbit........bork.......bork..........bork........ribbit.........bork........bork.........ribbit.........bork.........".

 

[Searcher44]

Heard his bio on the news . Sounds extremely qualified .

He supports violating the 2nd amendment.

Completely unqualified.

The usual chain of events consists of getting the facts first and then reaching a conclusion.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Heard his bio on the news . Sounds extremely qualified .

He supports violating the 2nd amendment.

Completely unqualified.

What was the case ? How about we read it . It's not like the court gets questions like "2nd amendment . What's up wit dat?"

The case is in the OP.

 

[oreo]

You

The Senate has already announced they will not consider any Supreme Court nominee this year, including Merrick Garland.

Sounds like in this case they have saved us from another loony liberal on 2nd amendment cases.

-----------------------------------------------

The 'Moderates' Are Not So Moderate: Merrick Garland

The ‘Moderates’ Are Not So Moderate: Merrick Garland

by Carrie Severino
March 11, 2016 8:21 PM

(snip)

Back in 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. The liberal District of Columbia government had passed a ban on individual handgun possession, which even prohibited guns kept in one’s own house for self-defense. A three-judge panel struck down the ban, but Judge Garland wanted to reconsider that ruling.

He voted with Judge David Tatel, one of the most liberal judges on that court. As Dave Kopel observed at the time, the “[t]he Tatel and Garland votes were no surprise, since they had earlier signaled their strong hostility to gun owner rights” in a previous case. Had Garland and Tatel won that vote, there’s a good chance that the Supreme Court wouldn’t have had a chance to protect the individual right to bear arms for several more years.

Moreover, in the case mentioned earlier, Garland voted with Tatel to uphold an illegal Clinton-era regulation that created an improvised gun registration requirement. Congress prohibited federal gun registration mandates back in 1968, but as Kopel explained, the Clinton Administration had been “retaining for six months the records of lawful gun buyers from the National Instant Check System.” By storing these records, the federal government was creating an informal gun registry that violated the 1968 law. Worse still, the Clinton program even violated the 1994 law that had created the NICS system in the first place. Congress directly forbade the government from retaining background check records for law abiding citizens.

Garland thought all of these regulations were legal, which tells us two things. First, it tells us that he has a very liberal view of gun rights, since he apparently wanted to undo a key court victory protecting them. Second, it tells us that he’s willing to uphold executive actions that violate the rights of gun owners.

(snip)

(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

The opt doesn't make any sense. In the first sentence it states: Back in 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. Then the opt's statement goes on to infer that he is against the 2nd amendment.

So which is it?

Furthermore, I find it kind of odd that no Republican in the Senate opposed his nomination to the District court.
This article states that he does have Republican support, and I doubt he would have gotten that if he was opposed to 2nd amendment rights, or shown any inclination of being opposed to it.
Merrick Garland Has A Reputation Of Collegiality, Record Of Republican Support

A nominee that the Republican party has already investigated and approved of, should be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court now, and not turned into a political issue, that will come back and bite them hard.

Furthermore, with this civil war going on within the Republican party, where 30-50% of the Republican Party is refusing to vote for Donald Trump, basically guarantees a Hillary Clinton Presidency, and they may not get another chance to nominate Merrick Garland to the court after she's in the Oval office.

A bird in hand is worth 2 in the bushes. Take what you can get now.

 

[Timmy]

Heard his bio on the news . Sounds extremely qualified .

He supports violating the 2nd amendment.

Completely unqualified.

What was the case ? How about we read it . It's not like the court gets questions like "2nd amendment . What's up wit dat?"

The case is in the OP.

Yeah. You should look into it . It's more about DC being a district and not a state .

 

[Little-Acorn]

In the first sentence it states: Back in 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. Then the opt's statement goes on to infer that he is against the 2nd amendment.
So which is it?

Keep reading.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Heard his bio on the news . Sounds extremely qualified .

He supports violating the 2nd amendment.

Completely unqualified.

What was the case ? How about we read it . It's not like the court gets questions like "2nd amendment . What's up wit dat?"

The case is in the OP.

Yeah. You should look into it . It's more about DC being a district and not a state .

Is Washington D.C. a part of The United States? The Constitution applies less equally there than in the states and territories?

 

[American_Jihad]

Obama Nominates Stealth Leftist for the Supreme Court
How Judge Garland's deciding vote would reverse key decisions protecting Americans’ constitutional freedoms.
March 17, 2016
Joseph Klein

President Barack Obama nominated Merrick B. Garland, who currently serves as Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia. The White House's strategy was to pick someone whom they believe will be politically difficult for Republican senators to simply ignore – a stealth leftist recast as a “centrist.” The White House even created a new Twitter handle, @SCOTUSnom, to rev up activists seeking to pressure Senate Republicans into giving President Obama's nominee, in Obama's words, "a fair hearing and an up-or-down vote.”

The Democratic Party has lost no time making Obama’s nomination a highly charged partisan issue. All the Republicans want to do is to let the voters have their say this fall in choosing the next president before a lifetime position on the Supreme Court is filled. But Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Chair of the Democratic National Committee, insists that lame duck Obama must have his way and change the entire ideological balance of the Supreme Court for possibly decades to come. “Frankly, I've grown a little sick of Republicans in Congress and their antics that have ranged from simply unproductive to downright offensive,” she complained in a letter to Democrats. Somehow, in Wasserman Schultz’s fevered imagination, it is “offensive” and “obstructionism” to defer to the will of the voters in a presidential election year before making such a consequential decision.

The left's propaganda machine will argue that Judge Garland is a centrist whom all fair-minded senators should support. The New York Times is already quoting Utah Senator Orin Hatch, who said back in 2010, when Judge Garland was being considered to fill another Supreme Court vacancy, “I know Merrick Garland very well. He would be very well supported by all sides.”

However, Senator Hatch made that statement when President Obama was looking to replace Justice John Paul Stevens’ seat. President Obama refused to take Senator Hatch's “advice" and rejected Judge Garland. He nominated the more left-wing Justice Elena Kagan instead, whom the Senate confirmed. The ideological balance of the Supreme Court was not in jeopardy with Elena Kagan’s confirmation because she was replacing one of the more left-wing justices at that time. Judge Garland today, by contrast, would be replacing the intellectual leader of the Supreme Court’s more conservative members.

The whole notion of a Supreme Court “centrist” candidate is a fantasy. Indeed, at the time that President Gerald Ford nominated John Paul Stevens, then a federal appeals court judge on the Seventh Circuit to replace the left-wing Justice William O. Douglas, Stevens was described as “a centrist rather than a liberal or conservative.” Justice Stevens turned out to be one of the more leftist Supreme Court justices in modern times.

...

Obama Nominates Stealth Leftist for the Supreme Court

 

[Agit8r]

The Senate has already announced they will not consider any Supreme Court nominee this year, including Merrick Garland.

Sounds like in this case they have saved us from another loony liberal on 2nd amendment cases.

-----------------------------------------------

The 'Moderates' Are Not So Moderate: Merrick Garland

The ‘Moderates’ Are Not So Moderate: Merrick Garland

by Carrie Severino
March 11, 2016 8:21 PM

(snip)

Back in 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. The liberal District of Columbia government had passed a ban on individual handgun possession, which even prohibited guns kept in one’s own house for self-defense. A three-judge panel struck down the ban, but Judge Garland wanted to reconsider that ruling.

He voted with Judge David Tatel, one of the most liberal judges on that court. As Dave Kopel observed at the time, the “[t]he Tatel and Garland votes were no surprise, since they had earlier signaled their strong hostility to gun owner rights” in a previous case. Had Garland and Tatel won that vote, there’s a good chance that the Supreme Court wouldn’t have had a chance to protect the individual right to bear arms for several more years.

Moreover, in the case mentioned earlier, Garland voted with Tatel to uphold an illegal Clinton-era regulation that created an improvised gun registration requirement. Congress prohibited federal gun registration mandates back in 1968, but as Kopel explained, the Clinton Administration had been “retaining for six months the records of lawful gun buyers from the National Instant Check System.” By storing these records, the federal government was creating an informal gun registry that violated the 1968 law. Worse still, the Clinton program even violated the 1994 law that had created the NICS system in the first place. Congress directly forbade the government from retaining background check records for law abiding citizens.

Garland thought all of these regulations were legal, which tells us two things. First, it tells us that he has a very liberal view of gun rights, since he apparently wanted to undo a key court victory protecting them. Second, it tells us that he’s willing to uphold executive actions that violate the rights of gun owners.

(snip)

(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

I'm sure you can cite the relevant case law involved, right. Otherwise you'd just be regurgitating propaganda.