SURPRISE : Obama SC nominee has been defeated by SCOTUS

[TNHarley]

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That is the case in which he supported a rehearing on. SC voted down the re-hearing with a majority.
In 2007, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, of which Garland was Chief Judge, accepted the District of Columbia v. Heller case challenging Washington, DC’s gun control measures. A four-judge panel not including Garland ruled 3-1 that the measures were incompatible with the Second Amendment, a ruling eventually upheld by the Supreme Court. DC mayor Adrian Fenty then petitioned the court for a hearing en banc, meaning that the entire Court and not just a specific panel would hear the case. Garland voted in favor of the petition, which was defeated 6-4.

Merrick Garland: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know
If this guy supports unconstitutionality, WTF is he doing being nominated for SC?

 

[Timmy]

So ? Justices "lose" all the time and then write decents .

 

[TNHarley]

So ? Justices "lose" all the time and then write decents .

He is supposedly the most qualified for the job. I didn't know qualifications for SCOTUS involved supporting unconstitutionality.

 

[bodecea]

So ? Justices "lose" all the time and then write decents .

He is supposedly the most qualified for the job. I didn't know qualifications for SCOTUS involved supporting unconstitutionality.

So you want a perfect person? Good luck with that.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So ? Justices "lose" all the time and then write decents .

That would be "dissents".....

 

[Bond27]

Of course he's Jewish. Pro-BLM, anti-white. Anti-gun rights. When are the people in this country finally going to wake up? We keep allowing this ethnic group domination of our society.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

So ? Justices "lose" all the time and then write decents .

He is supposedly the most qualified for the job. I didn't know qualifications for SCOTUS involved supporting unconstitutionality.

So you want a perfect person? Good luck with that.

Don't need a perfect person. We only need someone who will rule according to the Constitution. If you don't believe in an individual right to bear arms then you are not qualified to serve on any court.

 

[TNHarley]

So ? Justices "lose" all the time and then write decents .

He is supposedly the most qualified for the job. I didn't know qualifications for SCOTUS involved supporting unconstitutionality.

So you want a perfect person? Good luck with that.

Is that even possible? I just want someone that believes in the Constitution.

 

[TNHarley]

Of course he's Jewish. Pro-BLM, anti-white. Anti-gun rights. When are the people in this country finally going to wake up? We keep allowing this ethnic group domination of our society.

He seems to favor the law enforcement community, from what I can tell.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So ? Justices "lose" all the time and then write decents .

He is supposedly the most qualified for the job. I didn't know qualifications for SCOTUS involved supporting unconstitutionality.

So you want a perfect person? Good luck with that.

Perfect? Nah.. but someone that understands the role of a judge should seem essential.

 

[BULLDOG]

So ? Justices "lose" all the time and then write decents .

He is supposedly the most qualified for the job. I didn't know qualifications for SCOTUS involved supporting unconstitutionality.

That dead Scalia was on the losing end lots of times too. I guess he was supporting unconstitutionality too, right?

 

[dcbl]

If this guy supports unconstitutionality, WTF is he doing being nominated for SC?

because Obama, that's why

 

[TNHarley]

So ? Justices "lose" all the time and then write decents .

He is supposedly the most qualified for the job. I didn't know qualifications for SCOTUS involved supporting unconstitutionality.

That dead Scalia was on the losing end lots of times too. I guess he was supporting unconstitutionality too, right?

This isn't about Scalia you hack POS.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's a gigantic FUCK YOU!! to the 2nd amendment.

I'm glad we invoked the Schumer Rule so President Trump gets to make the choice

 

[Bond27]

Of course he's Jewish. Pro-BLM, anti-white. Anti-gun rights. When are the people in this country finally going to wake up? We keep allowing this ethnic group domination of our society.

He seems to favor the law enforcement community, from what I can tell.

Source? He appears to be liberal to me. Frames himself as 'moderate' republican.

 

[easyt65]

So the guy argues something is Constitutional and is proven to be wrong... and this is the guy Obama nominates.... and once he gets to the USSC, he can help MAKE what was Un-Constitutional, when he argued it was, then Constitutional.

Great...

 

[easyt65]

No one ever said Obama COULDN'T make the pick....
Congress doesn't have to give him what he wants. Maybe he can be the 1st President to get a USSC justice appointment by Executive Order.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

No one ever said Obama COULDN'T make the pick....
Congress doesn't have to give him what he wants. Maybe he can be the 1st President to get a USSC justice appointment by Executive Order.

Never happen. That wouldn't survive the first court challenge. You can't circumvent advise and consent through EO.

 

[BULLDOG]

So ? Justices "lose" all the time and then write decents .

He is supposedly the most qualified for the job. I didn't know qualifications for SCOTUS involved supporting unconstitutionality.

That dead Scalia was on the losing end lots of times too. I guess he was supporting unconstitutionality too, right?

This isn't about Scalia you hack POS.

The point of the OP is that being on the losing end of a SC ruling means you support unconstitutionality. Scalia's losses are relevant.

 

[easyt65]

Scalia is dead....