The Obama Pick For Supreme Court.

[PoliticalChic]

Merrick Garland, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.


"Garland attended Harvard Law School and clerked for Judge Henry J. Friendly of the Second Circuit before arriving in Brennan’s chambers during the 1978-79 term." Want a Supreme Court Clerkship? Clerk for Brennan’s Clerk « Justice Brennan

Clerked for Supreme Court Justice William Brennan.
And that is the 'kiss of death,' as far as I am concerned.

William Brennan is the chief among assassins......with the United States Constitution being the victim of said assassination.

Justice Wm. Brennan, jr…1985 Georgetown speech supported the “transformative purpose” of the Constitution, in which he argued for an “aspiration to social justice, brotherhood, and human dignity…”

1. He claimed that General Meese’s vision was “little more than arrogance cloaked in humility” because we cannot discern how the Framers would apply moral-philosophic natural law to modern problems. Brennan denies any “static meaning,” but looks, instead, for ‘adaptability.”
2. To say that the genius of a constitution lies in the fluidity of its meaning is a little bit like saying that the genius of the brakes on your car is the way they can be used for acceleration. The whole point of having a constitution or a bill of rights is to memorialize and entrench fundamental rights so they can prevail in moments of passion.
3. The errors in Justice Brennan’s speech include the following:
   1. The idea of ‘adaptability’ is an affront to our idea of inter-generational lawmaking. Why start a business if one could not be certain that the Takings Clause would not remain in effect? Can we imagine an America without freedom of the press, or of speech, or the protections for private property? No…each generation remains bound by the rights its predecessor entrenched, as opposed to a doctrine in which each generation could bring its own meaning to the Constitution. San Diego Law School Professor Steven D. Smith points out that legal texts are simply scrawls if separated from the meaning given them by the Framers who wrote them.
   2. Brennan falls back on the idea that moderns should not be bound by “a world that is dead and gone.” Of course, there are lots of laws on the books today by folks dead and gone: Social Security laws, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the Sixteenth Amendment imposing an income tax, and all nine justices who participated in Roe v. Wade are now dead. Would Brennan suggest ignoring any of these….or does he simply wish to allow judges to pick and choose which laws written by dead people we are to be bound by? No, this ‘transformative’ view would simply allow justices to erase parts of the Constitution.
   3. While Justice Brennan advances the view that Originalists’ presumption is was “little more than arrogance cloaked in humility,” one should consider which view is truly arrogant: Brennan’s view is that those of us in the present generation are better able to judge than our benighted ancestors. Really? The American Constitution has survived for two centuries, the oldest and first such document in existence, and has inspired countless copies around the world. Through it we remain the freest and most fortunate people on earth.
   4. Finally, the ‘transformative’ view raises the level of generality of the Constitution in order to justify the left-wing outcomes that progressives want. Brennan identifies the Bill of Rights as protecting human dignity, then asks whether the death penalty, for example, is compatible with human dignity. A perfect example of sophistry, and lawyerly sleight of hand. The text of the Constitution does not speak vaguely of human dignity…but does specifically of freedom of speech, and of the press, about unreasonable searches and seizures, and about property not being taken capriciously. So, Brennan twists the ideas to produce what he deems good consequences. By that endeavor “the rule of law and not of men” becomes impossible.Covered in
      "Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate" by Steven G. Calabresi and Antonin Scalia

 

[PoliticalChic]

Very high on the list of Progressive crimes against America was their invasion of law schools, and instituting....successfully.....a plan to obviate the United States Constitution.

In its place, they put the decisions of that ragtag pretentious group known as the judiciary....
....many of whom received their judgeship by paying a bribe to the party in power.

It's called Caselaw.
' law that is based on decisions that judges have made in past cases'
Definition of CASE LAW


4. Progressive Roscoe Pound and others changed the way law is taught. “Pound fought the notion that an unchanging and inflexible Natural Law formed the basis for the Common Law. He did believe that some constant principles existed in the common law, particularly ones dealing with methods, to which he gave the name "taught legal tradition."

Pound firmly believed that the implementation of the principles of the taught legal tradition by wise common-law judges resulted in substantive change, which reflected changes in society.

As the interpreters of the common law, judges had a special duty to consider the practical effects of their decisions and to strive to ensure that judging facilitated rather than hindered societal growth.” Roscoe Pound



Be very clear: this anit-American methodology denies the guidance of the Constitution....that the only way to change the Constitution is the amendment process.....

....and certainly not from the bench.

5. “What was evident in his first published book in law, however, was his deep indebtedness to German modes of thinking. He was committed to moving the study of law and jurisprudence away from the method of deduction from predetermined conceptions. Calling this "conceptualism," Pound sought to adjust principles and doctrines of law to the realities of the human condition….wanted to extract wisdom from German social science to apply to American law.: law must leave "conceptions" and open itself up to social realities of the modern world.”…the backwardness of law in meeting social ends,…” http://www.drbilllong.com/Jurisprudence/Pound.html





He was perhaps the chief U.S. advocate of sociological jurisprudence, which holds that statutes and court decisions are affected by social conditions; his ideas apparently influenced the New Deal programs of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt. http://www.answers.com/topic/roscoe-pound

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. Where to look for an appropriate nominee for the Supreme Court?

1. Attorney-general Edwin Meese, III’s speech to the ABA, July 9, 1985, called for Jurisprudence of Original Intention, focusing on several themes. The first is the primacy of the rule of law. Thomas Paine said, “America has no monarch: Here the law is king.” Originalists believe that the written Constitution is our most fundamental law and that it binds us all. Justices who abandon the original meaning of the text of the Constitution invariably end up substituting their own political philosophies for those of the framers. Americans have to decide whether they wish a government of laws or one of judges.
   1. There is no liberal or conservative meaning of the text of the Constitution, only a right meaning or a wrong meaning. Those who convert the Constitution into a license for judges to make policy instead of being a limit on the power of judges, pervert a document that is supposed to limit power into one that sanctions it.
2. Next, is the idea that the whole idea of constitutionally limited government hinges on this: if the Constitution does not bind the Supreme Court, why then should it bind the President, or the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff? Abandon originalism for the Supreme Court, then why not abandon it everywhere else as well? Indeed, the only reason that judges have the power to hold laws unconstitutional is because the Constitution is a higher law that binds legislative and executive official and that trumps unconstitutional actions that those officials might take.
   1. Abandoning originalism means abandoning the rationale which ‘Marbury v. Madison’ uses to justify judicial review. Without originalism there can be no constitutionally limited government, and no judicial review.

An originalist is the only correct choice.....not one who favors the 'Living Constitution' proposed by Justice Wm. Brennan.....

...and a clerk of his, Judge Garland is suspect of the taint.

 

[mudwhistle]

Golly gee.....Obama's pick is a classic Gun-Grabber:

Garland has a long record, and, among other things, it 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.

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.”

So sure, he’s moderate. In the same way that the “common sense” gun reforms that liberals propose are “common sense.”

WARNING: This is how Obama's Supreme Court nominee voted on GUNS... - Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com​

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Americans live under an ever-growing administrative state, in which distant bureaucrats centralize legislative, executive, and judicial power. States and localities are increasingly overpowered by a growing federal government that transgresses the Constitution’s original limits.

The Constitution, we’re told by the progressive-minded, is a “living, breathing” document that allows for such updating in the modern age.

On the other side, originalists and textualists argue that the Constitution’s meaning is stable, that its words retain the meaning they possessed when they were written.

The dispute has spanned more than a generation, and, with the recent death of Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia and nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Court, has taken on tremendous political weight. Scalia’s successor, whether it’s Garland or someone else—if Republicans prevail in blocking Obama’s nominee this year—could tip the balance of the Court in favor of one of these competing interpretations."
The Case for Originalism


The next Supreme Court Justice should not be a student of Wm. Brennan.

 

[HUGGY]

As usual the brainless ChristianRWers in the Senate have spoken first without thinking the Obama nominee through.

It is highly likely that Hillary Clinton will be the next president and a good chance the Senate power will swing back to the left.

In all likelihood Garrett is the GOP's last chance at a moderate justice for another eight years.

But no...they will stick to their guns and shoot themselves in the foot....as usual.

What will plan "B" be? Fillibuster every Clinton nominee?

This is just another stunning example of just how stupid Christian fundamentalists are.

In their make believe world of goblins, devils and angels they are always right and everyone else is always wrong.

Once again they will prove that they will go to extraordinary lengths to place party over country and not vote up or down against their own best interests.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As usual the brainless ChristianRWers in the Senate have spoken first without thinking the Obama nominee through.

It is highly likely that Hillary Clinton will be the next president and a good chance the Senate power will swing back to the left.

In all likelihood Garrett is the GOP's last chance at a moderate justice for another eight years.

But no...they will stick to their guns and shoot themselves in the foot....as usual.

What will plan "B" be? Fillibuster every Clinton nominee?

This is just another stunning example of just how stupid Christian fundamentalists are.

In their make believe world of goblins, devils and angels they are always right and everyone else is always wrong.

Once again they will prove that they will go to extraordinary lengths to place party over country and not vote up or down against their own best interests.

I notice that, while you have subscribe to the thread, you were unable to find any way to counter the well constructed OP.

Instead, the usual attempt at disagreement that can only be summarized as the usual Liberal "Yoooo soooo stuuuupppppid!"




Seems that Coulter had anticipated your post:

"Let me give you a little tip: if you want liberalism to continue in this country, you have to realize that liberal students are being let down by their professors! They have liberal school teachers, and read the liberal press! Because of this weak preparation, they are unable to argue, to think beyond the first knee-jerk impulse. They can’t put together a logical thought. Now, compare that to a college Republican…"

 

[HUGGY]

As usual the brainless ChristianRWers in the Senate have spoken first without thinking the Obama nominee through.

It is highly likely that Hillary Clinton will be the next president and a good chance the Senate power will swing back to the left.

In all likelihood Garrett is the GOP's last chance at a moderate justice for another eight years.

But no...they will stick to their guns and shoot themselves in the foot....as usual.

What will plan "B" be? Fillibuster every Clinton nominee?

This is just another stunning example of just how stupid Christian fundamentalists are.

In their make believe world of goblins, devils and angels they are always right and everyone else is always wrong.

Once again they will prove that they will go to extraordinary lengths to place party over country and not vote up or down against their own best interests.

I notice that, while you have subscribe to the thread, you were unable to find any way to counter the well constructed OP.

Instead, the usual attempt at disagreement that can only be summarized as the usual Liberal "Yoooo soooo stuuuupppppid!"




Seems that Coulter had anticipated your post:

"Let me give you a little tip: if you want liberalism to continue in this country, you have to realize that liberal students are being let down by their professors! They have liberal school teachers, and read the liberal press! Because of this weak preparation, they are unable to argue, to think beyond the first knee-jerk impulse. They can’t put together a logical thought. Now, compare that to a college Republican…"

Blah... Blah... Blah.. Whatever..

I hope you are happy with Hillary's pick(s) for the court and the majority of dems in the senate to confirm them.

THAT is exactly what is going to happen.

Next year at this time you idjits will be pulling your hair out when you think back on what you COULD have had before the fall.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As usual the brainless ChristianRWers in the Senate have spoken first without thinking the Obama nominee through.

It is highly likely that Hillary Clinton will be the next president and a good chance the Senate power will swing back to the left.

In all likelihood Garrett is the GOP's last chance at a moderate justice for another eight years.

But no...they will stick to their guns and shoot themselves in the foot....as usual.

What will plan "B" be? Fillibuster every Clinton nominee?

This is just another stunning example of just how stupid Christian fundamentalists are.

In their make believe world of goblins, devils and angels they are always right and everyone else is always wrong.

Once again they will prove that they will go to extraordinary lengths to place party over country and not vote up or down against their own best interests.

I notice that, while you have subscribe to the thread, you were unable to find any way to counter the well constructed OP.

Instead, the usual attempt at disagreement that can only be summarized as the usual Liberal "Yoooo soooo stuuuupppppid!"




Seems that Coulter had anticipated your post:

"Let me give you a little tip: if you want liberalism to continue in this country, you have to realize that liberal students are being let down by their professors! They have liberal school teachers, and read the liberal press! Because of this weak preparation, they are unable to argue, to think beyond the first knee-jerk impulse. They can’t put together a logical thought. Now, compare that to a college Republican…"

Blah... Blah... Blah.. Whatever..

I hope you are happy with Hillary's pick(s) for the court and the majority of dems in the senate to confirm them.

THAT is exactly what is going to happen.

Next year at this time you idjits will be pulling your hair out when you think back on what you COULD have had before the fall.

When one considers the unbelievable list of domestic and foreign policy failures by Barack Obama, how any could ever contemplate putting another Leftist Democrat in office is jaw-dropping.

As the old saying goes, the difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limitations.

 

[HUGGY]

As usual the brainless ChristianRWers in the Senate have spoken first without thinking the Obama nominee through.

It is highly likely that Hillary Clinton will be the next president and a good chance the Senate power will swing back to the left.

In all likelihood Garrett is the GOP's last chance at a moderate justice for another eight years.

But no...they will stick to their guns and shoot themselves in the foot....as usual.

What will plan "B" be? Fillibuster every Clinton nominee?

This is just another stunning example of just how stupid Christian fundamentalists are.

In their make believe world of goblins, devils and angels they are always right and everyone else is always wrong.

Once again they will prove that they will go to extraordinary lengths to place party over country and not vote up or down against their own best interests.

I notice that, while you have subscribe to the thread, you were unable to find any way to counter the well constructed OP.

Instead, the usual attempt at disagreement that can only be summarized as the usual Liberal "Yoooo soooo stuuuupppppid!"




Seems that Coulter had anticipated your post:

"Let me give you a little tip: if you want liberalism to continue in this country, you have to realize that liberal students are being let down by their professors! They have liberal school teachers, and read the liberal press! Because of this weak preparation, they are unable to argue, to think beyond the first knee-jerk impulse. They can’t put together a logical thought. Now, compare that to a college Republican…"

Blah... Blah... Blah.. Whatever..

I hope you are happy with Hillary's pick(s) for the court and the majority of dems in the senate to confirm them.

THAT is exactly what is going to happen.

Next year at this time you idjits will be pulling your hair out when you think back on what you COULD have had before the fall.

When one considers the unbelievable list of domestic and foreign policy failures by Barack Obama, how any could ever contemplate putting another Leftist Democrat in office is jaw-dropping.

As the old saying goes, the difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limitations.

I thought this thread was about the Supreme Court pick.

 

[Uncensored2008]

As usual the brainless ChristianRWers in the Senate have spoken first without thinking the Obama nominee through.

It is highly likely that Hillary Clinton will be the next president and a good chance the Senate power will swing back to the left.

In all likelihood Garrett is the GOP's last chance at a moderate justice for another eight years.

But no...they will stick to their guns and shoot themselves in the foot....as usual.

What will plan "B" be? Fillibuster every Clinton nominee?

This is just another stunning example of just how stupid Christian fundamentalists are.

In their make believe world of goblins, devils and angels they are always right and everyone else is always wrong.

Once again they will prove that they will go to extraordinary lengths to place party over country and not vote up or down against their own best interests.

Merrick Garland is no more moderate than he is "Garrett."

Huggy, you are just a brain dead leftist.

 

[HUGGY]

As usual the brainless ChristianRWers in the Senate have spoken first without thinking the Obama nominee through.

It is highly likely that Hillary Clinton will be the next president and a good chance the Senate power will swing back to the left.

In all likelihood Garrett is the GOP's last chance at a moderate justice for another eight years.

But no...they will stick to their guns and shoot themselves in the foot....as usual.

What will plan "B" be? Fillibuster every Clinton nominee?

This is just another stunning example of just how stupid Christian fundamentalists are.

In their make believe world of goblins, devils and angels they are always right and everyone else is always wrong.

Once again they will prove that they will go to extraordinary lengths to place party over country and not vote up or down against their own best interests.

Merrick Garland is no more moderate than he is "Garrett."

Huggy, you are just a brain dead leftist.

You don't like my abbreviation? I'm destroyed.

Of course I am a leftist communist pinko. If you say so. After all you think Trump will be the POTUS. AND he is such a great republican that he will accomplish in just a few short months what the dems couldn't do in a handful of decades and that is defeat the GOP.

I'll just sit back and laugh my ass off.

PS

Actually I am glad Trump will get the GOP nomination. I have had a burning hatred for the slimy christianfascist aholes that stole the GOP many decades ago. It USED to be a righteous political party. Now it is riddled with hypocritical scum. After Trump blows the GOP up into rubble maybe it will rebuild itself with good people. Those that spew their phony religions can stay the hell out of politics and keep their religious nonsense back in their churches.

 

[KissMy]

Trump encouraged "Second Amendment People" to take care of SCOTUS Justices who don't agree with them.