Who is Merrick Brian Garland?

Merrick Brian Garland was born in Chicago. He earned his bachelor degree from Harvard and then taught there. He was nominated to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by Bill Clinton. He had problems with that nomination, and finally, in 1997, almost 2 years after nomination, he was finally confirmed. All this shows us right off the bat that this man is not and may never be a moderate or anywhere close to what Justice Scalia was.

Garland sided with the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), and he was the lone dissenter when the rulings were against the EPA, showing that he would not hesitate to take a strong stand on the false “Climate Change” ideology of Obama and the Democrats. But it does not pan out much better for Garland when it comes to the rulings he issued for the EPA.

“In American Corn Growers Association v. EPA (2002), Garland dissented in a 2-1 court ruling that struck down a number of EPA “anti-haze” regulations which placed an enormously heavy burden on businesses to cut emissions. While Garland argued that the Clean Air Act expressly authorized the EPA to make judgments regarding pollution reduction, the majority held that the regulations in question required businesses to “spend millions of dollars for new technology that will have no appreciable effect” on air quality.”

But in 2003, Garland voted on an issue that was only the concern of California and no other state.

“In 2003, Garland voted to uphold the federal government's application of the Endangered Species Act to the arroyo toad, and the government's claim that the U.S. Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause authorized the EPA to protect the toad even though it lived in only one state, California. Judge John Roberts, who was then serving on the same court as Garland, challenged the logic of Garland’s opinion by questioning how “a hapless toad that, for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California” could be a legitimate concern for federal commerce regulation.”

This shows that maybe this man is way too far to the left of left to sit on a court that decides the fate of gun owners. Garland is exactly what Obama wants to take all the guns away from legal owners, thus allowing criminals free access to guns.

In other environmental cases, Garland shows that he sides with the EPA and those Obama placed there to destroy businesses and private rights under the heavy rule of the EPA standards, some of which the Supreme Court denies them.

In Sierra Club v. EPA (2004), Garland sided with the environmental lobby against the Bush administration EPA's effort to delay the enforcement of ozone standards in Washington, DC.

In National Parks Conservancy Association v. Manson (2005), Garland voted to give environmental advocacy groups standing to challenge the authorization of a new power plant.

In Cement Kiln Recycling Coal v. EPA (2007), Garland voted to reject an industry challenge to rules that regulated the burning of hazardous waste for fuel.

Now with this alone in mind, how could this man issue a ruling based upon facts and the Constitution or rule of law when he cannot do it at the level shown? Bear that in mind as we continue with other statements about his very left of center rulings and ideas.

Merrick Brian Garland is way to the left of center on guns and would be a great addition to the Supreme Court if you want to take guns from law abiding citizens. Garland is Obama’s inside man, and that is why he wants this man to go on the Supreme Court.

Please read this article and pass it on to all of your Senators so they will see what Obama is planning through Garland.

Here, Obama states that the Constitution is the only thing between him and total gun Confiscation, but with Garland, that will be easy to do, and that is why he wants Garland seated before he leaves office so he can tell the Justice Department to sue to remove the rights of gun owners.

“In 2007 Garland supported a motion seeking a reconsideration of a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision to strike down parts of the District of Columbia’s highly restrictive gun-control law (which prohibited city residents from even keeping guns in their homes for self-defense, and which the Court had originally deemed incompatible with the Second Amendment). Author and attorney Dave Kopel opined that Garland's vote was “no surprise, since [he] had earlier signaled [his] strong hostility to gun-owner rights” in a previous case. Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation, for his part, said that “the only reason” why Garland supported the 2007 motion was because he wished “to overturn the pro-Second Amendment ruling.” A number of years later, Chris Cox, the head of the National Rifle Association's lobbying arm, said that “a basic analysis of Merrick Garland’s judicial record shows that he does not respect our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.”

Garland is not for the rights of gun owners and, as such, should never be allowed anywhere close to the Supreme Court. If Garland were to be allowed to sit on the Supreme Court, he would rule in favor of any type of restrictive gun law, and he would work with any Socialist Democrat to obtain that ideology.

In an article written by Dennis Prager on March 22, 2016, it is clearly shown the way Garland would alter the Supreme Court not only on gun control, but also on a number of issues. Let us look at what Mr. Prager states:

Truth is not a leftist value. Everything the left believes in is more important than truth.

The mainstream media — that is, the liberal media — share all the views and characteristics of the left. Among these is the left’s view of truth. There are honest individuals with left-wing views, and dishonest individuals on the right. But truth is not a leftist value. Everything the left believes in is more important than truth: social justice, economic equality, reducing carbon emissions, expanding the power of the state, battling sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, racism, and above all of these, destroying its conservative opposition.

The media’s coverage of President Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court should serve as one of the most blatant examples of both the left-wing orientation of the news media and their willingness to play with truth.

On March 16, the day after Garland’s nomination, every major mainstream news outlet, both print and electronic, depicted the judge as a centrist.

The first sentence of The New York Times front page read: “WASHINGTON — President Obama on Wednesdaynominated Merrick B. Garland to be the nation’s 113th Supreme Court justice, choosing a centrist appellate judge.”

Similarly, the Los Angeles Times front-page headline said: “Obama’s choice of popular centrist Merrick Garland for Supreme Court puts GOP to the test.”

Another headline, seen in the Washington Post, read: “Merrick Garland’s instinct for the middle could put him in the court’s most influential spot.” That same day, the Post published a second article mentioning how “Garland’s deep resume and centrist reputation appear to have positioned him well to earn the president’s nod.”

Two days later, the Los Angeles Times featured a news analysis on its front page, in which a reporter wrote that Garland may actually be “the most moderate Supreme Court nominee anyone could expect from a Democratic president.” The reporter also calls Garland “a superbly qualified judge with a cautious, centrist record.”

There is no truth to any of these reports — something easily proved by both Judge Garland’s decisions and, amazingly, by the newspapers’ reports themselves.

Take the Los Angeles Times’ front-page “news analysis,” for example. After describing the judge as a moderate and centrist, the LA Times reporter writes:

“If the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a staunch conservative, is replaced by a moderate-to-liberal Justice Garland, the court would tip to the left on several key issues, like abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty, gun control, campaign spending, immigration and environmental protection.”

In other words, the very same author who describes Garland as a centrist believes that Garland votes left on essentially every major issue confronting the nation and the Supreme Court.

Additionally, that very same day The New York Times headlined that Garland is a centrist, it published an article on the nomination noting that “If Judge Garland is confirmed, he could tip the ideological balance to create the most liberal Supreme Court in 50 years.”

In reviewing Garland’s decisions, this Times piece placed Judge Garland to the left of Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, way to the left of Justice Stephen Breyer and minimally to the right of Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg.

By their own accounts, the liberal media lied in describing Garland as a centrist.

In a column in The Wall Street Journal, Juanita Duggan, President and CEO of the National Federation of Independent Business, wrote that Garland is so anti-small business and so pro-big labor, that “This is the first time in the NFIB’s 73-year-history that we will weigh in on a Supreme Court nominee.”

What worries the NFIB, she explains, is that “in 16 major labor decisions of Judge Garland’s that we examined, he ruled 16-0 in favor of the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board).”

Elsewhere in the Journal, the editorial board wrote that they can’t think of a single issue on which Garland would vote differently from the four liberal Justices that already sit on the bench.

Tom Goldstein wrote in the SCOTUSblog that Garland favors deferring to the decision-makers in agencies. “In a dozen close cases in which the court divided, he sided with the agency every time.”

Another source reads that “Judge Garland would be a reliable fifth vote on all of these legal issues.”

So, the entire left is lying about Judge Garland, who, for the record, seems like a truly decent man who possesses a first-class mind. They do so because getting a fifth left-wing vote and weakening the Republicans is far more important than truth.

And believe it or not, there is an even worse lesson here, namely the media’s effectiveness in saturating society with its mendacious version of reality. Unless an American makes the effort to study the issue — and most do not — they take the news media’s version as truth. The terrible lesson, which has been affirmed time and time again since the 1960s, is that a free society can experience brainwashing as effectively as a totalitarian state.

This article shows that Garland would be the one Justice that would destroy the very fabric of the Constitution and our freedom. Garland is perhaps Obama’s best hope at obtaining a gun confiscation program before he leaves office. Garland is about as Centrist as Karl Marx and that being the case we should never allow this to sit on the most important court of our nation.

Joseph Klein wrote a similar article depicting what Garland stands for, and this really should be passed around for all of the Senators to see:

“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 Democratic (Socialist, because they are one in the same) Party wants to try to force the Republicans into allowing this nomination because it is what they want so they can have their final rule on gun confiscation upheld by Garland. Mr. Klein went on to close.

“Republicans should not fall again for false labeling. The "centrist” or “moderate” moniker is a ruse. It’s bad enough when Republican nominees like Justices Stevens, Brennan, Souter and even the Obamacare-affirming Chief Justice John Roberts disappoint. This time, one of the most leftist Democratic presidents in American history, backed by the increasingly far-left Democratic Party and activist groups like the Center for American Progress, are trying to palm off Judge Garland as a “centrist.”

Judge Garland is no “centrist,” even if there were such a thing. After all, he cut his teeth clerking for the ultra-leftist Justice Brennan.”

In yet another article, even more reasons why Garland should never be on the Supreme Court are shown:

“As the White House prepares to choose a nominee for the Supreme Court, they are continuing to suggest that they might nominate a supposed “moderate.” But 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.” 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. That’s not so moderate, is it?”

Here is one more article to look, at since many that dislike me seem to think I use only one site to write my articles from:

“Garland was one of four judges who voted to rehear the case of Parker v. District of Columbia with a full ten-judge panel after a smaller panel struck down the District of Columbia’s total ban on handguns. Garland’s vote for this en banc hearing indicates that he may believe the decision to strike down the city’s gun ban was mistaken.

The other six judges on the appeals court voted not to rehear the case, and the Supreme Court went on to rule in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to bear arms in the case.

District of Columbia v. Heller is considered by gun rights activists to be the most important Second Amendment case in history.

The Heller case is not the only time Garland has ruled against gun rights. In 2000, he ruled against the National Rifle Association in a lawsuit challenging the Justice Department’s handling of gun purchaser’s information. Garland ruled that is was permissible for the department to retain up to six months of records from the National Instant Background Check System, over the NRA’s argument that this practice effectively created an illegal national registry.”

Garland tried to force a law onto gun owners that had already been decided. Merrick Brian Garland is not the man to replace Scalia because he could not hold a candle to what Scalia represented. To show more of why Garland should never be allowed on the Supreme Court, we show the rest:

“This is not a good nomination and should not be confirmed,” Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation told the Washington Free Beacon

“Judge Garland voted to grant an en banc hearing to Heller after the three judge panel struck down the District of Columbia’s gun ban law,” Gottlieb said. “The only reason to do so would be to overturn the pro-Second Amendment ruling. That was hostile to gun rights.”

“Conservative activists have raised other questions about Garland’s voting record.

“Merrick Garland has been called the ideal judge to move the Supreme Court to the left and cement President Obama’s liberal legacy for decades into the future. He was recently considered for an Obama cabinet post and clerked for the court’s liberal icon, Justice William Brennan,” said Brian Rogers, the executive director of America Rising Squared, in a statement.

Republican senators said they will not hold hearings or vote on Garland’s nomination because of the upcoming presidential election.

“The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country, so of course the American people should have a say in the court’s direction,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement. “The Senate will continue to observe the ‘Biden Rule’ so the American people have a voice in this momentous decision.”

These different articles with links shown should add to the real problem that Merrick Brian Garland shows as a nominee to the Supreme Court. “WE THE PEOPLE” have to take a very strong stand and tell our Senators to not allow this man into consideration because it will lead to the loss of Freedom and maybe even the destruction of the Constitution. It is up to us, and if your Senator is Schumer, maybe it is time to get rid of him and others like him that wish to rule over you and not for you. Take a stand now or forever lose your Freedom, rights, and country.

This man is not fit to serve on any bench! He's never read the Constitution of the U. S.

Marlene said it best:

Obama is in a hurry to leave his clones behind to continue his anti-American policies. If congress screws their constituency, again, by nominating another unconstitutional, impeachable justice against their wishes, not one of them will be re-elected and a riot could ensue - as a trial run for the big one if Trump is not on the ballot AND the voting machines rig the votes, again. We won't be fighting each other, not this time. This administration kept the people divided like opposite magnets for 7 years, but once the plus and minus ends come together, there will be force - 200 million of us in THEIR face!

A Federal gun confiscation program (outlawing weapons previously legal to own) will result in insurrection and civil war.

As in War Between The States kind of civil war. When only the states are left to uphold the Bill of Rights, this is what will occur.

Less than a month ago (March 16) the story was;
The Merrick Garland appointment was D O A.

Now (April 14), the story is;
Who is Merrick Garland and how will he change the balance of power on the Supreme Court.

At this rate, by September 16, the story will be;
Meet Justice Merrick Garland the newest member of the Court.

“As in War Between The States kind of civil war. “

Civil wars involve leadership, infrastructure and logistics along with command control and communications. I see none of this forming and without it there is no civil war. You can have a bunch of people rioting, but all that does is give the powers that be a reason to crack down.

The next revolution must occur at the ballot box. Unfortunately, the would-be warriors we elect get replaced by pod people the moment they arrive in DC.

When it comes to 2nd Amendment & gun rights, anything Federal is already the problem. With Justice Scalia gone, there’s nothing good out of Washington anymore concerning our freedoms.

You wrote, “Civil wars involve leadership, infrastructure and logistics along with command control and communications.” Absolutely this is true.

Each of the states already possess these assets. If even one state’s leadership proclaims the sanctity of the Bill of Rights and backs it up with enabling legislation, especially if the Federal government goes fascistic under Hillary, counterrevolution could break out.

Look at Eastern Europe in 1989: Warsaw Pact, Soviet Bloc, all puppet commie states. Then ONE of them, Hungary, takes down the barbed wire on its border with Austria. Initially a human flood flees communism into the West, and before the year is out, every Eastern Bloc dictatorship has toppled. The USSR stands alone until it disintegrates.

A peaceful revolt of gun friendly states could accomplish something similar, in my opinion. While the Federal regime roars, “Mr. & Mrs. America, turn in your guns NOW!!!”, a coalition of states replies, “Our citizens have the right to possess guns under the Bill of Rights and we will not comply with your unconstitutional edict! Gather your forces and come seize our guns, if you dare!”

What will Preezy Hillary say? “Hope you like the smell of napalm in the morning, you rightwing bastards!”

I don’t disagree with what you said. I don’t see the leadership at the state level that could pull this off. I hope I’m wrong. Most wars could have been prevented by simply standing up against tyranny before it is too late. Wait too long to stand up for your rights and then you have to purchase them all over again with blood.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Thomas Jefferson

Just did some googling on Posse Comitatus & how Federal troops can be deployed against the citizenry.

Nearly every scenario involves actual violence: riots, insurrections, & attacks on Federal property beyond the control of the National Guard, to trigger the sending of Federal forces & the use of detention camps.

In other words, the state of Alabama passing a law affirming the right to bear arms should not result in Birmingham being seized & occupied by the 82nd Airborne Division.

Or, a plurality of states pass resolutions declaring that state law enforcement will not assist Federal gun confiscation. Preezy federalizes the National Guard in those states & orders Guardsmen to start going door to door.

Eighty percent of those Guardsmen suddenly go on sick call.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.