Posted on 03/16/2016 8:20:00 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
President Barack Obama on Wednesday announced his nomination of federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court position left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia a month ago.
Obama spoke Wednesday morning in the White House Rose Garden.
"This is not a responsibility that I take lightly," he said, adding that he spoke with a wide group of people ranging from advocacy groups to the Senate Judiciary Committee in his search for a new justice.
He said Garland is well-known in Democratic and Republican circles for his "decency, honesty, integrity (and) even-handedness."
"He's shown a rare ability to bring together odd couples, assemble odd coalitions," he said. "Throughout his jurisprudence runs a common thread: a dedication to protect the rights of every American.”
An hour before his announcement, The Associated Press reported that Garland, chief justice for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, would be the nominee. The wire service cited unnamed congressional sources.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY, confirmed the nominee's name, according to Reuters.
He said his search was focused on three main criteria: a potential justice's "rigorous intellect," his or her ability to recognize the limits of the Supreme Court's role and a "keen understanding that justice is not about abstract legal theory, nor some footnote in a dusty casebook."
(Excerpt) Read more at ajc.com ...
No mention from Obama of the Constitution.
Judge Napolitano saying it’s “highly unusual” for the nominee to be making an emotional appeal for nomination.
ValJ doesn’t miss a trick, does she?
Sorry Obozo... not in the last year of a lame duck _residency.
Constitution?
That’s so yesterday.
The average millennial knows way more about climate change than the US Constitution.
This type of language has to be outright rejected in the name of freedom and everything that is constitutional. NONE of this has any place in the job of a jurist, who must brutally, and without any feeling, apply the law and Constitution as written and INTENDED by those who crafted it.
My research says hes just another douchebag lawyer tyrant.
From the source you provided:
Carrie Severino of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network cautioned in the National Review that he should not be labeled as “moderate” arguing in one instance that he has a “very liberal view” of gun rights.
WHY?
Obama deliberately made this nomination with this particular judge simply because he know that the Republicans will stand their ground and therefore is actually "SACRIFICING" a very good judge's career because he knows the nominee will be ignored.
I listened to the Nominee, Garland, speak.. he very much sounded like the right man for the job and more of a Conservative than anyone already on the SC.
IMO... It's ashamed that a good man is being wasted by Washington politics as usual.
RE: Judge Napalitano that said this judge is a “dream” nomination for both Republicans and Conservatives
I want to hear his REASONS for saying that.
WHY?
Obama deliberately made this nomination with this particular judge simply because he knows that the Republicans will stand their ground and therefore is actually "SACRIFICING" a very good judge's career because he knows the nominee will be ignored.
I listened to the Nominee, Garland, speak.. he very much sounded like the right man for the job and more of a Conservative than anyone already on the SC.
IMO... It's ashamed that a good man is being wasted by Washington politics as usual.
McVeigh confessed to everything and was proud of it. That wasn’t a tough case to prosecute in the least. I would ask the judge, though, if he were pro-capital punishment because of the McVeigh case. That would make the libs queasy.
Sorry. If Obama can nominate you, you are unfit to serve.
The MOST CONSERVATIVE judge ever proposed to the SC by a Democrat since FDR.
If the Republicans ignore this nominee and Hiollary were to win the election there mistake would be huge as she would nominate some far, far more LIBERAL.
The above sounds like another self-serving smarmy politician. We don't need that on the USSC. What we need is someone who will follow the original INTENT of the Constitution. Someone who has studied the Federalist Papers, the anti-Federalist Papers, the publications, debates, diaries, quotes of those who created this great document that the World once envied and copied many times over.
Senators, do your duty and don't "consent". If Obama wants him, you know damn well there is something wrong with him. Don't kill our Constitution and our inherent rights.
The MOST CONSERVATIVE judge ever proposed to the SC by a Democrat since FDR.
If the Republicans ignore this nominee and Hillary were to win the election their mistake would be huge as she would nominate someone far, far more LIBERAL.
No chance in hell should he be confirmed.
Dream nomination heh?
Andrew Napolitano for what it’s worth is on record as SIDING WITH THE GAY COUPLE who sued the Christian Baker for refusing to participate and bake a wedding cake for their “wedding”.
That says a lot to me about his “opinion”.
READ THIS ABOUT JUDGE GARLAND’s BACKGROUND:
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/432716/moderates-are-not-so-moderate-merrick-garland
EXCERPT:
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?
Deal Breaker - no more Gun Grabbers
Who really knows in this all too powerful branch of government. Based on my limited reading, probably center of what would be appointed by Hillary to an open seat if she were elected President.
The anti-gun label seems based only on his agreeing to re-hear a case, and that is significant, but there isn't a complete record there.
There just isn't any way to know, and we won't have hearings anyway. So we throw this issue into the election and we have to hope it doesn't energize the left into electing a SCOTUS justice along with President, a "two for" that could swing the senate as well.
This is high stakes and to me works to somewhat balance for the other side what is energizing the republican primary voters to date. Hillary is not going to get their side to the polls. A "change the balance of the court" and thus "change the balance and course of Society" vote just might. You add up a few significant minorities and pretty soon you have a majority.
Why do so many liberals have small eyes, pasty-white skin, and a smirk?
December 19, 2001 The American Prospect listed Merrick Garland as a “First Tier” pick for SCOTUS should Al Gore be President
http://prospect.org/article/contenders-high-court
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.