Posted on 03/16/2016 9:03:56 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The conservative Judicial Crisis Network, which plans to spend at least $2 million on an advertising campaign to oppose Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination, says the nominee “has a very liberal view of gun rights.”
JCN chief counsel Carrie Severino said in a blog post that Judge Merrick’s record on the bench since 1997 “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.”
In 2007, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit ruled against the District’s handgun ban in Parker v. District of Columbia (the case which eventually became District of Columbia v. Heller when it went before the Supreme Court).
The D.C. government asked for a rehearing of the case before all 10 judges of the appeals court.
Six judges voted not to rehear the case, but four, including Judge Merrick, voted for a rehearing.
Conservatives say that’s presumably because he disagreed with the three-judge panel that had ruled to overturn the handgun ban.
Judge Garland was appointed to the bench by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1997, winning Senate confirmation by a vote of 76-23. Prior to that, he served in the Justice Department during the Clinton administration.
Mr. Obama had considered Judge Garland for the high court in 2009, but instead chose Sonia Sotomayor.
Sen. Mike Lee, Utah Republican and a member of the Judiciary Committee, reiterated Wednesday that the GOP won’t consider the nominee.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
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?
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
Sic Semper Tyrannus!
This guy has zero chance to be confirmed, and Odumbo knows it. The dims just want to create an issue they can whine about in the election process. Asshats!
And Palin and Levin endorsee Orrin Hatch has been pushing this judge for a decade—including for the current opening.
Shall Not Be Infringed.
Short, sweet and petite. Even a Caveman can understand it.
If this “justice” is willing to rule against the Second Amendment, what other rights would he be willing to rule against?
I’m sure the author meant to type “totalitarian view of gun rights.”
Agency Deference
Judge Garland has strong views favoring deference to agency decisionmakers. In a dozen close cases in which the court divided, he sided with the agency every time.
Environmental Law
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. This is in fact the area in which Judge Garland has been most willing to disagree with agency action.
***********************************
Excerpt from scotusblog in 2010:
The Potential Nomination of Merrick Garland
All the more reason to have him shut down. If this nominee would have been a “first choice” for Al Gore, we KNOW he would be poison for America, or what there is left of it.
Should we thank Obama for making 2A an issue for the fall?
Heck, even for the spring.
Only 2 of the 5 remaining candidates are fully credible on 2A.
That personal letter from WJC to Kasich should sink him in AZ, WY, and possibly even Utah. PA won’t be happy about it either.
However, Democrats are not as bright as that. We are talking about a humanoid who is baffled when he/she/it borrows $80,000 dollars to get a degree in a completely useless discipline, and then whines about having to repay the loan on the income of a barista at Starbucks.
Always be wary of anyone the media and liberal Democrats call a “moderate,” whether he’s a Democrat or a Republican. “Moderate” usually means “A radical who is smart enough not to wear his leftism on his sleeve.” Sometimes the leftism is single-issue, other times it’s across the board.
By “liberal” they mean “illiberal,” or despotic, with a view towards confiscation.
He's a traitor to the Constitution.
Indeed they do. Thanks for the reminder. All Democrat politicians and judges worth their salt want gun confiscation.
Indeed they do. Thanks for the reminder. All Democrat politicians and judges worth their salt want gun confiscation.
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.