FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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
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.
By “liberal” they mean “illiberal,” or despotic, with a view towards confiscation.
He's a traitor to the Constitution.
No matter what or who he nominates, or ANY dem nominates, it doesn’t matter what their record is.
You can bet that the dems will have enough dirt on that guy to dictate how he votes in the future.
That’s the number one credential on a SCOTUS nominee now-a-days: “Do we own him?” “Can we embarrass him and his family?” “Can he be blackmailed?”
If this guy has been proposed, you can bet they have pictures of him at a glory hole truck stop.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
. . . Scalia’s most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.
No! Let that be corrected, and firmly: Scalia’s most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment acknowledges and stands in awe of a God-given individual right to keep and bear arms, recognized by the Declaration of Independence in its enumeration of the right to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness.
Saw his picture, he has a little NPR self satisfied moral preening sort of smile.
I can just hear his nasal voice...
The article must have been written by a liberal. Garland’s 2A views are not left-wing. The are EXTREME left-wing. The press never wants to use the word, ‘extreme’ with liberals. This time, it really fits.
There are two things about Garland that you can bet the farm on. He will vote against the 2nd amendment and for abortion. There is no chance whatsoever that Bammy would nominate someone with a strict Constitutional view of either the 2nd amendment or abortion “rights”.
Jamie “The Wall” Gorelick’s right hand man. Remember she was on the 911 Cover Up Commission, when really she was the one most responsible for 911. Can anyone say Able Danger!