Nomination of Merrick Garland for SCOTUS

B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
"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."

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/432716/moderates-are-not-so-moderate-merrick-garland

The above link discusses the Second Amendment record of the man that will be announced as the Obama's Supreme Court nominee today. It is worth familiarizing yourself with his thoughts on that issue.
 
The National Review article may be exaggerating a bit. Garland did vote to rehear Parker en banc, but so did Raymond Randolph, who's on our side.

I don't expect a pro-gun Justice, nor do I expect one who can match Scalia's insight and record. We might have to settle for the time being, and from what I can see, we could do worse than Garland.
 
The Senate had better grow a spine and not quiver on its prior declaration to not consider any SCOTUS nominees until after the new POTUS is in office.

Bayou
 
If he is likely to vote to reverse Heller, and a serious blow to stare decisis as well, I don't see how we could get much worse than him on the Court.

Write your Senators today and tell them to keep in line.
 
The Senate had better grow a spine and not quiver on its prior declaration to not consider any SCOTUS nominees until after the new POTUS is in office.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure why folks think this will necessarily be better. What if Hillary takes the White House and Democrats win back the Senate? A prolonged fight over this nomination might actually play right into their hands and push the election that direction. When Obama won a second term we knew this would most likely happen and it has. Sadly I’m not sure there’s much we can do about it now.
 
If he is likely to vote to reverse Heller
Click to expand...
Folks seem to be under the impression that SCOTUS can just get together and say, "boy, we blew that one. Let's do a quick vote to overturn it!"

In reality, someone would have to successfully bring a case before them that somehow contradicted one or more aspects of Heller. I don't see that happening.

Furthermore, the credibility of SCOTUS rests on not changing their minds every few years. The whole idea is that they're the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality, and their decisions are supposed to stand the test of time. That all gets thrown out the window if they get fidgety and start revising things in a hurry.

The big problem with getting an anti-2A Justice will be seeing the RKBA scaled back to exactly what Heller says and nothing more.
 
Hi, BarryLee -

The reasoning is this:

If Hillary takes the WH, then she will appoint not one but likely several new leftist legislative justices. Effectively, the 2d Amendment will be watered down significantly.

Therefore, the Senate must not appoint a leftist justice at this juncture since Hillary does not have a lock on the WH. To do so now would prematurely and pre-emptively tip the balance of the court left when there's no reason to do. No doubt that's why Obama wants this appointment so badly.

If the Dems lose the general election, there's certainly a better chance for the next SCOTUS nominees to be more like Scalia than Sotomayor.

The Senate must not approve any of Obama's nominees especially this one who is considered anti 2D Amendment.

That's my reckoning on the issue, at least.

Thanks -

Bayou
 
Last edited:
The left has been dreaming of a stacked court for decades, just like a constitutional convention. They have big plans for the SCOTUS once they own it.

You can expect cases to be filed that will deal with the 2nd Amendment, pre-emption, AWB bans, all kinds of things, just as soon as they can get them together.
 
Let's steer clear of the partisan stuff and electoral politics. Leftist/Rightist debates are too broad and outside the scope of this forum.
 
Barry Lee said:
I’m not sure why folks think this will necessarily be better [in a subsequent presidential term].
Click to expand...

I think it is more that people don't think it will be worse.

Tom Servo said:
Folks seem to be under the impression that SCOTUS can just get together and say, "boy, we blew that one. Let's do a quick vote to overturn it!"

In reality, someone would have to successfully bring a case before them that somehow contradicted one or more aspects of Heller. I don't see that happening.
Click to expand...

You should expect to see that happen if the court's composition changes. As you know, the Heller decision drew an ardent dissent even though the facts of Heller were particularly egregious.Once the court has a different majority, finding a related case to take up should not be difficult.

Tom Servo said:
Furthermore, the credibility of SCOTUS rests on not changing their minds every few years. The whole idea is that they're the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality, and their decisions are supposed to stand the test of time. That all gets thrown out the window if they get fidgety and start revising things in a hurry.

The big problem with getting an anti-2A Justice will be seeing the RKBA scaled back to exactly what Heller says and nothing more.
Click to expand...

The credibility or authority of the Supreme Court rests on many things including clarity of analysis and consistent application of accepted principles. We we have twice seen clear and consistent analysis sacrificed in prominent cases challenging the ACA (tax or penalty, and the meaning of "established by the States).

The court also seems quick to reverse itself where a new majority simply disagrees with conventionally reasoned precedent. Note that in Lawrence v. Texas the court could have reached the same conclusion without overruling its rationale and holding it in Bowers v. Hardwick. As Scalia noted in his dissent, " The need for stability and certainty presents no barrier."

If Garland's history indicates the kind of constitutional construction that maintain the majority reasoning in Heller, then it would make sense to confirm. If Garland's history indicates the kin of analytical flexibility that would allow the judicial protection of the right to be reversed, then undertaking the permissible political acts to block his ascension makes sense.
 
Last edited:
The Senate had better grow a spine and not quiver on its prior declaration to not consider any SCOTUS nominees until after the new POTUS is in office.

Bayou
Click to expand...

Why do you think HRC will submit a better candidate?
 
Because they may have a Democratically controlled Senate.
Click to expand...

That is a possibility.

I would suggest that the outcome of a Senate vote is not a thing for which a president can finely tune. Scalia was hardly less abrasive than Bork, one rejected and the other easily confirmed.

Moreover, getting an accurate grasp of what someone would do on the court can be a problem. I don't believe that this process enables a president to make a calculation such as now that I have five more Senators I can nominate someone 12.5% more radical.

It is also not beyond possibility that the Senate and POTUS line up better a year from now than they do today. There is some risk, but the downside does not seem great.

You might liken it to holding a stock you bought for $50 that is now worth $.50. Do you keep it to see if it goes up, or do you sell it worrying that you will lose that last $.50? With that kind of limited downside, a lot of people would hold onto it just to see what happens.
 
Last edited:
From Tom Servo:
"In reality, someone would have to successfully bring a case before them that somehow contradicted one or more aspects of Heller. I don't see that happening."


Other folks here may have the resources I don't have to find pending cases that SCOTUS hasn't yet decided to hear. I'm guessing Judge Garland isn't going to rule favorably for us on any 2A cases that come up, and NJ needs it.
 
I don't think this is anything more than political maneuvering. Senate won't take a vote, and that will be used in the next election just as shutting down the government was previously. It will be openly compared and, just as most people disagreed with shutting things down, most will go along with it being the Senates responsibility to follow the constitution. Most don't agree that a president loses powers with an election nine months off.

Several conservative judges, including those who have or are working with Justice Garland, have come out to defend him as a choice beyond reproach. The most middle of the road, best prepared, most intelligent, etc etc of the options.

If the NRA moves to block it feeds right into "The NRA,a pawn of gun manufacturers, is running the country against the wishes and benefit of the people" line of bull and similar.

This is one time I would much rather be defending the enemies position than my own.

ITSA TRAP!!!
 
I agree with JohnWilliamson and turkeystalker. Gun owners need to look at this guy thru a microscope. It defies logic for Obama, of all people, to nominate him.

"Beware of Greeks bearing gifts"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top