Nomination of Merrick Garland for SCOTUS

Jim March said:
Hold on here...while everybody is asking "would he overturn Heller?" I don't think that's the main issue.

We have circuit splits right now on both "AWs" and shall-issue/may-issue CCW. Those cases are going to end up at The Supremes at some point.

Those are the two biggest remaining questions on the scope of the 2nd in the post-Heller world.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The RKBA can be decimated without declaring the 2A to be other than an individual right (Heller), including one applied against the states (McDonald).
 
I like Clock's idea to hold it in committee until after the election.
Click to expand...
The problem is, it creates the impression that legislators are using the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice as a political football.

(Yes, yes, I know they've been doing it since Bork.)

It gives supporters of the current administration the ammunition to say that Congress is playing petty power games and interfering with the Third Branch.

Furthermore, what if Garland is the best we're going to get? Let's remember that Souter was a Bush appointee, and he opposed us in Heller.
 
Tom, one mans "political football" is another mans "backbone". If the legislature stood on their hind legs and actually voted the way their constituent's want, the people would back them. Assuming, of course, they actually work for the people instead of the special interests.
 
It would be helpful if we know how Garland voted for the Heller 3 en banc, although that case had so many different elements unlike Heller 1.
 
It would be helpful if we know how Garland voted for the Heller 3 en banc
Click to expand...
At the time, the actual case was Parker. While Garland voted to have it reheard en banc, he wasn't on the panel that voted on it.
 
JimPage
I like Clock's idea to hold it in committee until after the election.
Click to expand...
Isn't there a time limit on committee time? I see the beauty, but I can't see months of delay (and, to be honest, I believe that it's better that the members of Congress do the darn job that they're being paid to do rather than just stall for the sake of stalling to see "what if".)
 
I have a feeling that proposed nominee Brian Sandoval, the Republican NM Governor, would have been the best possible outcome and that a lot of people, himself included, are going to be kicking themselves for letting that opportunity pass by.
 
There was no opportunity to pass by. Sandoval was never proposed as a nominee by the President. The only people to ever suggest him as a nominee were various reporters.

Garland is currently the nominee the President has proposed. Speculation on possible other choices is pretty much just speculation.
 
Every President has a short list of SCOTUS nominees, for just such an eventually as the sudden death of Scalia or any other Justice. Much of the speculation as to whom might be chosen is empty rhetoric, the choice has already been made months before.
 
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/what-if-the-supreme-court-were-liberal/477018/

Now folks, we don't do liberal vs. conservative so the title of the article is unfortunate. We also don't want to discuss the other issues in the piece.

The point for us is that the author states:

The Court will return to the view that the Second Amendment protects only a right to have guns for militia service.

Second Amendment. Until 2008, not once did the Supreme Court find a law to violate the Second Amendment. Then, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court, by a 5-4 margin, declared unconstitutional a 35-year-old District of Columbia ordinance that prohibited private ownership or possession of handguns. Scalia wrote the opinion for the Court. A Supreme Court bench with five Democratic appointees will not extend this protection for gun rights and likely would overrule it, returning to the view that the Second Amendment protects only a right to have guns for the purpose of militia service.
Click to expand...

It make one wonder if the cases were worth bringing with such a narrow majority. Before Heller and McD, it was feared that a SCOTUS decision might easily turn against the RKBA for a militia rationale. Even with the decisions - Scalia's reasonable restrictions are being used quite well on the state levels and the current court (before he died and now) seems to have no motivation to extend gun rights (stun guns - yeah, but that isn't overturning a state AWB, mag ban).

Would it have been better to let sleeping dogs like, so to speak? The chance that a 5/4 negates the current position would not be good.

Folks say that the court doesn't overturn precedent - well, it has happened. Other social causes are clambering to get one of theirs on the Court to overturn decisions they don't like.

Interesting times but please avoid the usual liberal/conservative mantras or specific candidates and stick to the SCOTUS risks.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
Even with the decisions - Scalia's reasonable restrictions are being used quite well on the state levels and the current court (before he died and now) seems to have no motivation to extend gun rights (stun guns - yeah, but that isn't overturning a state AWB, mag ban).
Click to expand...
But Scalia's reasonable restrictions don't exist. The Heller decision is being twisted and contorted by lower courts who seem to view it as their life mission to ignore Heller without getting slapped down too hard for doing so. What Justice Scalia actually wrote in Heller was not "reasonable restrictions," it was something to the effect of "presumptively lawful regulations." The key word is "presumptively."

Lower courts jump on that phrase as their "proof" that all existing anti-gun laws are constitutional. That's not what it says. Basically, what he said was, in effect, "We're not talking about those laws in this case so, for the moment, we'll presume that they're legal until they each have their own day in court." And the problem, as we are seeing, is that all those "presumptively" lawful restrictions aren't getting their day in court, because the courts (SUPRISE!) are "presuming" that they are lawful and ignoring all arguments to the contrary.
 
Last edited:
Good debate... Hate I missed most of it. I will say that I do believe the senate should have a confirmation hearing. The day McConnell said they were gonna waif and let the next president pick, I thought that was a mistake. Republicans absolutely suck at playing politics (not trying to be partisan or go down that road). They have constitutional power to confirm or deny a SCOTUS appointee... They should use it.

I do think there is wisdom in delaying confirmation as long as possible. Try to aim for the June or July time frame. Hillary could be indicted by that point, for all we know. I don't know who would eventually be president if that happened. I have to say I would fear most of the current candidates should they win... Including their possible SCOTUS picks. Things could look up a few months from now though. Its likely that either Hillary (unless she has legal issues) or Trump will be president. In either case, we would probably be happier with Garland than their picks.
 
Republicans absolutely suck at playing politics (not trying to be partisan or go down that road). They have constitutional power to confirm or deny a SCOTUS appointee... They should use it.
Click to expand...

The senate's consent is necessary to confirmation. McConnell is using the power by withholding consent. That is a use of the power described in the COTUS.

One sees it written that Garland is a moderate, but what does that mean? If it means that he sides with the state in viewing the rights of criminal defendants narrowly, that doesn't really serve to moderate or counterbalance his liberal streak. Instead it shows a mind less concerned with preserving the limited government described in the COTUS; that's the very opposite of Scalia's view, not "moderate".

We also see praise of Garland's mind and the well built reasoning of his decisions. This describes a more formidable adversary, not a moderate problem. A liberal (in the judicial context, one who disregards constitutional safeguards in favor of his own vision of the good of state power) who writes transparent nonsense should be preferable to one who dresses his disregard in constitutional ornaments.

Transparent nonsense may have a shorter life after a justice leaves than better reasoned opinions.
 
Last edited:
The Supreme Court is a political wing of the White House, has been for decades. The Senate should hold a hearing, vote Garland down, and tell the White House to send a nominee who believes in the rights and liberties of the people. Throw it right back in their faces. Come election time, the debate would be about liberty, not about which party isn't performing it's advise and consent duty.
 
k said:
The Supreme Court is a political wing of the White House, has been for decades.
Click to expand...

If that were true, we would have been in better shape than we are. Over the last half century we've had more years with democrat majorities in the Senate than we've had with democrat presidents, yet quite a few justices who shift after nomination.

k said:
The Senate should hold a hearing, vote Garland down, and tell the White House to send a nominee who believes in the rights and liberties of the people.
Click to expand...

Giving Garland the exposure of hearings doesn't work in the Senate's favor. Post Bork, a nominee will be trained to conceal his doctrine, so hearings will serve as a television and radio forum from which Garland supporters will chide fellow senators to have an open mind and confirm.

Throw it right back in their faces. Come election time, the debate would be about liberty, not about which party isn't performing it's advise and consent duty.
Click to expand...

I can give you a Llyod's of London guaranty that the parties will frame the debate as they see fit without regard to whether Garland had a show hearing.

The Senate has given its advice and has no duty to consent.
 
zukiphile said:
Giving Garland the exposure of hearings doesn't work in the Senate's favor. Post Bork, a nominee will be trained to conceal his doctrine, so hearings will serve as a television and radio forum from which Garland supporters will chide fellow senators to have an open mind and confirm.
Click to expand...

Some of it depends upon how the hearings are conducted and the past record of Judge Garland. Judge Garland can say whatever he wants to at current hearings but his past judicial rulings are etched in stone. If the Senate doesn't concentrate on his past rulings and/or his past rulings are a bit murky regarding his stance on certain issues, then that certainly works in his favor. Supporters for Judge Garland will either complain about him not getting a hearing or not being confirmed. Take your pick...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top