The Search For The 113th Supreme Court Justice, v1: Obama Nominates Merrick Garland

[oldshadow]

But i thought you were pro-states rights.

You need to read more of my post.

Like I supported the civil rights movement. I'm pro constitution and the limits its puts on ther state and federal government.

10th
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[ncordless]

If he is voted in knowing his gun control views then come election time those voting for him will have to justify why they did this know his views if there is a change because on him on the legality of the right to own and carry guns.

What are his 2nd Amendment views? Can you explain what you are holding against him?

 

[Rod1]

You need to read more of my post.

Like I supported the civil rights movement. I'm pro constitution and the limits its puts on ther state and federal government.

Everyone on this board seems to be pro-constitution when it suits their views, ban on gay marriage (States rights!!!) ban on guns (Constitution!!!).

 

[Ruprecht]

His records already been combed over. The best they can do is a vote for en banc review of a case striking down a DC gun law.

Hah. Looks like Media Matters was already set to pre-empt the objections.

• MYTH: Garland's Vote To Rehear A 2007 Case On D.C.'s Handgun Ban Reveals A "Very Liberal View On Gun Rights"
• MYTH: Garland Upheld An "Illegal Clinton-Era Regulation" Creating A Gun Registry Requirement
• MYTH: Refusing To Hold Hearings For President's Supreme Court Nominee Is Not Unusual
• MYTH: Republicans Opposed Previous Obama Nominees For Legitimate Reasons
• MYTH: Making Nominations To Fill Routine Court Vacancies Is The Same As "Court-Packing"
• MYTH: Republicans And Democrats Are Equal-Opportunity Obstructionists When It Comes To Presidential Nominees
• MYTH: Republicans' Unprecedented Obstructionism Does Not Have Negative Consequence

 

[Rod1]

If he is voted in knowing his gun control views then come election time those voting for him will have to justify why they did this know his views if there is a change because on him on the legality of the right to own and carry guns.

You dont know why he voted that way, maybe he is a pro-states rights judge and though that state legislation trumps unless explicitly forbid by the constituion.

 

[ncordless]

If it wasn't for his extremely restrictive stance on gun control, I think from the rest of what I've seen he's fairly middle ground. But that gun control could be a very deep line in the stand for repiblicans to vote against him

Where is evidence of an "extremely restrictive stance on gun control?"

 

[RerouteToRemain]

Everyone on this board seems to be pro-constitution when it suits their views, ban on gay marriage (States rights!!!) ban on guns (Constitution!!!).

Is marriage in the Constitution?

I seriously don't care that gays can marry btw.

 

[oldshadow]

What are his 2nd Amendment views? Can you explain what you are holding against him?

So far what has been posted here seams to be true and I will do more research but if what I research hold up (and I think it will) he is far left on gun control. Which is more

Everyone on this board seems to be pro-constitution when it suits their views, ban on gay marriage (States rights!!!) ban on guns (Constitution!!!).

Like I said go back and read my post on these issues.

GUN CONTROL

In 2007, Merrick voted to rehear a case concerning a restrictive handgun ban, which had been struck down by a D.C. Circuit panel of judges — a move gun rights advocates blasted as liberal.

Garland and two other judges' votes to reconsider dismissing the ban were unsuccessful, and the case eventually went to the Supreme Court. The highest court ultimately struck down the ban with a 2008 opinion written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

If this turns out not to be true and he is more center on guns then I will reevaluate my position.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

So McConnell says that Biden is a hypocrite. Referring to past comments Biden made about holding off a supreme court appointment until the new president takes office.

 

[Diamond Jim]

That "let the people decide in November" will bite them in the ass when President Clinton doesn't choose someone as moderate as this guy.

 

[Joe]

theres some senator, barrasso, who is saying we should let the people decide and wait for the election. elections dont have consequences apparently.

 

[ncordless]

So far what has been posted here seams to be true and I will do more research but if what I research hold up (and I think it will) he is far left on gun control. Which is more



Like I said go back and read my post on these issues.



If this turns out not to be true and he is more center on guns then I will reevaluate my position.

Trying to read that much into a vote for en banc rehearing is ridiculous.

 

[ncordless]

The people already decided who would choose Supreme Court nominations in 2016.

 

[Uchi Mata]

Is marriage in the Constitution?

I seriously don't care that gays can marry btw.

It was basically an 'equal protection' argument under the 14th amendment.

 

[japman40]

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R.-Utah, considered one of the U.S. Senate’s foremost scholars of the Constitution and the Supreme Court

The President told me several times he’s going to name a moderate [to fill the court vacancy], but I don’t believe him," Hatch told us.

"[Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man," he told us, referring to the more centrist chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia who was considered and passed over for the two previous high court vacancies.

http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/718871

 

[Uchi Mata]

That "let the people decide in November" will bite them in the ass when President Clinton doesn't choose someone as moderate as this guy.

That's actually what I expect to happen. When it becomes clear that Trump is not going to beat Clinton, we'll see if the Senate ends up voting in Garland to avoid someone much, much more liberal. Especially because whether Trump is the nominee or he isn't, the GOP is going to be in disarray (either because Trump is the nominee and kills their brand or because they go to extraordinary measure to prevent him from getting the nomination and alienate huge swathes of the GOP electorate) and could easily lose the Senate. If that happens...prepare for the most liberal court since Earl Warren.

 

[japman40]

win win for Obama. The republicans wanted someone Moderate like Garland and Obama called their bluff.

If they nominate Garland, it's a win for Obama. If they don't, they'll be seen as obstructionist and Clinton will nominate someone far more to the left

 

[ripskater]

Rip you disappoint me here.

I can't please everyone. I'm just telling you the likelihood here Ed.

 

[Madmick]

Good chance this guy is a leftist and communist if Obama nominated him.

Name every communist that Obama has previously nominated.

Comments like these are why the forum ridicules you.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

I can't please everyone. I'm just telling you the likelihood here Ed.

You're being ignorant Rip.