Wednesday, March 16, 2016

President Obama announces his choice for the Supreme Court: Merrick Garland

Republican promise not to move on the moderate choice. Mainly because they are dicks.

New York Times on Merrick Garland:

In choosing Judge Garland, a well-known moderate who has drawn bipartisan support over decades, Mr. Obama was essentially daring Republicans to press their election-year confirmation fight over a judge many of them have publicly praised and who would be difficult for them to reject, particularly if a Democrat were to win the November presidential election and they faced the prospect of a more liberal nominee in 2017.


Anonymous said...

Even if this wasn't an election year, under this current congress, he'd never be confirmed because of this:

"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. 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."

Read more at:

Anonymous said...

Ugh, please don't support the National Review by visiting their site.

F the Senate GOPs. According to NPR's Nina Totenberg they told the White House they'd confirm Garland if Hillary wins. She's going to win anyway, nominate who you want Obama and continue to make the GOP look like a mess when they go nuts fighting it.

Garland is also 63. Someone younger would have been nice.

Anonymous said...

Good for Joe Biden in coming up with the Biden Rule. That is one smart cookie.

Anonymous said...

I wonder how Rubio is going to vote which could actually not only be a career saving move but also a purely ethical and moral decision rather and a token of cooperation in the spirit of peace rather than foolish self promotion and shortsighted aggrandization.

Anonymous said...

anon above, Rubio will be absent as usual. The Repubs can't win on this. If they refuse to vote it could send even more Dems to the polls to elect a president who will appoint a more liberal Supreme Court nominee who would serve for many years beyond the next president.. Will be interesting.

Anonymous said...

Marc-ho Rubio has only one guiding principle: self-promotion.
He has burned many GOP bridges and will on his knees groveling for their forgiveness, which means kissing the pinky ring on Mitch McConnell's small hands.