Judge Scalia RIP

[Kutnupe14]

Merrick Garland is the nominee. Anyone know anything about him?

SCOTUSBlog has some info here

The Potential Nomination of Merrick Garland : SCOTUSblog

Seems he has centrist, and sometimes even (gasp!) conservative leanings. He is also apparently well liked by many Republicans. We shall see how this goes.

 

[chipbennett]

Merrick Garland is the nominee. Anyone know anything about him?

SCOTUSBlog has some info here

The Potential Nomination of Merrick Garland : SCOTUSblog

So, a Kennedy type, eh?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

From Matthew Miller on Twitter:

Imagine December: a lame-duck GOP Sen rushing to confirm Garland & Dems filibustering so Clinton can choose someone younger, more liberal

 

[mrjarrell]

Merrick Garland is the nominee. Anyone know anything about him?

SCOTUSBlog has some info here

The Potential Nomination of Merrick Garland : SCOTUSblog

Looks like a decent nominee. Not too conservative, nor liberal. Now we get to see if the republicans will fill the gap or continue playing their obstructionist games.

 

[chipbennett]

Looks like a decent nominee. Not too conservative, nor liberal. Now we get to see if the republicans will fill the gap or continue playing their obstructionist games.

Allow me to put on my tinfoil hat.



This probably goes beyond cynicism into paranoia, but I could see this as a sort of bait-and-switch move. Obama nominates a centrist, gets the Senate to confirm. Then one or more liberal justices resign, and Obama has all the ammunition he needs to compel the Senate to confirm extremely liberal replacements.

 

[olhorseman]

Allow me to put on my tinfoil hat.



This probably goes beyond cynicism into paranoia, but I could see this as a sort of bait-and-switch move. Obama nominates a centrist, gets the Senate to confirm. Then one or more liberal justices resign, and Obama has all the ammunition he needs to compel the Senate to confirm extremely liberal replacements.

Riiiight, all within 10 months. (and from a group that takes 5 days away for every holiday)

 

[T.Lex]

So, a Kennedy type, eh?

This is actually what I was thinking. Or, with some luck, a reverse-Souter.

 

[hoosier21]

In a quick search online, everything I'm seeing states that he is not pro 2nd amendment, based on his voting record.

 

[T.Lex]

In a quick search online, everything I'm seeing states that he is not pro 2nd amendment, based on his voting record.

He hasn't really had much of a chance to express judicial views on the subject. I'm curious where this notion is coming from - do you have a site that is saying this?

 

[Trigger Time]

From Chicago. That's all I need to know

 

[chipbennett]

TTAG's take on Garland is that he is anti-2A:

BREAKING: President Obama Nominates Merrick Garland to Supreme Court - The Truth About Guns

 

[87iroc]

TTAG's take on Garland is that he is anti-2A:

BREAKING: President Obama Nominates Merrick Garland to Supreme Court - The Truth About Guns

That piece, assuming all true, doesn't sound good.

 

[T.Lex]

TTAG's take on Garland is that he is anti-2A:

BREAKING: President Obama Nominates Merrick Garland to Supreme Court - The Truth About Guns

It looks like people are jumping to this:

Six judges voted not to rehear the case, while four judges voted for a rehearing, presumably because they disagreed with the three-judge panel that had ruled against the handgun ban. Garland was one of the four judges who wanted a chance to validate the handgun ban.

That is a HUGE presumption. His vote was that the entire court - not just the 3 judge panel - should hear the case. That might suggest disagreement, but to make that a presumption is jumping the shark (unless he has otherwise commented on it).

Likewise, the Reno thing was a stretch to being with. At least I can admit that the decision was reasonable. It also appears that SCOTUS did not take the case up.

I'm not saying he'll be a darling of the NRA, but he looks more like a blank slate than a foregone conclusion on 2A stuff.

 

[pudly]

It looks like people are jumping to this:


That is a HUGE presumption. His vote was that the entire court - not just the 3 judge panel - should hear the case. That might suggest disagreement, but to make that a presumption is jumping the shark (unless he has otherwise commented on it).

Likewise, the Reno thing was a stretch to being with. At least I can admit that the decision was reasonable. It also appears that SCOTUS did not take the case up.

I'm not saying he'll be a darling of the NRA, but he looks more like a blank slate than a foregone conclusion on 2A stuff.

And if you read further in the article:

In 2000, Garland was on a three-judge panel that heard the case of NRA v. Reno. In that case, the Janet Reno Department of Justice had flouted the congressional statutes that prohibit the federal government from compiling a registration list of gun owners, and which required the destruction of national instant check (NICS) records of lawful, approved gun purchases.

Judge Garland voted to let Reno get away with it. He said that registering all the people who were approved by NICS was permissible because Reno was not registering every gun owner in the country. And he said it was fine for Reno to keep gun buyer records for six months because although Congress had said the records must be destroyed, it did not say “immediately.

So, he has no problem with the police violating existing laws. Not saying that there was something unconstitutional about those laws, but simply ignoring them and then weasel-wording the reasoning why it was okay.

 

[MisterChester]

And if you read further in the article:


So, he has no problem with the police violating existing laws. Not saying that there was something unconstitutional about those laws, but simply ignoring them and then weasel-wording the reasoning why it was okay.

While that doesn't sound good I hope he at least gets a chance to explain why he voted that way.

 

[T.Lex]

And if you read further in the article:

I did. That's why I mentioned the Reno thing in my post.

So, he has no problem with the police violating existing laws. Not saying that there was something unconstitutional about those laws, but simply ignoring them and then weasel-wording the reasoning why it was okay.

That's kinda what the court was supposed to do - figure out if Reno was breaking the law. The other judge (Tatel, who, apropos of nothing, is blind, which I think is pretty cool - I mean, not cool that he's blind, but cool that he is blind and has accomplished so much) wrote the opinion, in which Garland joined. Other courts reached the same conclusion - that it was not illegal.

Congress just did a pisspoor job writing the law. Newsflash.

Here, read this:
Myths And Facts On The Nomination Of Judge Merrick Garland To The Supreme Court | Research | Media Matters for America

It hits the points better than I could.

 

[pudly]

Here, read this:
Myths And Facts On The Nomination Of Judge Merrick Garland To The Supreme Court | Research | Media Matters for America

It hits the points better than I could.

Please tell me you aren't using a Soros-funded, progressive web site that released their information simultaneously with Obama's announcement, where every point presented is designed to reassure Republicans that he would be a good SC judge?

 

[Kutnupe14]

And if you read further in the article:


So, he has no problem with the police violating existing laws. Not saying that there was something unconstitutional about those laws, but simply ignoring them and then weasel-wording the reasoning why it was okay.

That's also making quite an assumption. If anything Garland is the Forrest Gump of judges, in that he rules based on details and omissions. I doubt there would be very many "in the spirit of the law" cases he would look favorably upon.

 

[T.Lex]

Please tell me you aren't using a Soros-funded, far left web site that released their information simultaneously with Obama's announcement, where every point presented is designed to reassure Republicans that he would be a good SC judge?

I don't know.

I think that article does a good job refuting the suggestion that Garland is anti-2A. It sets the context for his judicial decisions almost as well as I could, if I were being paid to do so.

I also don't know if he'll be a good SC justice. None of us do. Looking at his judicial record, I'd say he's a good judge. I don't necessarily agree with all of his votes, but that's ok. From what I can glean of his interpretations, I think he is principled, and reaches the correct decision more often than not.

Others may disagree, and that's ok too.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

I did. That's why I mentioned the Reno thing in my post.



That's kinda what the court was supposed to do - figure out if Reno was breaking the law. The other judge (Tatel, who, apropos of nothing, is blind, which I think is pretty cool - I mean, not cool that he's blind, but cool that he is blind and has accomplished so much) wrote the opinion, in which Garland joined. Other courts reached the same conclusion - that it was not illegal.

Congress just did a pisspoor job writing the law. Newsflash.

Here, read this:
Myths And Facts On The Nomination Of Judge Merrick Garland To The Supreme Court | Research | Media Matters for America

It hits the points better than I could.

Did you seriously cite Media Matters?