• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

The Merrill Garland Supreme Court Nominee Megathread

CharlieFoxtrot said:
The R's are cooked. It's tough to oppose Garland's nomination when Orrin Hatch said this just last week:

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the longest serving Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, offered his own thoughts on who President Obama should nominate to fill the seat left open by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last week. “[Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man,” Hatch told the conservative news site Newsmax, before adding that “he probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants.”
Click to expand...

They only need 1 GOP up vote for it to come out of committee on an up or down vote.....looks like they have it.
 
blindfire said:
Agreed, but this is why you have the hearings to feel out the candidate on how they will rule from the bench. Besides, it really is a crap shoot. Just look at how much Roberts effed over the right when he upheld the ACA.
Click to expand...

My thinly veiled allusion to his "tempered" position is why I feel the hearings are useless. If the nominee has been carefully moderating their opinions to be "neutral" then their answers to the committee will likewise be neutral.

I would rather see stunning positions on either side (or both) that can be supported with strong logic during confirmation hearings.
 
LoginName said:
I have a couple of parking tickets that need to be taking care of.

If nominated and confirmed... would it be possible to help a fellow NES'er out?
Click to expand...


How's about we just reinstate the Second Amendment instead?


pastera said:
My thinly veiled allusion to his "tempered" position is why I feel the hearings are useless. If the nominee has been carefully moderating their opinions to be "neutral" then their answers to the committee will likewise be neutral.
Click to expand...
pastera said:
I would rather see stunning positions on either side (or both) that can be supported with strong logic during confirmation hearings.
Click to expand...


This guy has been trying to be a SCOTUS justice for over a decade so his decisions and opinions are tailored to it.
 
If Garland is confirmed, might as well rename the Supreme Court as the Central Judicial Committee of the Supreme Soviet.
 
Awesome.
Actually a great choice, completely indicative of the times we live in: Privileged, liberal Harvard Law School fairy, crying like a little bitch during his speech... Married.... I'll lay a C-Note that his wife's name is "Bruce"....
 
Last edited:
Delay.
It's just too dangerous to get it on the floor for a vote.
The RINO's will cave and whoever doesn't will get the choice of co-operating or kiddie porn showing up on their computer or something.
We didn't get Obama Care because Roberts thought it was a great idea did we?
The Sociopath is chief has run out of time and there's still a lot of "Hope and Change" left to be done.
There is no way in hell he's going to nominate someone who's not falling in line with the agenda.

Conformation hearings are a friggin farce.
Look at Sotomayer, she just smiled and told them what they wanted to hear.
The worst that happens is we get someone just like him if Hitlery wins.
 
The conservative Judicial Crisis Network, which plans to spend at least $2 million on an advertising campaign to oppose Judge Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court, says the nominee "has a very liberal view of gun rights."

JCN chief counsel Carrie Severino said in a blog post that Judge Merrick's record on the bench since 1997 "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."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/16/merrick-garland-has-very-liberal-view-gun-rights/
 
So Obama nominates a big government gun hating liberal. Where's my shocked face?? Hopefully, fingers crossed, it's just voted down and on to the next one.
 
SteelShooter said:
Chuck Schumer said "if the republicans can't support this judge, who can they support?" "He is main stream middle of the road"
Click to expand...

Sure, that's how it looks when your road only has a far left lane.

Rockrivr1 said:
The Republicans in the Senate have put themselves in "no move" position. If they cave part of their base will blame them. If they move to discuss the other side of their base will blame them. No win either way. With a Trump vs Hilary ticket looking likely they're faced with the real possibility of a Hillary win and she will never propose anyone close to a moderate for the seat.
Click to expand...

If the Republicans let this one go through under any circumstances they are through as a party. They will become completely irrelevant.
 
omega42 said:
If the Republicans let this one go through under any circumstances they are through as a party. They will become completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Along with the Constitution becoming completely irrelevant

Sent from my C6530 using Tapatalk
 
I'm surprised we aren't getting comments on this thread like "The Rs should accept this nomination, or the alternative will be a really liberal judge". That's what we would be hearing if he was a presidential candidate ;)
 
No published decisions on the 2A?

This is the guy which tried to kill the Heller ruling before it got bumped to the Supreme Court.
 
Waher said:
No published decisions on the 2A?
This is the guy which tried to kill the Heller ruling before it got bumped to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Tried to kill Heller???? He simply voted to hear it en banc. Little extreme to characterize a vote to hear a case as an attempt to kill a prior ruling.
 
TayNinh_66 said:
Tried to kill Heller???? He simply voted to hear it en banc. Little extreme to characterize a vote to hear a case as an attempt to kill a prior ruling.
Click to expand...

I don't think so, what was his purpose and the other 3 that voted with him if not to try and over turn? Light workload that day?
 
Read this article then get back to us: http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/432716/moderates-are-not-so-moderate-merrick-garland

TayNinh_66 said:
Tried to kill Heller???? He simply voted to hear it en banc. Little extreme to characterize a vote to hear a case as an attempt to kill a prior ruling.
Click to expand...
The vote was to revisit a ruling by a 3 judge panel of the court that supported Heller. If he agreed with that ruling there was no reason to vote to review it, ergo he wanted to overturn it. He also voted in an earlier case to allow the Clinton administration to keep NICS background check records for 6 months, effectively a defacto registration scheme, contrary to explicit law and Congressional direction.

2 anti-gun rulings, and as far as I can yet determine, no pro-gun rulings: He's the one that's extreme, not those who oppose him on these grounds.
 
They can't turn 100million Americans into felons. Well, they can but there will be a shortage in the workplace when no one can apply for certain jobs where disclosing a felony conviction matters.

Our guns aren't going anywhere, guys. They only go where we let them go if they try to reverse Heller.
 
kevin9 said:
Read this article then get back to us: http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/432716/moderates-are-not-so-moderate-merrick-garland
The vote was to revisit a ruling by a 3 judge panel of the court that supported Heller. If he agreed with that ruling there was no reason to vote to review it, ergo he wanted to overturn it. He also voted in an earlier case to allow the Clinton administration to keep NICS background check records for 6 months, effectively a defacto registration scheme, contrary to explicit law and Congressional direction.
Click to expand...

DC petitioned the appeals court for a rehearing en banc. Not surprising they would appeal a 2 to 1 decision. Garland simply voted to rehear it. Majority voted against it. DC then appealed to SCOTUS who granted cert. A rehearing en banc would be normal for a controversial case and obviously SCOTUS agreed because they took it after the appeals court passed on it.

Read the briefs and get back to us.
 

Similar threads

The NRA Is About to Notch Another Legal Victory at the Supreme Court
Replies
13
Views
640
groundscrapers
G
Supreme Court and guns in the news (search 3/4/24)
Replies
0
Views
183
Coyote33
Coyote33
The Supreme Court will decide whether to let civilians own automatic weapons
2
Replies
59
Views
2K
Joeldiaz
J
New York's Radical Gun Restrictions Headed To Supreme Court
Replies
1
Views
291
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Supreme Court Hears Texas Gun Store Owner’s Lawsuit Against Bump Stock Ban
2 3
Replies
87
Views
2K
HorizontalHunter
HorizontalHunter
Back
Top Bottom