President Obama nominates Merrick Garland for Supreme Court

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Oh on issues I care about I do exhaustive research.

Merrick is "anti" gun. Just because he never took an official stance because it didn't come to that doesn't mean we can't accurate predict what he most likely would have done if he had been forced to make a play.

It's not about Garland, it's just the same old Republican obstructionism we've been witness to since President Obama was elected.

I'm convinced that if Obama tried to withdraw Garland's nomination the Senate would vote to seat him immediately.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Oh, Obama could nominate Moses and the Republicans would block him.

 

[about_average]

Oh on issues I care about I do exhaustive research.

Merrick is "anti" gun. Just because he never took an official stance because it didn't come to that doesn't mean we can't accurate predict what he most likely would have done if he had been forced to make a play.

Well, I certainly have not idea what you're basing that on.
He tends to side with precedent and DC vs Heller certainly established that more firmly than any other ruling ever.

That's one reason I'm concerned he wouldn't vote to reverse Citizens United. Not that he'll ever get the chance.

It's not about Garland, it's just the same old Republican obstructionism we've been witness to since President Obama was elected.

I dunno. A crack appeared. McConnel said they'd never confirm a judge who wasn't pro-gun.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I think his call to rehear Parker vs District of Columbia gives us sufficient evidence to be suspicious of him on that front.

 

[about_average]

I think his call to rehear Parker vs District of Columbia gives us sufficient evidence to be suspicious of him on that front.

Nope, it doesn't.
One of the others who voted to hear it en banc was Judge Randolph, very conservative, very good friend of Bork, appointed by Bush and so pro 2a that he believes a criminal record isn't an automatic prohibition to gun ownership.
Also Henderson, one of the original panel of 3, the one who dissented in ruling to reverse the dismissal from the lower court and so apparently not a big 2a fan, voted to not hear the case en banc. Why would would she suddenly become pro-2a by voting against the en banc review? To follow the logic that a vote for review meant a judge is anti-gun.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Oh, Obama could nominate Moses and the Republicans would block him.

Another Kondo Kike, at least Obama is consistent.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Nope, it doesn't.
One of the others who voted to hear it en banc was Judge Randolph, very conservative, very good friend of Bork, appointed by Bush and so pro 2a that he believes a criminal record isn't an automatic prohibition to gun ownership.
Also Henderson, one of the original panel of 3, the one who dissented in ruling to reverse the dismissal from the lower court and so apparently not a big 2a fan, voted to not hear the case en banc. Why would would she suddenly become pro-2a by voting against the en banc review? To follow the logic that a vote for review meant a judge is anti-gun.

I honestly don't have a problem with that logic. You don't vote to review cases where you got your way. At least I wouldn't from a sheerly strategic point.

I don't honestly think he's anti-gun. But I don't think the Right is being wholly irrational on that front. I think they failed to show their work and I despise that.

 

[about_average]

I honestly don't have a problem with that logic. You don't vote to review cases where you got your way. At least I wouldn't from a sheerly strategic point.

Like I said, Garland is big on precedent and it makes perfect sense that he would decide that it was a large enough issue it should be decided by the full court. Especially when you take in to account that court rulings around the country, up to that point, had been decidedly in favor of DC.
And if you were a very fair minded judge the strategic view wouldn't matter. The strategic view shouldn't matter on the bench, that's for politicians.

I don't honestly think he's anti-gun. But I don't think the Right is being wholly irrational on that front. I think they failed to show their work and I despise that.

They are in the sense of labeling him "an anti-gun nut". There's no evidence he is. Would it be appropriate to say they have serious reservations based on that vote? Yes.
Well, at least until you consider Randolph's opinions about gun ownership in conjunction with him joining Garland in voting for the review.

 

[JackLuis]

Should we worry that Garland is a Rethuglican favorite? Hell Yes!

Why Merrick Garland Is Terrible

He supports Citizens United and doesn't support Habeus Corpus. He is not an American in thought. How did this guy get appointed to the District Court, or any court?

 

[JackLuis]

Grassley met with ire at town hall

If Sen. Chuck Grassley thought he could escape the pressure over President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nomination by traveling to friendly conservative territory, the trip offered little relief.

The powerful Iowa Republican, who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee, arrived Monday at a town hall meeting in a Republican-dominated county, only to find that the debate had followed him. The discussion at a senior center was dominated by his refusal to hold confirmation hearings.

Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is taking flack from his most conservative supporters. How long before he starts to cave? Will he get reelected in this shit storm that is brewing?

Grassley said rather than supporting a hearing for Garland he’d rather focus efforts on something more “fruitful” since Congress would likely not approve him with a Republican majority. “In other words, you’re stalling,” a woman in the crowd replied.

What brought the guffaws was the senator’s closing sentence: “To solve problems, we need to hear each other out, not shut each other down.” Unless, of course, the issue is the appointment of a United States Supreme Court justice.

 

[JackLuis]

Researcher reveals how the Supreme Court has been screwing over the working class for decades

Economic inequality is now firmly on the public agenda as candidates and voters alike look for someone to blame for stagnant wages, entrenched poverty and a widening gap between rich and poor.

Bernie Sanders blames Wall Street. Donald Trump points his finger at companies moving overseas. Hillary Clinton identifies middle-class families who are working harder but staying in place as the root cause.

While all these factors and others helped increase inequality, they overlook the role of a key American institution that has also helped widen the gap between rich and poor: the Supreme Court.

And yet, our 'Liberal' President appoints another tight assed thug to the court!

 

[Hypoxia]

Researcher reveals how the Supreme Court has been screwing over the working class for decades

And yet, our 'Liberal' President appoints another tight assed thug to the court!

An inexorable physical factor drives all those economic disruptions: automation. Engineers design ever-more-efficient and -autonomous machines to replace bothersome hoo-mans in production, maintenance, transport, decision-making, etc. In a few years, a robot car will take you to work in great safety and comfort -- except that you won't have a job to go to. Even a Sanders-picked SCOTUS can't change that.