Supreme Court

Obama Nominates Merrick Garland to Replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court

D.C. Circuit Judge Merrick Garland nominated for SCOTUS

|

Today President Barack Obama announced the nomination of Merrick Garland to replace the late Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Merrick Garland is 63 years old and currently serves as chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. A former Justice Department official in the Clinton administration, Garland was nominated to the D.C. Circuit by President Bill Clinton in 1997 and confirmed by the U.S. Senate by a vote of 76-23. Sen. Orrin Hatch remarked at the time that Garland was "not only a fine nominee, but as good as Republicans can expect from [the Clinton] administration."

Garland's nomination is likely to come as a disappointment to many progressives. While Garland is undoubtedly a legal liberal, his record reflects a version of legal liberalism that tends to line up in favor of broad judicial deference to law enforcement and wartime executive power.

In the area of criminal law, for example, Garland's votes have frequently come down on the side of prosecutors and police. In 2010, when Garland was reported to be under consideration to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, SCOTUSblog founder Tom Goldstein observed that "Judge Garland rarely votes in favor of criminal defendants' appeals of their convictions."

Likewise, Garland voted in support of the George W. Bush administration's controversial war on terrorism policies in the Guantanamo detainee case Al Odah v. United States, in which Garland joined the majority opinion holding that enemy combatants held as detainees at the U.S. military facility at Guantanamo Bay were not entitled to habeus corpus protections. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately overruled that decision, holding in the landmark case Boumediene v. Bush that Guantanamo detainees do enjoy habeus corpus rights.

Conservatives and libertarians are likely to be concerned by Garland's actions during the litigation that ultimately culminated in the landmark gun rights case District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), in which the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, not a collective one, to keep and bear arms. In 2007 that case was decided in favor of Dick Heller's Second Amendment rights by a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit. Washington officials promptly appealed that loss, asking a full panel of the D.C. Circuit to rehear the case, which would have had the immediate effect of putting a stop to the panel's judgment. Garland was among the D.C. Circuit judges who voted in favor of a rehearing by a full D.C. Circuit panel. That rehearing was ultimately denied and the case went on to the Supreme Court. While this example is by no means conclusive, it does at least suggest that Garland may believe that both the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court got it wrong in Heller. It would be helpful to hear more from Garland about his views on the meaning and scope of the Second Amendment.

Now that President Obama has named his nominee, the next move rests in the hands of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senate Republicans continue to maintain that they will not consider any nominee put forward by a  "lame duck" president. According to those Republicans, the next president should fill Scalia's seat, thereby giving the voters an opportunity to shape the future of the Supreme Court via the democratic mechanism of the 2016 election. If Senate Republicans hold to that line, it will mean no hearings and no vote on Merrick Garland's nomination.

The political battle over the future of the Supreme Court is about to heat up.

Advertisement

NEXT: A Short History of Libertarian Moments

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. While Garland is undoubtedly a legal liberal, his record reflects a version of legal liberalism that tends to line up in favor of broad judicial deference to law enforcement and wartime executive power.

    So, the worst of both worlds.

    1. You were expecting something else?

      1. Yeah, a pot legalizin, civil rights defendin White Knight, because democrats are good on those iss…..BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA, sorry, I almost made it.

      2. Expecting? No. But it could have been someone more along the line of the Wise Latina who turned out to be pretty good on 4th amendment issues.

        1. Blind monkeys and peanuts.

          I would much prefer an infinite improbability drive to an actual Supreme court justice. The odds of actually getting “justice” would be much higher.

          1. It all makes a lot more sense when you define “justice” as whatever it is that courts produce.

    2. I will always be amazed at Obama’s knack for pissing off both liberals and conservatives.

      1. Liberals don’t get pissed at Obama. They know he beats them because he loves them.

        1. Also, they reassure themselves that he’s better than the theoretical “other guy” (Romney, McCain, etc.) who would obviously nominate an actual Nazi and immediately outlaw all birth control and send us to war against the EU and Canada.

          1. No, the Republican hacks you mention wouldn’t have gone to war with the EU and Canada as your ridiculous hyperbole suggests. Just 100,000 troops sent to Iraq and Syria. Bad enough.

            1. Just 100,000 troops sent to Iraq and Syria

              It’s ironic that you make this point because it is your Dear Leader Obama who escalated Afghanistan, Iraq and now is beginning to escalate in Syria. Two of them without congressional approval. But somehow, in you little socialist peebrain, it’s better to slowly escalate wars than to properly ask congress for their constitutional approval. It was folks like you who called W a cowboy even though he went to war with something like 80% congressional approval and dozens of allies but who back Obama when he actually does go to war alone against the wishes of congress and with few if any allies.

              1. Don’t forget Libya, smart power at its best

          2. Don’t forget about immediately establishing a theocracy and the reinstitution of slavery. That’s tops on the list of liberal worries as well.

            1. Don’t forget about immediately establishing a theocracy and the reinstitution of slavery. That’s tops on the list of liberal worries as well.

              Ah, the old Rick Santorum-Reanimated Corpse of Jefferson Davis ticket.

            2. I wouldn’t discount it. The leading candidate for the Republican Party had been blowing the dog whistle for White supremacists, wants to build a wall on the southern border, and thinks Muslims fleeing Hobbesian theocrat slavers in Syria probably should just stay there.

              Tell me more about how Antonin Scalia was a brave voice for libertarians. I’ve enjoyed pouring muriatic acid on his grave so I’d like to continue along those lines as long as possible. He deserves it– him being a first-rate bully and homophobe.

              1. 2/10 needs more talking points

                1. Obama. Bad. Smash. Me hate.

                  Better?

                  1. I said talking points, not caveman-like utterings.

                    But I guess it’s more reflective of your intellect.

                2. Yes it’s funny how all of his posts are just like a dog-vomit of progressive talking points. Note also the caring, sensitive tone which he adopts to incite violence against a dead man. He truly is our moral and ethical superior!

                  1. My dog is smart enough to not eat shit.

              2. Any time I hear someone utter the phrase ‘dog whistle’ in reference to supposedly subliminal messages hidden within statements I can safely assume the person is full of shit. It’s the most lazy way to erect a strawman that I’ve seen so far.

          3. Well, to be fair, Canada has it coming.

        2. Liberals don’t get pissed at Obama. They know he beats them because he loves them, and besides that they’re self-hating racists who can’t apply standards equally.

          FTFY

          1. Fix accepted.

        3. Now, if one of my women gives me trouble, I will whap her on the butt with a car antenna! ‘Til she’s says she’s sorry!

      2. I’m always amazed at people who say, politics aside, he’s a nice guy. A self-centered know-it-all who talks down to everyone. Real nice.

        1. Yeah, he strikes me as an insufferable know-it-all who wants everyone to think he’s the coolest guy ever.

          1. Remember the stories of his “interceptions” (taking extra tokes out of turn) when getting high with the choom gang ? If someone had kicked his ass for that shit, he’d be a better man today.

            1. Have you ever tried to kick the shit out of somebody while being stoned out of your mind? It requires A LOT of effort.

              1. Almost makes me miss good ‘ol Cokey McBush. I love how there’s one set of laws for the little people and another set of laws for the elite, it really lets me know which group I belong to.

        2. I have some acquaintances who are big Democratic donors who got invited to Camp David once. By their account, Obama likes to get wasted on martinis and hang out with celebrities.

          For all I know he is a nice guy. But that story didn’t bolster the case for me very much.

          1. You’d prefer more temperance? Perhaps scripture reading sessions followed by genital self-flagellation followed by strangled kittens?

      3. Except he does it in the exact opposite way libertarians would like…

    3. I was going to post literally the same words!

    4. Makes total sense with encryption-related cases probably likely making their way to SCOTUS in the coming years. The government might lose at the district court level against Apple but with Garland on the bench, the chances of the government’s far-reaching claims to power being validated are that much more likely in 2-3 years.

      Think about it: there is only one definite “no” vote on SCOTUS in the Apple case (Sotomayor). Apple is clearly appealing to Kennedy with their “individual autonomy” argument but we’ll see how that goes. That is frankly frightening.

    5. This is fucking terrible. At least with a flaming liberal, we would get some respite with civil liberties issues. With this dude, there is no silver lining.

  2. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??
    ? ? ? ? http://www.CashJoin60.com

  3. likely to come as a disappointment to many progressives. While Garland is undoubtedly a legal liberal, his record reflects a version of legal liberalism that tends to line up in favor of broad judicial deference to law enforcement and wartime executive power.

    Likely, according to who?

    1. Not likely at all since they are only going to see it in terms of “us vs them”.

      1. Yes, he’s on the right TEAM, which is the only thing that matters.

      2. Case and Point

        Because the varies republican senators painted themselves into a corner and point blank said
        they would refuse to hear any nomination that Obama would make and he nominated a Jewish moderate one so now they either eat crow and give the guy a fair hearing or they go forward with their promise to prevent the president from exercising his constitutionally obligation and be tar and feathered as antisemite and obstructionists to boot.

        1. Love the display of illiteracy and lack of logical thought.

        2. You’ve got to love the view that not confirming his nominee is preventing Obama from exercising his constitutional obligation.

        3. to prevent the president from exercising his constitutionally obligation

          … an “obligation” which mysteriously only exists when the President is a Democrat.

          1. His obligation is simply to nominate someone. That obligation has been satisfied. The Senate’s job is to consent or withhold consent. Consent can be withheld by not scheduling a vote.

            These jackasses understand the procedure perfectly when a Republican is in office.

            1. They think when a Republican is president it’s the obligation of the Democrats in the senate to use any means necessary to block his nominee, even if it means filibustering to prevent a vote.

            2. Is there even really an obligation (constitutionally) to nominate someone? All the constitution really says is that there should be a Supreme Court. And there is. Do the laws defining the size and makeup of the court say that the president must nominate someone within a certain time frame?

        4. to prevent the president from exercising his constitutionally obligation

          At first, I was skeptical anyone could reasonably support Hillary other than establishment Dems. Now I can understand why regular people do a bit more. In Hillary, they see the wannabe dictator they’ve wanted in Obama.

        5. I feel like that paragraph is missing several commas and/or periods.

          1. Yes, punctuation fail!

    2. in favor of broad judicial deference to law enforcement and wartime executive power

      So not a judicial activist, eh? He oughta fit right in with the Roberts Court then.

  4. This guy sounds like an authoritarians wet dream.

    1. Well, look at who nominated him…

    2. exactly he is not a person who makes judgements based on the constitution he is for anything big government wants. If the government wants war and torture then its okay if the government wants no private guns thats okay anybody can do that job. he is literally a yes man to whoever is in power. So yes the republicans will vote him in since he is for whoever is in power. Nothing like never rocking the boat to get to the top.

      1. As opposed to Scalia, who (like Bork) imagined the Ninth Amendment to have been an accident.

        1. Point to an opinion Scalia wrote or joined whereby the government’s case was built around “there is no such right”.

          The problem with the Ninth Amendment is that it is actually very narrow in scope despite its seemingly broad wording. All it really says is that the government cannot use “you have no such right” as the basis for doing something to you. To me, the quintessential example is the “No Fly List” and the argument that “you don’t have a right to fly”. Under the 9A, that justification should be thrown out as laughable on its face. However, that doesn’t mean the list itself or its enforcement would be thrown out, because there are other justifications that the courts may uphold.

      2. The libertarian moment may never end.

      3. Stephen Breyer redux. Sounds awesome.

      4. He should be “deferring” to the U.S. Constitution.

  5. While Garland is undoubtedly a legal liberal, his record reflects a version of legal liberalism that tends to line up in favor of broad judicial deference to law enforcement and wartime executive power.

    I wonder if those are the things that matter the most to progressives right now. I’m thinking if he’ll support restrictive gun laws, overturning Citizens United, gay marriage, abortion, and executive power to impose socialist economic regulation, they’ll be good with him.

    1. Also, wartime executive power is okay with progs as long as the president is a Democrat.

      1. And they’ll totally have no problem with Donald Trump having wartime powers and the police getting a rubber stamp at all levels of government for whatever abuses they dole out.

  6. Garland’s nomination is likely to come as a disappointment to many progressives. While Garland is undoubtedly a legal liberal, his record reflects a version of legal liberalism that tends to line up in favor of broad judicial deference to law enforcement and wartime executive power.

    In the area of criminal law, for example, Garland’s votes have frequently come down on the side of prosecutors and police. In 2010, when Garland was reported to be under consideration to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, SCOTUSblog founder Tom Goldstein observed that “Judge Garland rarely votes in favor of criminal defendants’ appeals of their convictions.”

    Oh, goody.

    1. Makes sense, since he was a prosecutor before he was a judge.

  7. The Senate Judiciary Committee now has a difficult choice. Do they try and get the best judge they can get out of Obama, or do they decline all choices and leave it up to the next president, who just might be Trump.

    1. I don’t think anyone will have a problem blocking Trump’s nominees

    2. Or, Do they try and get the best judge they can get out of Obama, or do they decline all choices and leave it up to the next president, who just might be Clinton?

      Generally speaking, if it looks like Clinton will win, I think they should go with Obama, but this guy is probably just as bad as anyone Clinton would nominate. Indeed, this guy looks exactly like someone Hillary Clinton would have nominated.

      So, there’s really no point in holding a vote for him.

    3. If they cave to Obama they will piss off their voters even more and probably lose the Senate, too. If they wait it out, at least they have a shot to save the Senate and force Clinton to nominate a less radical judge.

  8. Those jackboots aren’t going to lick themselves.

  9. Judge Garland I’d like to ask your opinion of Heller vs DC, whether you agree with the court’s reasoning in that case.

    Senator, I can’t comment on issues that may come before me if I am confirmed to the Supreme Court.

    That’s why I’m asking, asshole.

    1. “Then I can’t vote in favor of your confirmation, Judge Garland.”

      It’s an easy exchange to handle if you aren’t dedicated to the game.

    2. Or do what Sotomayor did and say “it’s the settled law of the land” while conveniently omitting the part where you think as a SCOTUS justice you are the settling force.

    3. +1 Mrs. Grey, a Shetland Pony, and $5

  10. Hey I know this guy! I read his thesis on ‘Fuck you, that’s why in the age of Fuckyouism’ It was a fascinating read.

    1. I think he plagiarized that, maybe even from Scalia himself.

      1. It’s a cookbook fuckyoubook!

  11. Anyone know his track record on free speech or campaign finance?

    1. Some left-wing sites are less than enthusiastic about him because he ruled with the majority on SpeechNOW.org vs. FEC but that’s not exactly conclusive IMO.

  12. To me, this is another Samuel Alito. I’m not a fan.

    1. He would kill off gun rights. So you should love that.

      1. That’s because he is pro-police and it’s harder for the police to do their jobs if everyone is armed.

        1. harder for the police to do their jobs if everyone is armed ? how so ?

          1. This is assuming a police officer’s “job” extends to enforcing GoodThink and punishing microaggressions.

        2. Only if you think their job is to disarm people.

        3. How is it harder for the Police to show up after the fuss has settled down, take a report and file it away? That’s all they’ve ever done where I’ve lived.

        4. assuming you think its the police’s job to harass law abiding people, otherwise all we need to do is pass laws to disarm those who don’t obey the law. Oh wait…

  13. Fitting that he looks like Roger Rabbit’s nemesis, Judge Doom.

    1. I’d advocate for Judge Doom for SCOTUS before this guy.

      1. I dunno, Doom seemed pretty pro-eminent-domain.

        1. Eminent domain would have let him seize toontown regardless of Acme’s opinion. The fact that he went through all the trouble to take a different route has to say something.

          1. The fact that he went through all the trouble to take a different route has to say something.

            The fact that he murdered a police officer does speak volumes about his stance Re: The King’s Men.

  14. Free society roams restless outside the locked factories of political intention.

  15. Merrick Garland has ZERO chance of being confirmed, at least this year.

    Recall that Justice Scalia complained re the current makeup of the Court, that too much of it represented New York City and Harvard elites.

    So, whom does President Obama give us?

    Another Harvard man who clerked for Justice Brennan!

    Now, there can be no doubt that Judge Garland is academically qualified with more than sufficient experience.

    However, with so many whining about whether there are enough blacks or Hispanics or minorities or whatever on the Court, it’s not realistic to think another white Harvard man can be the next supreme court justice.

    The President once again has tried to make the tail wag the dog.

    1. THere’s three women on the court.

      That uncle tom doesn’t really count as a black guy. He’s not even married to a black girl.

      I think the court is pretty diverse. Nothing wrong with another White Guy. I just don’t like this guy.

      1. That uncle tom doesn’t really count as a black guy. He’s not even married to a black girl.

        Tell us more, Grand Wizard.

        1. Funny how progs are okay with racism against those that may not want to reside on the progressive plantation.

        2. Progs like them thar good colored boys who do as they are told. Uppity ones that get all sassy and think for themselves need to be taught a lesson.

      2. That is in a nutshell why diversity as currently understood is such a stupid concept.

        Scalia thorough Crim: “There’s not enough diversity. Everybody comes from the same schools and the same region.”

        Progressive America through resident moron Alice Bowie: “There’s three chicks on the court. So diverse! Also, black people that don’t confirm stereotypes aren’t really black people.”

      3. Clarence Thomas strayed too far from your Progtard Plantation?

  16. At least he would only have about 20 years on the bench.

    1. A Republican president would have been sure to nominate a 36-year-old.

  17. This seems to be about the worst we could hope for. Now, liberals will say “See! Obama nominated a moderate, and Republicans still aren’t happy! Look at how unreasonable they are!” And of course he’s a moderate for being absolute shit on civil liberties. Damn it. I know the GOP has said they won’t hold hearings, but if the election approaches and it looks more and more likely that Clinton will win, they will probably fold, or get someone even worse after.

    1. The GOP will likely hold the Senate, though. So if Clinton wins and gives them someone worse they can always refuse to confirm that nominee too. Of course, this assumes Senate Republicans grow some backbones.

      1. It assumes that the GOP exists for some purpose other than giving the Democrats nearly everything they want.

    2. “… and more likely that Clinton will win, they will probably fold, or get someone even worse after.”

      This guy is exactly the type of guy that Hillary Clinton would nominate. So, there’s no point in not waiting.

      1. No, Hillary would go much, much worse.

        1. How? This guy is an absolute statist, liking the worst positions of both sides of that coin.

  18. “Garland’s nomination is likely to come as a disappointment to many progressives. While Garland is undoubtedly a legal liberal, his record reflects a version of legal liberalism that tends to line up in favor of broad judicial deference to law enforcement and wartime executive power.”

    The Nikki of judicial system

    1. In my Twitter feed, liberals* and conservatives alike are pointing out how anti-freedom and anti-Constitution he is.

      *apart from the Obots who would be happy if the Obamessiah had appointed a ham sandwich to the SCOTUS.

      1. What if he appointed himself? That might make them happy, and after all he’s a Constitutional Law Professor!

  19. Huh. A lot of words over this guy.

    “Obama Nominates…”

    NO.

    How is that?

    1. Yup. If you know someone for 7 years, you know them. Seems perfectly reasonable for a Senator to say, after 7 years I know Obama, I know his ideology, and unless he does a complete 180, I’m sure he will nominate someone I won’t vote to confirm.

    2. Sotomayor has been decent. But this guy sounds just awful.

  20. Either Obama’s really betraying his supporters or he’s trying to win a 3-D chess match with the GOP (which probably won’t happen). The last type of person I’d expect him to nominate would be a copsucker.

    1. He’s probably rock solid on Obamacare – which is Obama’s legacy for good of for ill.

    2. Can we stop with the 3-D chess meme ? I see no evidence he’s that clever.

  21. A stellar resume – and I presume any Supreme Court nominee has one – is a *necessary* but not *sufficient* condition for serving on the Court.

    Supreme Court justices are in the thick of the battle over the Constitution, so Senators have not only the right but the duty to figure out whether a nominee will be fighting on the side of the Constitution…or against it…or will try to be neutral as between the Constitution and those trying to destroy it.

    Naturally, the establishment wants us to believe it’s simply a resume-measuring contest. “Ha ha, our guy graduated from Harvard, and he had all these prestigious jobs and works *so hard,* and he avoided expressing a view on the key issues the Court will be facing, so you gotta nominate him!”

    Gosh, I wonder what a former clerk for Judge Friendly and Justice Brennan, a guy who worked in the Clinton administration, a guy Obama trusts to uphold the whole corpus of progressive precedents, would think about gun control, abortion, etc., etc.? There’s no way to tell!

    1. Depending on what the definition of “stellar resume” is, I don’t think I would hold it up as a necessary condition.

      1. I suppose by this time, I’d take a traffic-court judge with an appreciation of the meaning of the Constitution over an elite legal theorist who looks for constitutional meanings in the auras of the penumbras.

        1. Traffic court judges by definition do not support the constitution. You are not allowed to call witnesses or provide testimony. You may plead innocent or guilty and then they will assess your fine.

          1. OK, small claims court judge.

            1. Were I President, I would nominate a pie-eating-contest judge, and she would be awesome.

              1. Sure, Obama could have had fun with the Republicans by nominating Sarah Palin.

            2. Small Claims Court cases are even more divorced from constitutional questions than are traffic court. Remember that small claims court is for civil claims where the parties represent themselves, usually “this contractor didn’t fix that like he said it would.” At least in traffic court they deal with criminal procedings and evidence, including the admissibility of evidence.

              I think it’s good to have a mix of legal scholars and judges with actual (criminal) trial experience on SCOTUS.

              1. judges with actual (criminal) trial experience on SCOTUS.

                This is likely the main reason as to why Sotomayor has been pleasantly surprising. If I were a Senator I would end up voting down any Appeals / SC nom that lacked criminal trial experience. It seems to be the only way to become disabused of the notion that cops are true professionals who only act in the public’s best interest.

              2. The whole concept of admissibility of evidence is revolting to me. Heck, practically the whole concept of criminal law is as well.

            3. How about someone from the court of apples.

              (obscure TV reference)

          2. I was able to submit eveidence and question a witness the time I was in traffic court.

            I still lost on fytw.

      2. Stellar means never doing anything outstanding, just follow along so as not to hurt his cushy life.

    2. “[…] so Senators have not only the right but the duty to figure out whether a nominee will be fighting on the side of the Constitution…or against it…or will try to be neutral as between the Constitution and those trying to destroy it.”
      And people? would be a lot less critical of the GOP if they did this. But that’s not what they’re planning on doing. They don’t care whether the guy will be “fighting on the side of the Constitution”, they’re refusing to even ask.
      ________
      ?Check the polling. Last time I did, even Republicans thought the GOP was wrong to refuse hearings.

      1. And people? would be a lot less critical of the GOP if they did this

        I have this bridge for sale…

  22. If Cruz has two functioning neurons, he’s going to hammer hard at the Supreme Court issue, now that it’s on the front pages.

    “Who do you trust to put constitutionalists on the Supreme Court – a top-flight appellate attorney who’s argued before the Court and knows what results he wants to get and why – or a guy who thinks his abortion-loving sister would make a great Supreme Court justice?”

  23. Well.. at least he hired an old white guy, so they won’t be able to hit on “Republicans are racist for not confirming him”.

    1. “Well.. at least he hired an old white guy, so they won’t be able to hit on “Republicans are racist for not confirming him”.”

      LOL, no the line will be: “Republicans are so racist and hate Obama so much, they won’t even confirm a white guy he nominated!”

    2. He’s a Jew, so I’m sure we’ll have ‘OMG, look how anti-Semitic this is!’

    3. The fact that he is old should make him more acceptable to Republicans. At least he won’t be on the court for the next 30 years. This is what conciliatory looks like in the Obama administration.

      1. Conciliatory: more like he sold us out.

  24. So, from a libertarian perspective, Obama nominated the worst candidate for the Supreme Court?

  25. sounds like he is full on big government can do no wrong so you don’t have/don’t need any personal rights.

  26. Of course, I presume that Obama doesn’t expect the guy to be confirmed. He’s simply trying to create a media narrative of “obstructionist Republicans reject a respected centrist judge* who mainly did criminal and administrative law so as not to leave a ‘paper trail’ on social issues.”

    *Who clerked for the respected centrist William Brennan /sarc

    1. Funny how “centrist” really means “statist.”

      1. Reality check: The political center may flirt with some libertarian ideas, but is firmly statist.

    2. The Senate should vote on this guy, and vote him down. End the narrative that they are stalling and obstructionist, and throw him out for not defending the people’s rights.

    1. “Judge Garland…said it was fine for [Clinton’s AG, Janet] 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, yeah, Obama probably doesn’t expect this guy to be confirmed, he’s trying to rally “the moderates” against the “obstructionist Republicans.”

  27. “Hey, buddy, did you ever dream of being on the Supreme Court? Congratulations, your dream is now in the hands of the most craven people in the world at the worst possible time.”

  28. isn’t that nice. No hearings. No votes.

  29. Terrible nominee.

    That’s my hot take.

  30. Senate Republicans continue to maintain that they will not consider any nominee put forward by a “lame duck” president. According to those Republicans, the next president should fill Scalia’s seat, thereby giving the voters an opportunity to shape the future of the Supreme Court via the democratic mechanism of the 2016 election.

    Doesn’t matter. President Shrillary will probably nominate the same douchebag.

  31. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??
    ? ? ? ? http://www.CashJoin60.com

  32. “Garland’s nomination is likely to come as a disappointment to many progressives. While Garland is undoubtedly a legal liberal, his record reflects a version of legal liberalism that tends to line up in favor of broad judicial deference to law enforcement and wartime executive power.”

    Nah. Progressives LOVE those things when their Tribe is in charge.

  33. The New York Times has an article calling Garland a “centrist” and then a few paragraphs down has a graphic showing that he would be to the left of Justice Kagan.

    Stay classy NYT.

    1. What’s the problem, Kagan is virtually a conservative. But the right-wing extremists have moved the discourse so far to the right…

      /sarc

  34. As bad as this guy sounds from a libertarian perspective what are the alternatives. Trump or Hillary? God only knows the idiot that Trump would nominate. We may be stuck with 8 jurists forever. And Hillary will likely renominate this guy.

  35. my roomate’s mother-in-law makes $70 /hr on the laptop . She has been out of a job for eight months but last month her check was $16850 just working on the laptop for a few hours. original site

    ? ? ? ? http://www.BuzzSelf20.com

  36. “Sen. Orrin Hatch remarked at the time that Garland was “not only a fine nominee, but as good as Republicans can expect from [the Clinton] administration.”

    This is about as good as we’re gonna get from this blood-sucking slug.

    Is fainter praise even possible?

  37. How did they come to the conclusion that this guy is a moderate?

  38. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??
    ? ? ? ? http://www.CashJoin60.com

  39. SCOTUS is dishonorable and the only place on Earth where a 72+ year old geriatric may remain ruling for life like a King or dictator (besides the Pope). I think four of the eight SCOTUS geezers left today are over 80? Half of them are not peers of most citizens and are almost dead. There is a jury of peers Seventh Amendment that was not repealed but is usually ignored.
    .
    There should be 12 justices from various States and 6-6, 7-5 split cases should be referred to a jury of the House of Representatives. All 5-4 splits from the past should be retried with apolitical judges after Article III is updated or should be voided. There should be ten-fifteen year term limits with five year votes for retention. An independent justice department does not require lifelong terms and lifelong terms are unconstitutional today by violating the Sixth and Seventh Amendment prohibition of a jury of geezers or ruling class of wealthy lawyers by requiring a jury of peers.
    .
    A peer is another person within 20-30 years of one’s age….?

  40. They’re trying to promote him as a “moderate”…but that’s just a code word for “liberal” anymore. Sam Nunn was a moderate, and he’d be considered a right wing hardliner if he were still a Senator. Garland is very much anti-gun.

  41. Drudge says he’s a gun grabber.

  42. Another prog gun grabber who upholds Obama’s racist war on drugs. Unfit to serve.

  43. Before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??
    ? ? ? ? http://www.CashJoin60.com

  44. until I looked at the draft of $7079 , I didnt believe that…my… mother in law had been actualie bringing home money in there spare time at there labtop. . there sisters neighbour haz done this for under 4 months and resantly cleard the dept on their place and purchased a new Lotus Carlton .try here ..

    ?? W?W?W. A?l?p?h?a-C?a?r?e?e?r?s.C?O?M

  45. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  46. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??
    ? ? ? ? http://www.CashJoin60.com

  47. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??
    ? ? ? ? http://www.CashJoin60.com

  48. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.SelfCash10.com

  49. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.