# I bet Merrick Garland will join SCOTUS **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [March 22, 2016, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-bet-merrick-garland-will-join-scotus/749867 "2016-03-22T16:01:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 28
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-bet-merrick-garland-will-join-scotus/749867/28 "2016-03-23T13:31:00Z")
> [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > I fail to see how a Justice that agrees with _Heller_, would vote to try and rehear _Parker_, after the 2-1 panel ruled that D.C.'s ban on handgun possession and of keeping firearms loaded infringed the Second Amendment and needed to be overturned. I fully expect him to explain it during his confirmation hearings, of course. The possibilities are endless. He agreed with the result but not the reasoning. He agreed with the reasoning but not the result. He did not think the panel opinion was sufficiently convincing to be upheld at SCOTUS. He thought the issue was sufficiently important to merit en banc rehearing regardless of the outcome of the panel decision. Don’t take my word for it: > [@Obama nominates Judge Merrick Garland to the SCOTUS.](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/136): > > He wanted the circuit to rehear the case. That means he wanted to change the panel decision. > > Or he wanted the precedent to be a full ruling for the circuit instead of a panel. > > Or he wanted different language in the circuit’s opinion while retaining the result, language that would have weakened the right. > > Or he wanted different language in the circuit’s opinion while retaining the result, language that would have strengthened the right. > > In other words, you have no idea what motivated his vote. > > I have spent four years in the “Voter ID,” thread arguing against the unprincipled idea that we can discern homogenous malign motives from simple legislative votes. The same principle applies here, only more so. There are a kajillion reasons to vote to rehear a case en banc. > > I fully support the reasoning and results in Heller and MacDonald. But I don’t support this weak inferential assassination trick, no matter how it is wielded or against who. I think we can agree that **Bricker** is sufficiently conservative and/or pro-gun that his views on the issue are not politically motivated. > [@erysichthon](#): > > Everyone’s assuming that Hillary will get a SCOTUS pick if she wins and Obama withdraws the Garland nomination. > > If the GOP retains control of the Senate, what’s to stop them from saying, “Meh. We’re okay with having just eight justices. We’ll let the American people decide in 2020 if they really want nine.” Well, the Judiciary Act (as amended several times) sets the number of justices at nine. > [@bengangmo](#): > > Any chance of deliberately allowing senate to go into recess so that Obama can make a recess appointment? > > Kinda a “do it but I don’t wanna know about it” compromise? Possible, but it just kicks the can down the road. A recess appointment is only valid until the end of the next legislative session, so the Senate would still have to confirm _someone_ in 2017. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-bet-merrick-garland-will-join-scotus/749867)._