# Obama nominates Judge Merrick Garland to the SCOTUS. **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 16, 2016, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160 "2016-03-16T14:13:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**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 16, 2016, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/61 "2016-03-16T16:44:30Z")
Here’s the problem: caving is bad for the base. Not caving is bad for moderates. But caving will also be bad with some moderates because of the huge deal they made about how they’re not going to cave. In other words, they can look weak, or they can look stupid, and if they look weak then they will also look a bit stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/62 "2016-03-16T16:45:08Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > Wouldn’t surprise me on the Supreme Court - she is definitely pro-choice and pro-gun control, which implies pretty liberal court nominations. Obama is also pro-choice and pro-gun control. The Clintons invented Third-way centrism. I’m sure Hillary will be every bit the liberal that Obama is. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/63 "2016-03-16T16:52:03Z")
Gun owners and 2nd Amendment supporters unite. We must keep pressure on our duly elected representatives to prevent a judge like Merrick B. Garland from being appointed to the SCOTUS. Of course, no hearing is constitutionally required for Garland’s appointment. Garland is an anti-2nd Amendment judge. Therefore, I don’t consider him to be qualified for the Supremes. The Bill of (Individual) Rights is a very important part of the U.S. Constitution and I expect Justices to uphold the U.S. Constitution, not rewrite it in their own image or to support their chosen political party. \*Back in 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. The liberal District of Columbia government had passed a ban on individual handgun possession, which even prohibited guns kept in one’s own house for self-defense. Snip Garland thought all of these regulations were legal, which tells us two things. First, it tells us that he has a very liberal view of gun rights, since he apparently wanted to undo a key court victory protecting them. Second, it tells us that he’s willing to uphold executive actions that violate the rights of gun owners.\* > **[The ‘Moderates’ Are Not So Moderate: Merrick Garland | National Review](https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/moderates-are-not-so-moderate-merrick-garland/)** > > As the White House prepares to choose a nominee for the Supreme Court, they are continuing to suggest that they might nominate a supposed “moderate.”     But Garland has a long record, and, among o… Garland choses to ignore the will of Congress, and the people, when he judged that Congress didn’t know what it was talking about when Congress made it clear that firearm owner registrations would not be kept by the FBI. \*In 1993, Congress enacted the “Brady Bill,” while providing that the Brady waiting period would sunset in five years, to be replaced with the National Instant Check System (NICS) for all retail gun purchases. Although prior law and the 1993 law both forbade the federal government from using the NICS to register gun owners, Janet Reno and the FBI immediately began using the NICS for gun registration. snip Dissenting Judge David B. Sentelle, a Reagan appointee, opined that Congress was perfectly clear when stating it wanted the NICS records destroyed – and destroyed immediately, not six months later. “The Attorney General [Janet Reno]'s position,” Sentelle wrote, “strikes me as reminiscent of a petulant child pulling her sister’s hair. Her mother tells her, ‘Don’t pull the baby’s hair.’ The child says, ‘All right, Mama,’ but again pulls the infant’s hair. Her defense is, ‘Mama, you didn’t say I had to stop right now.’”\* [http://www.davekopel.com/NRO/2000/Instant-Check-Permanent-Record.htm](http://www.davekopel.com/NRO/2000/Instant-Check-Permanent-Record.htm) ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/64 "2016-03-16T16:52:58Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > They ARE fools. Why should they have any heartburn about looking like fools? [The Far Side.](https://perverseinscrutable.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/far_sideb.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/65 "2016-03-16T16:53:10Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > … Sure they fumbled on strategy at the outset by announcing they would not hold hearings, but their position could evolve, no? … Political language usage note that I was not aware of (but probably should have been): Apparently Democrats [flip-flop](http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/curtis-houck/2016/02/16/abc-nbc-ignore-chuck-schumer-flip-flop-judicial-appointments-scalia), Republicans evolve. It’s a subtle but important distinction. 😉 Anyway, the Republicans are cornered in more ways than one. On the question of the nominee, they either end up with the embarrassment of Trump or they make a spectacle of themselves with vicious infighting and a brokered convention, neither of which is going to give them either a presidential or downticket victory in November. The brighter ones at least should know they’re toast in November, which puts pressure on them to [del]flip-flop[/del] evolve their ridiculous position on blocking the President’s constitutional authority to nominate a Supreme Court justice. The insanity is on full display. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/66 "2016-03-16T16:53:38Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > …At least **doorhinge** will be happy, as I know the amount of time Obama was taking to select a nominee was a particular concern. (post shortened) Hooray for Obama. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/67 "2016-03-16T16:56:11Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Here’s the problem: caving is bad for the base. Not caving is bad for moderates. But caving will also be bad with some moderates because of the huge deal they made about how they’re not going to cave. > > In other words, they can look weak, or they can look stupid, and if they look weak then they will also look a bit stupid. Caving is better for the long term advancement of the party goals, which is never as important as winning the immediate cycle, but could be a tie breaker. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/68 "2016-03-16T16:56:41Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > [The Far Side.](https://perverseinscrutable.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/far_sideb.jpg) Those characters look like the Democrat doctors that Obama had dressed in lab coats to convince Democrats that they were actually doctors. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/69 "2016-03-16T17:00:08Z")
Hey doorhinge, the National Review is wrong about Trump so maybe they are wrong about Garland too. Food for thought. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/70 "2016-03-16T17:02:11Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Those characters look like the Democrat doctors that Obama had dressed in lab coats to convince Democrats that they were actually doctors. 😃 They look like intelligent adults. What’s your point? ---
**Author:** ![Caldazar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Caldazar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Caldazar)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/71 "2016-03-16T17:02:38Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > Or “All this responsibility of running the Senate is exhausting. Lets let the other guys do it for a while.” > > All those Republicans in tight Senate races are thinking how best to strangle McConnell in his sleep. Indeed. Don’t really understand where McConnell’s head is at. I agree with some posters here that there was an easy way out here for the “won’t confirm any Obama nominee on principle” senators, without appearing as though they are “caving”: - Of course we had to take a stand on principle, have you seen all the disastrous decisions Obama has made over past 7 years? He’s been ruining America, why should this time to be any different? - Obviously, Obama’s is, yet again, engaging in petty politics with this nomination, and attempting to divide the nation along party lines. - Nevertheless, even a broken clock is correct twice a day. Despite President Obama’s devious motivations, Merrick Garland is a fine judge. We should not let Obama’s poor behavior tarnish Garland’s reputation. We’ll take Judge Garland into consideration as a potential candidate for the vacancy. If those senators want to wait a bit to see how the GOP nomination shakes out, fine. If they just want to get on with it and put in the rear-view mirror, okay. But it seems to me like they had an easy way to save face and pander to their base. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/72 "2016-03-16T17:06:40Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Back in 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. [Already addressed and debunked.](http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/14/judicial-crisis-networks-dishonest-attempt-to-b/209244) > [@](#): > > The Judicial Crisis Network (JCN) is now smearing Justice Merrick Garland of the D.C. Circuit Court by claiming that his 2007 vote to rehear a case on D.C.'s handgun ban meant that he is not “moderate” and 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.” > > In fact, in crucial context omitted by JCN’s attack, Garland was joined in his vote by the very conservative Judge A. Raymond Randolph. JCN also failed to note that voting to rehear a case does not mean that a judge is committing to deciding it one way or the other. > > … > > Parker was decided on March 9, 2007. In a 2-1 panel decision of three judges – **that Garland did not participate in** – the D.C. Circuit reversed a lower court’s decision upholding the ban, finding that D.C.'s law violated the Second Amendment. > > Following the decision, the D.C. Circuit voted on whether to rehear the case en banc, a procedure where the full court can reconsider the case and decide differently. In a 6-4 vote, the court declined to rehear the case en banc. > [@](#): > > Garland choses to ignore the will of Congress, and the people, when he judged that Congress didn’t know what it was talking about when Congress made it clear that firearm owner registrations would not be kept by the FBI. Notwithstanding your inane assertion that judges are bound to adhere to “the will of Congress” instead of acting as a check against their power, this has _also_ already addressed and debunked. > [@](#): > > Severino offered a secondary criticism of Garland in her National Review post, attacking the 2000 D.C. Circuit decision National Rifle Association v. Reno, a ruling he also joined. The JCN chief counsel did not note that the conservative-leaning Supreme Court subsequently declined to disturb the decision… Severino attempted to scandalize the ruling, writing, “Garland voted with Tatel to uphold an illegal Clinton-era regulation that created an improvised gun registration requirement” and that Garland is “willing to uphold executive actions that violate the rights of gun owners.” > > In fact, the majority opinion Garland joined found the regulation to be legally permissible, upholding a federal district court opinion that also found the regulation to be lawful. And when the NRA appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, the conservative-leaning court declined to hear the case. The regulation that Severino calls “illegal” was never found to be illegal; instead it was eventually changed by John Ashcroft when he became George W. Bush’s attorney general. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/73 "2016-03-16T17:08:34Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I think you can make a strong argument that the Republicans beat Obama once again. They said they wouldn’t accept any nominees he chose, Orrin Hatch suggested a nominee Republicans would accept, and Obama complied and nominated their suggestion. This is kind of my feeling too, but it depends on what “winning” means for the Republicans. They want another Scalia, but they got a moderate (with a side of egg on face). It’s just the art of the possible playing out. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/74 "2016-03-16T17:08:44Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Political language usage note that I was not aware of (but probably should have been): Apparently Democrats [flip-flop](http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/curtis-houck/2016/02/16/abc-nbc-ignore-chuck-schumer-flip-flop-judicial-appointments-scalia), Republicans evolve. > > It’s a subtle but important distinction. 😉 The language was chosen intentionally to mirror [Obama’s utilization](http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/timeline-of-obamas-evolving-on-same-sex-marriage/) of the phrase. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/75 "2016-03-16T17:10:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If I were a senator, I would vote to confirm. But if you were a Republican senator, would Mitch McConnell allow you to? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/76 "2016-03-16T17:10:27Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > This is kind of my feeling too, but it depends on what “winning” means for the Republicans. They want another Scalia, but they got a moderate (with a side of egg on face). It’s just the art of the possible playing out. [According to the NYT](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/16/us/politics/garland-supreme-court-nomination.html), he’s in-line with the current SC “liberal bloc”. That doesn’t sound like a win for the Republicans. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/77 "2016-03-16T17:21:37Z")
> [@Caldazar](#): > > Indeed. Don’t really understand where McConnell’s head is at. I agree with some posters here that there was an easy way out here for the “won’t confirm any Obama nominee on principle” senators, without appearing as though they are “caving”: > > - Of course we had to take a stand on principle, have you seen all the disastrous decisions Obama has made over past 7 years? He’s been ruining America, why should this time to be any different? > - Obviously, Obama’s is, yet again, engaging in petty politics with this nomination, and attempting to divide the nation along party lines. > - Nevertheless, even a broken clock is correct twice a day. Despite President Obama’s devious motivations, Merrick Garland is a fine judge. We should not let Obama’s poor behavior tarnish Garland’s reputation. We’ll take Judge Garland into consideration as a potential candidate for the vacancy. > > If those senators want to wait a bit to see how the GOP nomination shakes out, fine. If they just want to get on with it and put in the rear-view mirror, okay. But it seems to me like they had an easy way to save face and pander to their base. Hell, they could have even spun it as a win: We forced the president’s hand and averted the nomination of a liberal justice. Hooray for us Republicans! They have really backed themselves into a corner, and then filled the room with alligators and set the whole thing on fire. ---
**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 16, 2016, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/78 "2016-03-16T17:23:09Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Garland is an anti-2nd Amendment judge. Therefore, I don’t consider him to be qualified for the Supremes Fortunately for the nation, **doorhinge** ’s approval is not among the constitutional qualifications. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/79 "2016-03-16T17:32:23Z")
And now, [Hatch’s statement on why the man he said should be nominated to the Supreme Court shouldn’t be nominated to the Supreme Court.](http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ID=6D07239A-7E03-4B2D-8A88-BC59A6FFF7BB) ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/80 "2016-03-16T17:36:58Z")
Of the two items identified as anti-gun, the NRA vs. Reno case doesn’t seem persuasive. This was essentially a Chevron analysis and the reasoning in the majority opinion seems sound to me. I’d have preferred the decision go the other way, but the opinion itself could have been written by Scalia. The vote to re-hear Parker en banc is more damning. Merrick wouldn’t be my pick, but I’m not sure if there is a more likely alternative that would be. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160.md?page=5)