# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/101 "2016-03-16T19:07:18Z")
A little disappointed, but Garland is a good judge and should be confirmed. Besides, he’s older than the usual. He could be gone in as little as 15 years. As a libertarian though he’s not what I was hoping for. He’s a John Paul Stevens type, generally pro-government, with the concerns liberals have about him mainly having to do with his pro-prosecution bent. There’s just nothing here for libertarians to like. I’d rather have a Brennan/Marshall-type liberal, but Obama hasn’t appointed one of those yet. He likes justices who won’t mess with his executive prerogatives first and foremost. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/102 "2016-03-16T19:09:08Z")
> [@](#): > > Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell insisted on Wednesday that the Republican choice not to consider Garland — the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — was nothing personal. > > “The American people may well elect a President who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration. The next president may also nominate someone very different,” McConnell (R-Ky.) said on Wednesday. “Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy.” The problem Senator, is that the American people _already_ elected a President who decided to nominate Judge Garland. This can’t end well for the Republicans. meep-meep ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/103 "2016-03-16T19:13:07Z")
They also elected a Senate which has to confirm nominees. The election argument is a poor one. Plus it ignores a little Political Science 101 concept called “political capital”, which basically says that unpopular Presidents don’t usually get their way. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/104 "2016-03-16T19:15:24Z")
> [@Caldazar](#): > > Agreed, but I think the GOP could have spun it so it doesn’t look like a compromise at all, and so avoid a problem entirely. Nope. If Obama wants something, then they MUST be entirely against it. The cannot agree with him on ANYthing. At all. Ever. [QUOTE=Procrustus] The problem Senator, is that the American people already elected a President who decided to nominate Judge Garland. [/QUOTE] I think the Republicans are still in denial that Obama was even elected the first time. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/105 "2016-03-16T19:17:38Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > They also elected a Senate which has to confirm nominees. The election argument is a poor one. Plus it ignores a little Political Science 101 concept called “political capital”, which basically says that unpopular Presidents don’t usually get their way. Obama is only unpopular among the far-rabid right wing. The ones who hate him with the passion of a thousand exploding suns, and will never do anything that he proposes, ever. If Obama yelled at them that their house was burning down, and they should probably think of evacuating, they would sit on the couch denying there was a fire until they burned to death. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/106 "2016-03-16T19:20:15Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > They also elected a Senate which has to confirm nominees. The election argument is a poor one. Plus it ignores a little Political Science 101 concept called “political capital”, which basically says that unpopular Presidents don’t usually get their way. They’re not, however, making the argument that the Senate gets to block it. They’re \*trying \*to make the argument that “we should see who the American people elect as president first.” We already know that. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/107 "2016-03-16T19:22:33Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Obama is only unpopular among the far-rabid right wing. The ones who hate him with the passion of a thousand exploding suns, and will never do anything that he proposes, ever. That’s not really true. The right wing only makes up at most, 40% of voters, and I’m being generous there by going with self described conservatives. Obama is unpopular because he’s lost a lot more than right-wing voters. His popularity is definitely on the upswing though, at 49%, so he’s getting closer to the point where opposing him could actually have consequences. But assuming he falls back to his normal range of about 45% or so, opposing his nominee is a risk free proposition for Republicans. It keeps their base happy and only really angers Democrats. Independents will mostly say “meh”, since they don’t like Obama or the Republicans. Plus the case can be made that Obama could have done better at picking a moderate. Garland was the most liberal person on his short list, which tells me that the short list was mainly to make it seem like he’d pick someone more conservative. In the end, his pitch to conservatives is that Garland is a white dude and tough on criminals. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/108 "2016-03-16T19:23:47Z")
If McConnell’s argument was that the current Senate was somehow too incompetent to hold hearings and our best bet was to wait for voters to bring in a new senate, then the “Ho ho! The Senate is elected TOO!” argument would have some weight. But that’s not McConnell’s argument. His argument is that _the president_ shouldn’t be nominating people because it’s too late in _the president’s_ term and people should get to pick a new president first. Fortunately, it’s likely that we will get a new Senate, in part since this one can’t manage to do their jobs and McConnell will spend his time as leader of the minority party wishing he had confirmed Garland instead of Clinton’s pick. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/109 "2016-03-16T19:25:25Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > They’re not, however, making the argument that the Senate gets to block it. They’re \*trying \*to make the argument that “we should see who the American people elect as president first.” We already know that. If we assume that the President has no political capital left, that the public is already looking ahead to the next President and doesn’t really care about Obama anymore, the Republican strategy makes sense. It’s still wrong, mainly due to the precedent it sets and the risk of an even more unpalatable nominee being presented to them after the election. The odds right now look really bad. Not so much because Clinton would be favored, but because Donald Trump can’t be relied on to make a good conservative pick. Historically, Republicans who are not movement conservatives have made very poor choices for the court in terms of ideology. Nixon and Bush 41 both unintentionally put liberals on the court and there’s pretty much no chance that Donald Trump has any idea what a conservative judge looks like. So as of right now, the most likely outcome is a judge who is worse for Republicans than Garland. So just approve the guy and move on. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/110 "2016-03-16T19:27:22Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > But assuming he falls back to his normal range of about 45% or so, opposing his nominee is a risk free proposition for Republicans. Except for all the vulnerable blue/purple state Republicans up for re-election who are facing deep approval holes and where voters feel 2:1 that the Senate should be giving Obama’s nominees a fair and real process. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/111 "2016-03-16T19:29:00Z")
THat’s just not going to be a top issue though. Jobs, national security, etc. trump process issues every time. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/112 "2016-03-16T19:31:06Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > His popularity is definitely on the upswing though, at 49%, so he’s getting closer to the point where opposing him could actually have consequences. Actually, he has been steadily moving upward - for the last 10 polls, 7 of them have him above 50%, which is not bad for a president in the last year of his term. [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.php?pres=44&sort=time&direct=DESC&Submit=DISPLAY](http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.php?pres=44&sort=time&direct=DESC&Submit=DISPLAY) Bush’s approval numbers in his last year were abysmal - in the low 30’s. [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.php?pres=43&sort=time&direct=DESC&Submit=DISPLAY](http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.php?pres=43&sort=time&direct=DESC&Submit=DISPLAY) ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/113 "2016-03-16T19:40:16Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > That’s a little strong. It’s not like Republicans would have ever nominated Garland if they really had free choice. I agree that the Republicans in their dreams wanted some Fifth Circuit conservative to replace Scalia. But that wasn’t going to happen. They had to deal with the reality that they’re facing a Democratic President who’s probably going to be replaced by another Democrat while the Republican party seems to be collapsing. But they still managed to get Obama to offer them a compromise and nominate somebody they picked. That’s the walkback right there. Hatch said Garland’s name first. So they can sell it to the base that Garland is Hatch’s choice not Obama’s. They’ll say they looked Obama in the eye and he blinked. ---
**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, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/114 "2016-03-16T19:51:02Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > That’s the walkback right there. Hatch said Garland’s name first. So they can sell it to the base that Garland is Hatch’s choice not Obama’s. They’ll say they looked Obama in the eye and he blinked. They could- that would’ve been the smart play… but [they didn’t](http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/03/mitch-mcconnell-accuses-supreme-court-merrick-garland). ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/115 "2016-03-16T19:51:06Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > 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. A three-judge panel struck down the ban, but Judge Garland wanted to reconsider that ruling. He voted with Judge David Tatel, one of the most liberal judges on that court. As Dave Kopel observed at the time, the “[t]he Tatel and Garland votes were no surprise, since they had earlier signaled their strong hostility to gun owner rights” in a previous case. Had Garland and Tatel won that vote, there’s a good chance that the Supreme Court wouldn’t have had a chance to protect the individual right to bear arms for several more years. > > Moreover, in the case mentioned earlier, Garland voted with Tatel to uphold an illegal Clinton-era regulation that created an improvised gun registration requirement. Congress prohibited federal gun registration mandates back in 1968, but as Kopel explained, the Clinton Administration had been “retaining for six months the records of lawful gun buyers from the National Instant Check System.” By storing these records, the federal government was creating an informal gun registry that violated the 1968 law. Worse still, the Clinton program even violated the 1994 law that had created the NICS system in the first place. Congress directly forbade the government from retaining background check records for law abiding citizens. > > 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](http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/432716/moderates-are-not-so-moderate-merrick-garland) > 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. > > The National Rifle Association sued, and eventually lost a 2-1 decision before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. This loss should be a caution to everyone who believes that moderate gun controls can still protect Second Amendment rights. > > Under the NICS, when a firearm purchase is made through a licensed dealer, that dealer must submit detailed information about the prospective purchaser to the FBI before the firearm is transferred. > > The NRA lawsuit argued that the law requires Instant Check records to be destroyed immediately upon “proceed” or “denial” of firearm purchase. But the FBI wants to keep that information for six months. And thanks to the use of computer backup tapes, information that is erases from a particular computer after six months may exist on backup tapes forever. > > When the NICS law was enacted in November 1993, Section 103(i)(2) made it clear that the names of firearm purchasers were not to be retained in the system: “No department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States may…use the system established under this section to establish any system for the registration of firearms (or) firearm owners…” The same prohibition against federal gun registration also appears in the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act. > > Nevertheless, Judges David S. Tatel and Merrick B. Garland, both Clinton appointees, maintained that Federal law “does not prohibit all forms of registration.” Actually, the federal statute explicitly bans any registration. > > In arguing that FBI retention of information does not constitute registration, the two Clinton-appointed judges noted that the FBI list does not contain the names of every U.S. gun-owner, and that the retention of names was not intended to be permanent. These arguments ignore the obvious fact that partial or temporary registration is still a “system of registration.” > > 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) Quite a few Republican senators must be very embarrassed that they voted for him already – Hatch, Inhofe, Coats, McCain, Roberts, and others. The NRA should cut off funding to these senators for their anti-gun record. ---
**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, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/116 "2016-03-16T20:02:37Z")
In fairness, both of the cases discussed were decided _after_ he was confirmed to the DC Circuit. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/117 "2016-03-16T20:04:27Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > They had to deal with the reality that they’re facing a Democratic President who’s probably going to be replaced by another Democrat while the Republican party seems to be collapsing. Reality is not the Republican’s strong suit at the moment. I don’t think they have even acknowledged that Obama is really the president. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/118 "2016-03-16T20:10:35Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > They also elected a Senate which has to confirm nominees. The election argument is a poor one. Plus it ignores a little Political Science 101 concept called “political capital”, which basically says that unpopular Presidents don’t usually get their way. So it is that an even less popular Senate should not have their way. IMHO to have their way the Senate should at least give him a hearing and express their reasons why they reject him, but since they are not giving him that right is clear to me that the Republican Senate’s more feeble political capital will go down the toilet. Lets throw all the rascals out!! ---
**Author:** ![Ukulele\_Ike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/df788c/32.png) [@Ukulele\_Ike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ukulele_Ike)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/119 "2016-03-16T20:11:22Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > If the appointment is stalled until the election, your choices (assume you kept your seat) the choices will be Jerry Garcia or Johnny Cochrane. Haven’t been able to shake this image yet. Jerry would have made an AWESOME Associate Justice. I can see him laying out lines of cocaine back in chambers to share with Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Talk about reaching across the aisle! ---
**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, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/120 "2016-03-16T20:14:52Z")
> [@Jophiel](#): > > Fortunately, it’s likely that we will get a new Senate, in part since this one can’t manage to do their jobs and McConnell will spend his time as leader of the minority party wishing he had confirmed Garland instead of Clinton’s pick. Exactly. Justice Elizabeth Warren FTW. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160.md?page=7)