Obama nominates Judge Merrick Garland to the SCOTUS.

[Bricker]

@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. 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 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.