The Merrill Garland Supreme Court Nominee Megathread

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
82,765
Likes
70,402
Garland is a centrist

Translated: that means there's a good chance of him being an RKBA hating douchebag. He might even be a decent judge otherwise but for this position anyone that isn't firmly in support of the constitution is unacceptable. I don't even care much about how they vote outside of that, but having jurists who waffle on the bill of rights is unacceptable.

-Mike
 

GM-GUY

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
12,266
Likes
11,274
Location
North Central Mass
Chucky Schumer says the Rs will cave again............


THIS !!!!!!

So does Harry Reid and even members of the GOP Caucus - that's all they do.


All they had to say was that they would review the pick and schedule as time allowed during this busy election season. They made a statement - much like all the others they make, it won't be held to. Just like Ryan-O said he wouldn't do anything on immigration until the next President is elected. He already funded 0bama's EO's and elections happen in November - plenty of time to push through amnesty between November and January.
 
Last edited:

GM-GUY

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
12,266
Likes
11,274
Location
North Central Mass
The Lower Courts would have to hear a case that is on point, and go against Heller and then the Supreme Court would have to hear the case and side with the Lower Courts. It would take years at the earliest, and Courts usually do not take up 'Settled Law' but the definition of that is flexible. Settled for liberal causes is in stone, for conservative/Constitutional is in pencil.
 

pastera

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
8,381
Likes
9,397
Location
Taunton
So, I'm a relative newbie to gun ownership and the pro 2A fight. Realistically, what happens is D.C vs. Heller is over turned?

The cat can't be put back in the box - The question of whether the 2nd is an individual or corporate right is answered by Heller as being an individual right and therefore "shall not be infringed"
If Heller is overturned, the 2nd is relegated to a corporate right that is held in totality by the state and federal government. That would be the end of the right to private ownership of firearms.
 

kevin9

NES Member
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
14,325
Likes
15,449
Location
Toy Town

DC petitioned the appeals court for a rehearing en banc.
Not surprising they would appeal a 2 to 1 decision. Garland simply voted to rehear it. Majority voted against it. DC then appealed to SCOTUS who granted cert. A rehearing en banc would be normal for a controversial case and obviously SCOTUS agreed because they took it after the appeals court passed on it.

Read the briefs and get back to us.

Again, why do you think Garland wanted the case reheard, if he agreed with the panel decision? Logic would indicated he did not agree with the panel decision. Couple that with his early position on NRA v.s. Reno, where he voted with the majority to allow the FBI to retain NICS records for 6 months, and I do not trust him on 2A. Why take the chance.
 
Rating - 100%
14   0   0
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
1,289
Likes
567
Location
East Boston
Again, why do you think Garland wanted the case reheard, if he agreed with the panel decision? Logic would indicated he did not agree with the panel decision. Couple that with his early position on NRA v.s. Reno, where he voted with the majority to allow the FBI to retain NICS records for 6 months, and I do not trust him on 2A. Why take the chance.

Speculating is not logic. I am guessing he voted to rehear the case for the same reason SCOTUS did. It involved a controversial area of constitutional law. Again, DC requested the en banc rehearing so it is reasonable to assume his vote was nothing more than providing them an opportunity to be heard which is consistent with his stated philosophy of everyone deserves to be heard.

If the Senate holds a hearing these questions will be answered and we won't have to speculate. A hearing doesn't mean they have to give consent.
 

ToddDubya

NES Member
Rating - 100%
17   0   0
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
17,834
Likes
22,289
Location
Berkshires
The Elephant Man for SCOTUS

Maybe it's just me but every time I see this guy's name I think "Oooh all them crazy elephant bones" from the Barenaked Ladies song "If I had $1M".


Elephant-Man-01.jpg
 

Dadstoys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
18,851
Likes
19,730
Location
North Shore
Speculating is not logic. I am guessing he voted to rehear the case for the same reason SCOTUS did. It involved a controversial area of constitutional law. Again, DC requested the en banc rehearing so it is reasonable to assume his vote was nothing more than providing them an opportunity to be heard which is consistent with his stated philosophy of everyone deserves to be heard.

If the Senate holds a hearing these questions will be answered and we won't have to speculate. A hearing doesn't mean they have to give consent.

Sotomayor said she had no pre formed opinions on 2A at her hearing as well.
How's that working for us?
You don't actually expect him to say what he really thinks when it's Republicans holding his nomination in their hands do you?
[rofl][rofl][rofl][rofl]
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
13,688
Likes
15,044
Location
Right behind you.
Remember, Obama was the editor of the Harvard Law Review yet never wrote a legal brief. If he is such a genius, why haven't his college transcripts ever been released?

not for nothing, but who came up with this idea that people have to release their college transcripts? Not that I'll ever run for POTUS but if I did I'd tell anyone that wanted my transcripts to lick my grundle.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
82,765
Likes
70,402
If Heller is overturned, the 2nd is relegated to a corporate right that is held in totality by the state and federal government. That would be the end of the right to private ownership of firearms.

I doubt it will be overturned but the real danger is that if the court gets shutdown by becoming unbalanced we won't be doing a lot of further refinement with regards to cases that are actually worthy of being brought there. It could be a significant setback for the movement for a long ass time.

-Mike
 

pastera

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
8,381
Likes
9,397
Location
Taunton
Speculating is not logic. I am guessing he voted to rehear the case for the same reason SCOTUS did. It involved a controversial area of constitutional law. Again, DC requested the en banc rehearing so it is reasonable to assume his vote was nothing more than providing them an opportunity to be heard which is consistent with his stated philosophy of everyone deserves to be heard.

If the Senate holds a hearing these questions will be answered and we won't have to speculate. A hearing doesn't mean they have to give consent.
No, it is not reasonable to believe he simply wanted DC to be able to be heard.

He had access to all of the information from the case so he didn't need to sit on the bench to get any information.
If he agreed with the panel's decision, he simply needed to do nothing and the ruling would stand.

The only situation where action was necessary is if he disagreed with the panel and would like to right a wrong as he saw fit.

Logic dictates that he took action because he disagreed with Heller.

That places him squarely in the anti category.

No amount of dreaming about rainbows and unicorns can change it, his very shallow history is strictly prohibitionist toward the 2nd.

Sent from my C6530 using Tapatalk
 

LittleCalm

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
3,739
Likes
2,415
Location
NH
To jpk's last point, worst case is that the issue is left to the states but the scotus will have sanctioned limitations on 2A that can also be implemented through federal legislation. The right answer - consistent with 1A - is not to allow the fed govt or the states to infringe at all.
 

kevin9

NES Member
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
14,325
Likes
15,449
Location
Toy Town
Speculating is not logic. I am guessing ...
Which means you admit your interpretation is no more, or less reasonable, than mine. However, my interpretation is based on his actions in the prior case, NRA v.s. Reno. Neither case is absolutely definitive, but together they suggest a leaning against 2A. Again, I am not willing to take that chance.

If the Senate holds a hearing these questions will be answered and we won't have to speculate. A hearing doesn't mean they have to give consent.
Yeah right. The current convention of dodging any but the most nebulous questions, practiced by nominees with the tact approval of the Senate, makes the hearings effectively useless.

Based on what you currently know, do you support Galand's nomination? Why, or why not?
 

JJ4

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
3,017
Likes
1,549
Location
South Central MA
NES you're failing me on this one. I usually rely on your collective internet wisdom to form my opinion. Am I supposed to dislike this guy or what?

Here's what I gathered so far:
- Obama picked him so it can't be good.
- He voted to rehear the Heller (or similar?) case.
- The above possibly indicates he's anti-gun.
- Or it indicates that he wanted the supreme court to weigh in on the issue.


The other issue in this thread "would he vote to overturn Heller" is a big question. I suppose his potential actions and thoughts on the issue could be broken down into:
- Heller is precedent / settled law" / "stare decisis" or whatever it's called. It's very rare for the SC to overturn a recent precedent. Is he the kind of guy who respects that, or is he an activist judge?
- Heller could be boxed in. Would he look at the "in the home" precedent as the limits of RKBA? This is the real danger and open question, in my opinion, that the "bear arms" part of 2A would be restricted to the home.

I assume we'll find answers to the first question, but I doubt we'll get a clear idea on the second one.
 
Rating - 100%
14   0   0
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
1,289
Likes
567
Location
East Boston
Which means you admit your interpretation is no more, or less reasonable, than mine. However, my interpretation is based on his actions in the prior case, NRA v.s. Reno. Neither case is absolutely definitive, but together they suggest a leaning against 2A. Again, I am not willing to take that chance.
Yeah right. The current convention of dodging any but the most nebulous questions, practiced by nominees with the tact approval of the Senate, makes the hearings effectively useless.
Based on what you currently know, do you support Galand's nomination? Why, or why not?

I acknowledge insufficient information at this point to form an opinion regarding Garland's thoughts on 2A. I am confident the Senate would not vote to confirm until they know what makes him tick. They are NOT going to allow bullshit answers. As I have said before I support his nomination, he is a respected jurist, but I don't support his confirmation until questions about his approach to constitutional questions are answered.

I believe Trump will garner enough delegates and will be the R nominee. I also believe Sanders is toast and the bitch will be the D nominee. It is entirely conceivable that Trump will do something incredibly stupid between now and Nov. and lose the election. Ginsberg is being propped up with sticks so the next Pres will probably be replacing her.

If the Senate refuses to allow hearings, then the independents will be PO'd to the point where they may support the D's en masse and throw the election if Trump doesn't and probably give the Senate back to the Dems. That would give the Dems 2 SCOTUS picks and the Senate. Very high risk scenario.

I support confirmation hearings. I fail to see any risk at all. They can always vote no.
 

kevin9

NES Member
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
14,325
Likes
15,449
Location
Toy Town
NES you're failing me on this one. I usually rely on your collective internet wisdom to form my opinion. Am I supposed to dislike this guy or what?

Here's what I gathered so far:
- Obama picked him so it can't be good.
- He voted to rehear the Heller (or similar?) case.
- The above possibly indicates he's anti-gun.
- Or it indicates that he wanted the supreme court to weigh in on the issue.
In response:
  • There is considerable skepticism towards anyone Barry would nominate
  • Heller and Parker were 2 of several plaintiffs on the case most people refer to as "Heller". Garland voted to have the full Court of Appeals rehear the case after a 3 judge panel of the Appeals Court found in favor of the plaintiffs. The case was appealed to the SCOTUS after the motion to rehear failed 6 to 4.
  • That, plus his earlier vote in NRA vs Reno to allow the FBI to continue retaining NICS records for 6 months
  • Could be, but why chance it.
The other issue in this thread "would he vote to overturn Heller" is a big question. I suppose his potential actions and thoughts on the issue could be broken down into:
- Heller is precedent / settled law" / "stare decisis" or whatever it's called. It's very rare for the SC to overturn a recent precedent. Is he the kind of guy who respects that, or is he an activist judge?
- Heller could be boxed in. Would he look at the "in the home" precedent as the limits of RKBA? This is the real danger and open question, in my opinion, that the "bear arms" part of 2A would be restricted to the home.

I assume we'll find answers to the first question, but I doubt we'll get a clear idea on the second one.
If he gets a hearing, I predict he'll answer yes to the first question. I cannot remember a recent appointee who has said otherwise. It would be suicide to answer any other way.

I think he is likely to lean toward the later position; It's "settled" law, but subject to "reasonable restrictions". That's been the effective position of the 2 justices Obama has already appointed. But he won't say even that during confirmation. Confirmations have become all fluff and Kabuki, no substance.
 
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
8,922
Likes
1,395
Location
in a building
Translated: that means there's a good chance of him being an RKBA hating douchebag. He might even be a decent judge otherwise but for this position anyone that isn't firmly in support of the constitution is unacceptable. I don't even care much about how they vote outside of that, but having jurists who waffle on the bill of rights is unacceptable.

-Mike
As I explained to a liberal friend, SCOTUS justices who aren't originalists or strict constitutionalists are pretty useless as a check and balance against the executive and legislative branches. If they aren't willing to apply the Constitution, the entire difficulty of the amendment process is pointless
 

MetalgodZ

NES Member
Rating - 100%
15   0   0
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
3,040
Likes
426
Location
central MA
Rating - 100%
14   0   0
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
1,289
Likes
567
Location
East Boston
As I explained to a liberal friend, SCOTUS justices who aren't originalists or strict constitutionalists are pretty useless as a check and balance against the executive and legislative branches. If they aren't willing to apply the Constitution, the entire difficulty of the amendment process is pointless

So it is your opinion that putting Scalia on the bench was a mistake?
"I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be" Antonin Scalia, 1998


As an originalist you believe schools should never have been desegregated because there is nothing in the constitution regarding that. You must believe there is no right to free speech on the internet because the internet didn't exist. Obviously the government has no right to search your iPhone because that didn't exist. You are against minimum wage laws and child labor laws as the constitution is silent on those matters.

If someone is charged with a crime it is your theory that they should not have a lawyer unless they can afford one. Nothing in the constitution about the right to a lawyer if you're poor. If the police illegally break into your house you believe they should be allowed to use in court whatever they find. Can't find anything in the constitution about suppressing evidence. Why should the police say you have right to remain silent. Where exactly does the constitution confer that right?

The term originalist or strict constitutionalist is simply another term for Sharia Law and McConnell et al want to appoint Mullah's to the Court because there is no need for Justices. Hard to believe US Senators won't even meet Chief Justice Garland because he is not carrying a copy of the Quran under his arm. Senate becomes more dysfunctional by the day. Whatever happened to public Yes/No votes?
 
Last edited:

kevin9

NES Member
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
14,325
Likes
15,449
Location
Toy Town
So it is your opinion that putting Scalia on the bench was a mistake?
"I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be" Antonin Scalia, 1998
Browncoat used the term "constitutionalist", not "constructionalist". The terms have different meanings and are not synonymous:
Constitutionalist: an advocate of constitutional government
Strict Constructionist: one who favors a strict construction of the Constitution of the United States

Scalia was an originalist and strict constitutionalist, but as you quote, he was not a strict constructionalist.

As an originalist you believe schools should never have been desegregated because there is nothing in the constitution regarding that. You must believe there is no right to free speech on the internet because the internet didn't exist. Obviously the government has no right to search your iPhone because that didn't exist. You are against minimum wage laws and child labor laws as the constitution is silent on those matters.

If someone is charged with a crime it is your theory that they should not have a lawyer unless they can afford one. Nothing in the constitution about the right to a lawyer if you're poor. If the police illegally break into your house you believe they should be allowed to use in court whatever they find. Can't find anything in the constitution about suppressing evidence. Why should the police say you have right to remain silent. Where exactly does the constitution confer that right?

The term originalist or strict constitutionalist is simply another term for Sharia Law and McConnell et al want to appoint Mullah's to the Court because there is no need for Justices. Hard to believe US Senators won't even meet Chief Justice Garland because he is not carrying a copy of the Quran under his arm. Senate becomes more dysfunctional by the day. Whatever happened to public Yes/No votes?
You are equating originalism to strict constructionalism. The two are not the same. As I have read and understand it strict constructionalism would often (always?) prevent extrapolation of the Constitution to legal topics on which it is explicitly silent, but originalism does allow extrapolation to other topics based on the original meaning of the text.
 
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
8,922
Likes
1,395
Location
in a building
Browncoat used the term "constitutionalist", not "constructionalist". The terms have different meanings and are not synonymous:
Constitutionalist: an advocate of constitutional government
Strict Constructionist: one who favors a strict construction of the Constitution of the United States

Scalia was an originalist and strict constitutionalist, but as you quote, he was not a strict constructionalist.


You are equating originalism to strict constructionalism. The two are not the same. As I have read and understand it strict constructionalism would often (always?) prevent extrapolation of the Constitution to legal topics on which it is explicitly silent, but originalism does allow extrapolation to other topics based on the original meaning of the text.
This. Couldn't have said it better. If anything, I would have been happy for Scalia to go further. The purpose of the Constitution is to define and limit government. Scalia sided against things like the need to read Miranda rights when I think he should have upheld them as a consistent limit on government coercion.
 
Top Bottom