Obama nominates Merrick Garland

hoffse

He's CJ of the DC Circuit.  Looks like he has experience as a prosecutor (which would be good since he's seen trial-level work), and he's an antitrust and admin law expert.  The Supreme Court needs more of those, because that's the bulk of the cases that come before them with the expansion of the executive branch through agencies.  FYI, Scalia was also an admin law expert. 

I'm going to try to get the scoop on him from clerks I know at the DC Circuit, but his resume is stellar, and he appears to be more than qualified.  

This will be interesting to watch.

short+sassy

Thanks for the info.  I did a quick Wiki look and found it interesting he was shortlisted in 2010, but Obama ultimately chose Justice Kagan.

emily1004

He's speaking right now, you can watch CBS online.

BlueBirdMB

I don't know anything about him.  I'll be curious to hear more about him.

catsareniice1

I find It interesting that the left does not seem to remember some of their favorites, like Joe Biden, and Obama both did not believe that a president should be able to nominate a justice in the last 18 months in office.

But, for some reason they have changed their mind? I wonder what could have caused that?

catsareniice1

Why do you think he's pushing for this anti-gun judge to be on SCOTUS? It's so this guy can do Obama and Hillary's dirty work on gun control so he and his brain dead leftist zombies can say "See...we told you Obama wasn't coming for your gun"...this OTHER guy is.

We have the 2d Amendment, if he is against the 2d Amendment and Anti-Constitutional, then he is unqualified for the position. WHAT ARE WE DOING NOMINATING A SUPREME COURT JUDGE THAT IS ANTI CONSTITUTIONAL?? WE ARE TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION!

The American people are so dumbed down (I don't like the expression, but at least the low info types can understand it) that if the SCOTUS declared the Second Amendment to be unconstitutional, they would meekly accept it and not question it.

BlueBirdMB

catsareniice1 said:

Why do you think he's pushing for this anti-gun judge to be on SCOTUS? It's so this guy can do Obama and Hillary's dirty work on gun control so he and his brain dead leftist zombies can say "See...we told you Obama wasn't coming for your gun"...this OTHER guy is.

We have the 2d Amendment, if he is against the 2d Amendment and Anti-Constitutional, then he is unqualified for the position. WHAT ARE WE DOING NOMINATING A SUPREME COURT JUDGE THAT IS ANTI CONSTITUTIONAL?? WE ARE TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION!

The American people are so dumbed down (I don't like the expression, but at least the low info types can understand it) that if the SCOTUS declared the Second Amendment to be unconstitutional, they would meekly accept it and not question it.

I actually completely disagree with this.  I think the country would be up in arms if we actually revoked the second amendment.  I think we would meekly accept subtle changes to the second amendment, refusing to see how changes could undermine the original intentions of the second amendment. 

I can't comment much on this judge because I don't know much about him.  I'll reserve my judgement for later.

catsareniice1

BlueBirdMB said:

catsareniice1 said:

Why do you think he's pushing for this anti-gun judge to be on SCOTUS? It's so this guy can do Obama and Hillary's dirty work on gun control so he and his brain dead leftist zombies can say "See...we told you Obama wasn't coming for your gun"...this OTHER guy is.

We have the 2d Amendment, if he is against the 2d Amendment and Anti-Constitutional, then he is unqualified for the position. WHAT ARE WE DOING NOMINATING A SUPREME COURT JUDGE THAT IS ANTI CONSTITUTIONAL?? WE ARE TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION!

The American people are so dumbed down (I don't like the expression, but at least the low info types can understand it) that if the SCOTUS declared the Second Amendment to be unconstitutional, they would meekly accept it and not question it.

I actually completely disagree with this.  I think the country would be up in arms if we actually revoked the second amendment.  I think we would meekly accept subtle changes to the second amendment, refusing to see how changes could undermine the original intentions of the second amendment. 

I can't comment much on this judge because I don't know much about him.  I'll reserve my judgement for later.

You might be right! Just seems like so many people are in their own world lately.

hoffse

catsareniice1 said:

Why do you think he's pushing for this anti-gun judge to be on SCOTUS? It's so this guy can do Obama and Hillary's dirty work on gun control so he and his brain dead leftist zombies can say "See...we told you Obama wasn't coming for your gun"...this OTHER guy is.

We have the 2d Amendment, if he is against the 2d Amendment and Anti-Constitutional, then he is unqualified for the position. WHAT ARE WE DOING NOMINATING A SUPREME COURT JUDGE THAT IS ANTI CONSTITUTIONAL?? WE ARE TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION!

The American people are so dumbed down (I don't like the expression, but at least the low info types can understand it) that if the SCOTUS declared the Second Amendment to be unconstitutional, they would meekly accept it and not question it.

OK whoa.  Slow down for a second.  2A is part of the Constitution.  Unless and until there is an amendment revoking it (think prohibition), it's in the Constitution, and there is not a judge in this country who would declare something that's actually in the Constitution (and we are talking literally here) unconstitutional.  I'm including Alabama's esteemed Roy Moore in that group, even though he's crazy and was forcibly removed from the bench before he got elected again.  Even he wouldn't go so far.

So calm down for a second and take a step back.  There's every chance Heller will be limited to some degree with Scalia gone.  But Scalia went through some pretty serious linguistic gymnastics to completely ignore the clause that precedes the part that everybody loves to quote.  The second amendment - in its entirety - reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  Everybody seems to conveniently forget about the first clause in that sentence, and Scalia had a great long grammatical explanation as to why it's not relevant.

I liked Scalia a lot, but this was not one of his better opinions IMO.  The biggest problem with it is it created a slippery slope and opened up arguments for future cases that people should be able to carry guns wherever and whenever they feel like it - and government restrictions on them should be minimal or nonexistent.

I doubt Heller will be overruled entirely, but it might be limited in the future, and frankly, I think it needs to be.  There's absolutely nothing in 2A granting the right to bear semi-automatic weapons.  There's absolutely nothing prohibiting background checks to make sure felons and mentally unstable people have difficulty acquiring them.  I'm sorry, but the fact that getting a driver's license is harder than getting a gun in most states is ridiculous.  

I will also add that a SCOTUS judge's job is to interpret both the Constitution and ALL FEDERAL LAW.  We are talking criminal codes, tax codes, administrative law codes and regulations. That is thousands upon thousands of pages of laws and regs.  Despite what the media would have you believe, their job is not limited to deciding cases on gay marriage, abortion, and the second amendment.

short+sassy

hoffse said:

catsareniice1 said:

Why do you think he's pushing for this anti-gun judge to be on SCOTUS? It's so this guy can do Obama and Hillary's dirty work on gun control so he and his brain dead leftist zombies can say "See...we told you Obama wasn't coming for your gun"...this OTHER guy is.

We have the 2d Amendment, if he is against the 2d Amendment and Anti-Constitutional, then he is unqualified for the position. WHAT ARE WE DOING NOMINATING A SUPREME COURT JUDGE THAT IS ANTI CONSTITUTIONAL?? WE ARE TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION!

The American people are so dumbed down (I don't like the expression, but at least the low info types can understand it) that if the SCOTUS declared the Second Amendment to be unconstitutional, they would meekly accept it and not question it.

OK whoa.  Slow down for a second.  2A is part of the Constitution.  Unless and until there is an amendment revoking it (think prohibition), it's in the Constitution, and there is not a judge in this country who would declare something that's actually in the Constitution (and we are talking literally here) unconstitutional.  I'm including Alabama's esteemed Roy Moore in that group, even though he's crazy and was forcibly removed from the bench before he got elected again.  Even he wouldn't go so far.

So calm down for a second and take a step back.  There's every chance Heller will be limited to some degree with Scalia gone.  But Scalia went through some pretty serious linguistic gymnastics to completely ignore the clause that precedes the part that everybody loves to quote.  The second amendment - in its entirety - reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  Everybody seems to conveniently forget about the first clause in that sentence, and Scalia had a great long grammatical explanation as to why it's not relevant.

I liked Scalia a lot, but this was not one of his better opinions IMO.  The biggest problem with it is it created a slippery slope and opened up arguments for future cases that people should be able to carry guns wherever and whenever they feel like it - and government restrictions on them should be minimal or nonexistent.

I doubt Heller will be overruled entirely, but it might be limited in the future, and frankly, I think it needs to be.  There's absolutely nothing in 2A granting the right to bear semi-automatic weapons.  There's absolutely nothing prohibiting background checks to make sure felons and mentally unstable people have difficulty acquiring them.  I'm sorry, but the fact that getting a driver's license is harder than getting a gun in most states is ridiculous.  

I will also add that a SCOTUS judge's job is to interpret both the Constitution and ALL FEDERAL LAW.  We are talking criminal codes, tax codes, administrative law codes and regulations. That is thousands upon thousands of pages of laws and regs.  Despite what the media would have you believe, their job is not limited to deciding cases on gay marriage, abortion, and the second amendment.

I'm a reasonably intelligent person, but I'll admit I really have no idea the topics of cases SCOTUS usually hears.  Because the vast majority aren't "sexy, controversial" topics, like gay marriage, abortion, and gun control.  Hence, they get no press coverage.

This post made me curious how many cases per year they hear and here is what I found:

"The Court’s caseload has increased steadily to a current total of more than 7,000 cases on the docket per Term. ... Plenary review, with oral arguments by attorneys, is granted in about 100 cases per Term. Formal written opinions are delivered in 80–90 cases. Approximately 50–60 additional cases are disposed of without granting plenary review...."

smerka

catsareniice1 said:

I find It interesting that the left does not seem to remember some of their favorites, like Joe Biden, and Obama both did not believe that a president should be able to nominate a justice in the last 18 months in office.

But, for some reason they have changed their mind? I wonder what could have caused that?

They weren't right either. Congress NEEDS to give the nominee an up or down vote. Period. I could see saying a true lame duck President (as Obama will be after the elections in November) shouldn't nominate someone, but seriously almost a year until he leaves office - vote on the nominee. If the Republicans block it, they deserve to lose the Congress and the Presidency.

hoffse

short+sassy said:

I'm a reasonably intelligent person, but I'll admit I really have no idea the topics of cases SCOTUS usually hears.  Because the vast majority aren't "sexy, controversial" topics, like gay marriage, abortion, and gun control.  Hence, they get no press coverage.

This post made me curious how many cases per year they hear and here is what I found:

"The Court’s caseload has increased steadily to a current total of more than 7,000 cases on the docket per Term. ... Plenary review, with oral arguments by attorneys, is granted in about 100 cases per Term. Formal written opinions are delivered in 80–90 cases. Approximately 50–60 additional cases are disposed of without granting plenary review...."

***************************SIB*******************

Yes, they decide a tiny number of cases each year. That's why I think district court and appellate appointments are actually more important - they have the final say in thousands of cases each year, and the Supreme Court has the final say in fewer than 200 most years.  

Of those cases, the media is probably going to report on fewer than 10 of them.  The rest are honestly pretty boring, and they don't make for good click-bait.

I think it's incredibly important to have several judges on the bench who can handle administrative law.  Admin covers every federal agency out there, and it's really technical and dry stuff, and the topics are incredibly varied.  Most agency work is accomplished through regulations, and there is so much of it that it's often poorly written or internally inconsistent.  Any given year the same 9 judges might have to address questions that come up with respect to tax, social security, FDA regulations, the EPA, securities, etc.  This is on top of the classic constitutional stuff like equal protection or the first amendment.  To make it even harder, most of the stuff they do on the admin side gets coupled with a constitutional question.

It's really difficult stuff.

hoffse

smerka said:

catsareniice1 said:

I find It interesting that the left does not seem to remember some of their favorites, like Joe Biden, and Obama both did not believe that a president should be able to nominate a justice in the last 18 months in office.

But, for some reason they have changed their mind? I wonder what could have caused that?

They weren't right either. Congress NEEDS to give the nominee an up or down vote. Period. I could see saying a true lame duck President (as Obama will be after the elections in November) shouldn't nominate someone, but seriously almost a year until he leaves office - vote on the nominee. If the Republicans block it, they deserve to lose the Congress and the Presidency.

I agree with this.  Having uncertainty on the court is a huge issue.

Also, Obama has nominated over 300 judges while he's been in office.  Two of them have been to the Supreme Court.  America has not collapsed.

I get the play here, but the judicial system gets backlogged when there are vacancies, and Republicans didn't seem to have an issue approving the other 300+ judges he put forward.

formerlyGDaisy09

hoffse said:

catsareniice1 said:

Why do you think he's pushing for this anti-gun judge to be on SCOTUS? It's so this guy can do Obama and Hillary's dirty work on gun control so he and his brain dead leftist zombies can say "See...we told you Obama wasn't coming for your gun"...this OTHER guy is.

We have the 2d Amendment, if he is against the 2d Amendment and Anti-Constitutional, then he is unqualified for the position. WHAT ARE WE DOING NOMINATING A SUPREME COURT JUDGE THAT IS ANTI CONSTITUTIONAL?? WE ARE TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION!

The American people are so dumbed down (I don't like the expression, but at least the low info types can understand it) that if the SCOTUS declared the Second Amendment to be unconstitutional, they would meekly accept it and not question it.

OK whoa.  Slow down for a second.  2A is part of the Constitution.  Unless and until there is an amendment revoking it (think prohibition), it's in the Constitution, and there is not a judge in this country who would declare something that's actually in the Constitution (and we are talking literally here) unconstitutional.  I'm including Alabama's esteemed Roy Moore in that group, even though he's crazy and was forcibly removed from the bench before he got elected again.  Even he wouldn't go so far.

So calm down for a second and take a step back.  There's every chance Heller will be limited to some degree with Scalia gone.  But Scalia went through some pretty serious linguistic gymnastics to completely ignore the clause that precedes the part that everybody loves to quote.  The second amendment - in its entirety - reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  Everybody seems to conveniently forget about the first clause in that sentence, and Scalia had a great long grammatical explanation as to why it's not relevant.

I liked Scalia a lot, but this was not one of his better opinions IMO.  The biggest problem with it is it created a slippery slope and opened up arguments for future cases that people should be able to carry guns wherever and whenever they feel like it - and government restrictions on them should be minimal or nonexistent.

I doubt Heller will be overruled entirely, but it might be limited in the future, and frankly, I think it needs to be.  There's absolutely nothing in 2A granting the right to bear semi-automatic weapons.  There's absolutely nothing prohibiting background checks to make sure felons and mentally unstable people have difficulty acquiring them.  I'm sorry, but the fact that getting a driver's license is harder than getting a gun in most states is ridiculous.  

I will also add that a SCOTUS judge's job is to interpret both the Constitution and ALL FEDERAL LAW.  We are talking criminal codes, tax codes, administrative law codes and regulations. That is thousands upon thousands of pages of laws and regs.  Despite what the media would have you believe, their job is not limited to deciding cases on gay marriage, abortion, and the second amendment.

Thank you for this! My H comes from a relatively under-educated/low SES family his family's voting record is driven mainly by gun-rights issues (all the guns all the time; his dad drives to visit from AL because he conceal carries at all times, and therefore cannot fly). They always think most the candidates I support want to abolish the 2nd ammendment, drives me nuts! I'm totally in support of responsible gun ownership, we live in hunting country, by all means responsibly own guns and go shoot your dinner; but if you need an AK47 to down a deer, you're not a very good hunter!