Obama makes Supreme Court nomination

[Morphine Prince 109,683]

Washington (CNN) - President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court Wednesday morning, setting up a dramatic political fight with Senate Republicans who have vowed to block any replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

In a speech in the White House Rose Garden, Obama praised Garland as "one of America sharpest legal minds."

"I have selected a nominee who is widely recognized not only as one of America's sharpest legal minds, but someone who brings to his work a spirit of decency modesty, integrity, evenhandedness and excellence. These qualities and his long commitment to public service have earned him the respect and admiration from leaders from both sides of the aisle."

Senate Republicans do not plan to vet or have hearings on Garland, and say the next president should be able to choose Scalia's replacement. Obama and Democrats argue that with 10 months left in his term, there is plenty of time for the Senate to take up and confirm a new justice.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/16/politics/obama-supreme-court-announcement/index.html

 

[Luc 4,776]

Obama not so sure of Hillary's win?

[Brainiac 11,171]

2 minutes ago, Luc said:

Obama not so sure of Hillary's win?

It's Obama's constitutional duty as sitting president to nominate a Supreme Court justice when a vacancy opens. He doesn't have a choice. The Senate also has a duty to give the nominee a fair hearing and vote which they're refusing to do because they think the next president will be a Republican.

[Duella Dvil 11,575]

It irks me that they don't want progress for the nation and are running our country. 

Like gridlock Is so pointless I want to scream

[brendablethyn 536]

It's like when the GOP shut down the government, it isn't just playing politics, it's actually sabotaging the institutions of this country and creating more dysfunction. They wonder why Trump and his baying mob are so angry, it's only because they've been led down that road by this obstructionist attitude where the leading republicans refuse to play by the rules and say you can ignore and disrespect your opposition. It's one thing to vote down a nominee, but to spend months saying they refuse to even hold hearings is such an immature attitude. 

[Auro 1,829]

This is bullshit, sorry if I get warned but it straight up is, the Senate has the duty to hear her case and vote for her, this is the reason we had the shutdown

[Goosey 3,017]

This nomination is crap, hopefully the GOP blocks it, Trump, Cruz or Kasich gets into office and nominates a proper candidate. This Merrick Garland's record is horrific.

[Morphine Prince 109,683]

2 minutes ago, Goosey said:

This nomination is crap, hopefully the GOP blocks it, Trump, Cruz or Kasich gets into office and nominates a proper candidate. This Merrick Garland's record is horrific.

Doesn't he have a Republican record though? He's a moderate. 

[Goosey 3,017]

Just now, Morphine Prince said:

Doesn't he have a Republican record though? He's a moderate. 

From TTAG:

In a move calculated to make it difficult for GOP members of the Senate to keep their promise to block any election year Supreme Court nominee, President Obama has today nominated Merrick Garland, chief judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Garland’s being characterized — at least my many in the media — as a moderate with a long paper trail, particularly on issues such as criminal justice and the federal government’s powers to fight terrorism. It will probably shock you to learn, however, that on gun rights, he’s not quite so middle-of-the-road . . .

Back in 2008, Dave Kopel wrote a prescient post on the potential effect on gun rights an Obama presidency would have and wrote the following regarding Garland:

Merrick Garland is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He could be counted on not only to oppose Second Amendment rights in general, but even to nullify explicit congressional statutes that protect those rights.

In 2007, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit ruled against the D.C. handgun ban in the case of Parker v. District of Columbia (which was the name of the case that eventually became District of Columbia v. Heller when it went before the Supreme Court). The D.C. government asked for a rehearing of the case, before all 10 judges of the D.C. Circuit.

Six judges voted not to rehear the case, while four judges voted for a rehearing, presumably because they disagreed with the three-judge panel that had ruled against the handgun ban. Garland was one of the four judges who wanted a chance to validate the handgun ban.

In 2000, Garland was on a three-judge panel that heard the case of NRA v. Reno. In that case, the Janet Reno Department of Justice had flouted the congressional statutes that prohibit the federal government from compiling a registration list of gun owners, and which required the destruction of national instant check (NICS) records of lawful, approved gun purchases.

Judge Garland voted to let Reno get away with it. He said that registering all the people who were approved by NICS was permissible because Reno was not registering every gun owner in the country. And he said it was fine for Reno to keep gun buyer records for six months because although Congress had said the records must be destroyed, it did not say “immediately.”

So it should surprise no one that in his choice for a Scalia replacement, Obama would select someone with a dim view of Americans’ Second Amendment freedoms. Will the GOP Senate majority hold firm in their pledge to block all nominees until a new president is inaugurated? Watch this space.

[h/t Johannes Paulsen]

x

[Morphine Prince 109,683]

2 minutes ago, Goosey said:

From TTAG:

In a move calculated to make it difficult for GOP members of the Senate to keep their promise to block any election year Supreme Court nominee, President Obama has today nominated Merrick Garland, chief judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Garland’s being characterized — at least my many in the media — as a moderate with a long paper trail, particularly on issues such as criminal justice and the federal government’s powers to fight terrorism. It will probably shock you to learn, however, that on gun rights, he’s not quite so middle-of-the-road . . .

Back in 2008, Dave Kopel wrote a prescient post on the potential effect on gun rights an Obama presidency would have and wrote the following regarding Garland:

Merrick Garland is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He could be counted on not only to oppose Second Amendment rights in general, but even to nullify explicit congressional statutes that protect those rights.

In 2007, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit ruled against the D.C. handgun ban in the case of Parker v. District of Columbia (which was the name of the case that eventually became District of Columbia v. Heller when it went before the Supreme Court). The D.C. government asked for a rehearing of the case, before all 10 judges of the D.C. Circuit.

Six judges voted not to rehear the case, while four judges voted for a rehearing, presumably because they disagreed with the three-judge panel that had ruled against the handgun ban. Garland was one of the four judges who wanted a chance to validate the handgun ban.

In 2000, Garland was on a three-judge panel that heard the case of NRA v. Reno. In that case, the Janet Reno Department of Justice had flouted the congressional statutes that prohibit the federal government from compiling a registration list of gun owners, and which required the destruction of national instant check (NICS) records of lawful, approved gun purchases.

Judge Garland voted to let Reno get away with it. He said that registering all the people who were approved by NICS was permissible because Reno was not registering every gun owner in the country. And he said it was fine for Reno to keep gun buyer records for six months because although Congress had said the records must be destroyed, it did not say “immediately.”

So it should surprise no one that in his choice for a Scalia replacement, Obama would select someone with a dim view of Americans’ Second Amendment freedoms. Will the GOP Senate majority hold firm in their pledge to block all nominees until a new president is inaugurated? Watch this space.

[h/t Johannes Paulsen]

x

This is one issue. And one I truly don't care much about. 

[Goosey 3,017]

Just now, Morphine Prince said:

This is one issue. And one I truly don't care much about. 

You don't care much about the Bill of Rights?

 

 

[Morphine Prince 109,683]

Just now, Goosey said:

You don't care much about the Bill of Rights?

 

 

No one is taking people's right to own guns away. Just stricter regulation. The fear mongering gun-loving Conservatives love to preach doesn't get to me. 

And I live in Texas, if that says anything. Don't give a **** tbh. 

[PartySick 172,545]

The Grand Obstructionist Party strikes again. I honestly don't care about their opinions, can we just get some people in who will do their damn jobs? Nearly a year left and they want to wait for the next person to take office? 

[Goosey 3,017]

Just now, Morphine Prince said:

No one is taking people's right to own guns away.

Straw man.

No one is accusing Obama, Merrick Garland or Hillary and friends of prohibiting ownership of guns.

[Morphine Prince 109,683]

1 minute ago, Goosey said:

Straw man.

No one is accusing Obama, Merrick Garland or Hillary and friends of prohibiting ownership of guns.

Actually a lot are. And that's the rhetoric they spew. Why do you think gun sales soar every time Obama says something about gun control? People fear they will get their precious guns taken away.