SCOTUS nominee expected as early as this morning EDIT: looks like it's Garland

[Landslide Lyndon]

No . This guy has a horrible 2nd admin record.   They shouldn't entertain the ideal of even meeting with this left wing loon.

What's a second administration record?

[Mr. Reactionary]

No . This guy has a horrible 2nd admin record.   They shouldn't entertain the ideal of even meeting with this left wing loon.

He voted to rehear a case without taking a position on its merits.

True. There is zero analysis as to why he voted for rehearing, and given Garland's gross obsession with deference to authority, it probably had more to do with letting the government be right than with hating guns. Him being from Chicago doesn't help but the only case he voted on guns dealt with unlawful FBI record-keeping, and his views were again about deference to the government, not hostility towards the 2nd Amendment. Not that being slavishly deferential to the government is a good thing, but there's no real evidence that he has horrible opinions on guns themselves.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No . This guy has a horrible 2nd admin record.   They shouldn't entertain the ideal of even meeting with this left wing loon.

He voted to rehear a case without taking a position on its merits.

Yeah, as I indicated above, that is the worst possible reason to oppose him.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnpjs45D7OY

One Senator posing a hypothetical that never came to fruition.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

My biggest problem with Garland so far is how he applies what blackraisin calls his 'gross obsession with deference to authority' to criminal justice issues. I respect the fact that he prosecuted Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber, but I don't like or trust anyone who was instrumental in the decisions to seek the death penalty in those or any other cases, and his role in Al Odah v. United States was similarly horrible.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Garland seems to me a sacrificial lamb. He is a known quantity so it will be hard for the Republicans to make him a pinata, like Cornyn promised to do to any Obama nominee.

And even if Clinton wins and they decide in November to confirm him I'm not so sure that people like Cruz and Mike Lee are going to be willing to go along.

But what is the alternative, should Clinton win and the GOP retain the Senate?  The Republicans continue to block any SCOTUS nominations from Democratic presidents forever?

Nothing says the Supreme Court must have nine members. The only problem with opening that can of worms is the risk that Hillary will pack the court if the Democrats get a Senate majority. Of course, that will either happen in 2017 or not at all in Hillary's first term, so that is not a particularly big risk.

I believe there is a federal law establishing a 9-member Court.

There is, but there's precedent for reducing the number of seats on the court during vacancies for political reasons.  The 2/3rds Republican congress in 1867-68 eliminated 2 SCOTUS seats, reducing it from 9 to 7, so that Andrew Johnson couldn't fill them with people opposed to Reconstruction.  Of course that's literally the most bitter political dispute in our nation's history.  If e.g. Breyer or Ginsburg passed while Scalia's seat was still open, and we have divided government again next year, they might try to do the same thing.  Constitutionally, there technically only has to be a Chief Justice, and he's currently the youngest one.

Actually it was reduced from ten, not nine. And while the law called for the Court to shrink to seven by attrition, it only reached eight before Grant took office and Congress set the size at its current limit of nine because it only trusted him with one immediate appointment.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

here's a pretty informative short overview of some of his cases:
http://blogs.findlaw.com/dc_circuit/2016/03/merrick-garlands-6-most-important-dc-cir-opinions.html


one thing I'm not clear on: did Al Odah v US say that Gitmo detainees didn't have a right to habeas corpus, or only that district courts didn't have authority to hear these petitions?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

If we have to have a moderate, let it be a Manchin/JBE type who would vote to overturn Roe and uphold Heller.

[Gass3268]

If we have to have a moderate, let it be a Manchin/JBE type who would vote to overturn Roe and uphold Heller.

Overturning Roe isn't moderate...

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

If we have to have a moderate, let it be a Manchin/JBE type who would vote to overturn Roe and uphold Heller.

Overturning Roe isn't moderate...

And neither of them would vote to overturn it anyway. They're pro-life, not anti-abortion.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If we have to have a moderate, let it be a Manchin/JBE type who would vote to overturn Roe and uphold Heller.

Overturning Roe isn't moderate...

It would be compared to finding that the Constitution required the protection of fetal personhood. All overturning Roe would do is return the issue to the States. Moderate is not the same as supporting the status quo.

[MK]

This guy is against the rights of people to keep and bare arms as witnessed by Judge Garland wanting to reconsider the ruling D.C. vs Heller


They shouldnt even give him a chance.  Hes a trojan horse.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Judge Garland wanting to reconsider the ruling D.C. vs Heller

Without sounding forth on its merits.

[Gass3268]

This guy is against the rights of people to keep and bare arms as witnessed by Judge Garland wanting to reconsider the ruling D.C. vs Heller


They shouldnt even give him a chance.  Hes a trojan horse.

Any judge that is willing to reconsider Heller and possibly reverse it should receive immediate confirmation to the Supreme Court. 

[MK]

This guy is against the rights of people to keep and bare arms as witnessed by Judge Garland wanting to reconsider the ruling D.C. vs Heller


They shouldnt even give him a chance.  Hes a trojan horse.

Any judge that is willing to reconsider Heller and possibly reverse it should receive immediate confirmation to the Supreme Court. 

So you support Judges that don't uphold the constitution ?       But let the courts decide not to uphold SSM and you libs go crazy. 

[Horsemask]

If we have to have a moderate, let it be a Manchin/JBE type who would vote to overturn Roe and uphold Heller.

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM!

[Angel of Death]

Are Democrats really going to allow Republicans to have their cake and eat it too by acquiescing to the latter's maximalist strategy of stonewalling Garland, only to confirm him after all if Clinton were to win the election?! Talk about privatizing the profits and socializing the losses! I'd really like to see Obama withdraw the nomination right then, but he's probably too nice a guy to do something like that.

Here's a bold idea: How about appointing someone who thinks (state) civil forfeiture laws are unconstitutional for violating the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

If we have to have a moderate, let it be a Manchin/JBE type who would vote to overturn Roe and uphold Heller.

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM!

No, the decision in Roe itself was judicial activism.  Overturning it would just be correcting a mistake.  The same could be said about Obergefell, but overturning it, while still a goal, is not as high of a priority, because no one has died as a result of it.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

If we have to have a moderate, let it be a Manchin/JBE type who would vote to overturn Roe and uphold Heller.

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM!

No, the decision in Roe itself was judicial activism.  Overturning it would just be correcting a mistake.  The same could be said about Obergefell, but overturning it, while still a goal, is not as high of a priority, because no one has died as a result of it.

I'd contend that mandating same-sex marriage makes far more sense as an application of equal protection than mandating lax abortion laws does as an application of due process.

[Gass3268]

This guy is against the rights of people to keep and bare arms as witnessed by Judge Garland wanting to reconsider the ruling D.C. vs Heller


They shouldnt even give him a chance.  Hes a trojan horse.

Any judge that is willing to reconsider Heller and possibly reverse it should receive immediate confirmation to the Supreme Court. 

So you support Judges that don't uphold the constitution ?       But let the courts decide not to uphold SSM and you libs go crazy. 

Sometimes I wish John Kerry was elected President in 04. Imagine if he was able to appoint 2 Justices, instead of Bush. So many poor decisions would now be different. Heller, Citizens United, the Alabama VRA case, etc. I don't even care if he would have lost in 2008, the impact on the court would be worth it. 

[Orser67]

This guy is against the rights of people to keep and bare arms as witnessed by Judge Garland wanting to reconsider the ruling D.C. vs Heller

Voting to rehear a case doesn't necessarily mean that he wanted to change the ruling. A conservative judge (A. Raymond Randolph) also voted to rehear the case, and he probably was in favor of the result of the case. The DC Circuit Court's ruling was a huge deal, and it's common for the entire court to hear rehear major cases in en banc.

It's fine if people oppose Garland for his views or judgments, but Garland's vote to rehear a case is not evidence of his views one way or the other, no matter what Carrie Severino says.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'd contend that mandating same-sex marriage makes far more sense as an application of equal protection than mandating lax abortion laws does as an application of due process.

Substantive due process is an awfully shaky judicial notion. Unfortunately, it's also the only possible basis for a number of rulings that strike me as morally imperative from a left-wing standpoint. I understand why you wouldn't include Roe v. Wade among those, but surely you would Lawrence v. Texas?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

This guy is against the rights of people to keep and bare arms as witnessed by Judge Garland wanting to reconsider the ruling D.C. vs Heller


They shouldnt even give him a chance.  Hes a trojan horse.

How does voting to merely rehear the case amount to opposing a constitutional right that you don't even know how to spell?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I'd contend that mandating same-sex marriage makes far more sense as an application of equal protection than mandating lax abortion laws does as an application of due process.

Substantive due process is an awfully shaky judicial notion. Unfortunately, it's also the only possible basis for a number of rulings that strike me as morally imperative from a left-wing standpoint. I understand why you wouldn't include Roe v. Wade among those, but surely you would Lawrence v. Texas?

I take O'Connor's position in her Lawrence concurrence that the decision should have been reached on equal protection grounds instead.

[SteveRogers]

I'd contend that mandating same-sex marriage makes far more sense as an application of equal protection than mandating lax abortion laws does as an application of due process.

Substantive due process is an awfully shaky judicial notion. Unfortunately, it's also the only possible basis for a number of rulings that strike me as morally imperative from a left-wing standpoint. I understand why you wouldn't include Roe v. Wade among those, but surely you would Lawrence v. Texas?

I take O'Connor's position in her Lawrence concurrence that the decision should have been reached on equal protection grounds instead.

O'Connor's position in her Lawrence concurrence would have upheld Bowers v. Hardwick and allowed most sodomy laws to stand as long as they were facially neutral as to sexual orientation, unlike the Texas law.