Obama’s Scalia Replacement

SCOTUS Supreme Court Building

President Obama will announce his nominee to replace Justice Scalia shortly. The press reports that it is Merrick Garland.

Not surprisingly, he’s got a record that does not point to a positive future for the Second Amendment if he is confirmed.

This article from Dave Kopel in 2008 warned of Garland on a short list to be appointed, and he cited red flags from Garland’s role in Parker v. District of Columbia and NRA v. Reno. Kopel summed it up this way:

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.

More recently, even National Review noted that Garland’s positions on the Second Amendment were enough cause for worry since the White House indicated they might choose someone “moderate,” and these aren’t signs of moderate positions on the right to keep and bear arms.

Media Matters had a post up early this morning trying to claim that these previous moves are “myths,” and that he’s not really anti-Second Amendment. I guess that means the White House knows it will be a problem. Now would be a great time to call your Senator and let them know what you think about this nominee.

12 thoughts on “Obama’s Scalia Replacement”

  1. No matter. The positive is now the nominee has been named he can be ignored and no other nominee can be named.

  2. It was kind of funny in a weird way listening to Mitch Mconnell give his speech making all of the same points that obozzo did when he screamed for the people to be heard and no action to be taken on Bush’s nominee.

    1. Yep. When Obama was a Senator, the Senate had a right to refuse to consider a President’s nominee for SCOTUS.

      Now that Obama is President, the Senate is ignoring its Constitutional duty if they refuse to consider his nominee for SCOTUS.

      It’s funny how the rhetoric changes when it’s the other person’s ox being gored.

      1. It sometimes gives me the impression that there are two Constitutions, one for Democrats and one for Republicans.

        If a Republican is a lame duck President, their Constitution says they cannot appoint a new Supreme Court Justice until after the election is over.

        If a Democrat is a lame duck President, it’s the Senate’s duty to not only have an up-or-down vote on the President’s nominee, but to approve of that nominee as well…

  3. The little bit I’ve read about Garland so far suggests he is a lover of government, always giving government the benefit of the doubt in his decisions whether the attack on rights is coming from the left or the right. Justices who do that are usually described as “moderates.” I’ll be awaiting a more detailed breakdown of his past decisions to get a better reading.

  4. From Kopel’s article, the criticism of NRA vs. Reno is not seem persuasive. This was essentially a Chevron analysis and the reasoning in the majority opinion seems sound enough. Not enough to tease out some overriding judicial philosophy that is anti-gun.

    The vote to re-hear Parker en banc is more damning. Merrick wouldn’t be my pick, but I’m not sure if there is a more likely alternative that would be. Given Hillary is likely to win, I’d say we’re better off with Merrick than a nominee that she would pick.

    1. Only a fool would take that bet. As you say Thirdpower, they will pull a magician’s trick and confirm him. Most likely in a lame duck session after the election.
      Thanksgiving eve or Christmas eve with 2 or 3 senators on the floor with proxy votes in their pocket.

      1. If Hillary wins the election and the Dems are projected to gain the Senate, a lame duck approval might be better than anyone she would nominate. The Dems seem likely to blow away the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees if Hillary wins and the GOP tries to continue resistance for 4 years.

        Altogether its a shitty outcome. The only way this plays out reasonably well is for the GOP to win the White House and hold the Senate, and for the GOP to defeat a Democrat filibuster of a GOP nominee, and for the Republican President to actually appoint someone solidly in our camp as opposed to a “moderate.”

  5. Garland is a Trojan Horse. Superficially “moderate”, but upon closer inspection, found to contain a lethally anti-Second Amendment agenda.
    There are two people at issue in D.C. now. Clinton and Garland. Unless we get cucked over again, Obama doesn’t have a chance of having Garland unless he first gives up Clinton. Of course, Obama would like to dismiss charges against Hillary and have Garland confirmed too, but the Republicans, if they can be called that, now have an ace of their own to play.
    Obama should give up Hillary, and then the Republicans should give the lame duck the finger.

Comments are closed.