Obama to nominate Judge Merrick Garland to Supreme Court

[Dianne]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_SUPREME_COURT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-03-16-10-05-51

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama will nominate federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, challenging Republicans to reject a long-time jurist and former prosecutor known as a consensus builder on what is often dubbed the nation's second-highest court.

Garland, 63, is the chief judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a court whose influence over federal policy and national security matters has made it a proving ground for potential Supreme Court justices.

He would replace conservative, Justice Antonin Scalia, who died last month, leaving behind a bitter election-year fight over the future of the court.

The White House and members of Congress confirmed Obama's choice ahead of the president's 11 a.m. announcement in the White House Rose Garden.

White House officials said Obama believes Garland has a record of bipartisan support and was best poised to serve on the court immediately.

Garland was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in 1997 with backing from a majority in both parties, including seven current Republicans senators.

Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democratic leader called Garland's section, "a bipartisan choice," adding: "If the Republicans can't support him, who can they support?"

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who spoke to Obama Wednesday morning, said in brief remarks on the Senate floor that Republicans must act on the president's choice. "He's doing his job this morning, they should do theirs," said the Nevada Democrat.

If confirmed, Garland would be expected to align with the more liberal members, but he is not viewed as down-the-line liberal. Particularly on criminal defense and national security cases, he's earned a reputation as centrist, and one of the few Democratic-appointed judges Republicans might have a fast-tracked to confirmation - under other circumstances.

But in the current climate, Garland remains a tough sell. Republicans control the Senate, which must confirm any nominee, and GOP leaders want to leave the choice to the next president, denying Obama a chance to alter the ideological balance of the court before he leaves office next January. Republicans contend that a confirmation fight in an election year would be too politicized.

Ahead of Obama's announcement, the Republican Party set up a task force that will orchestrate attack ads, petitions and media outreach. The aim is to bolster Senate Republicans' strategy of denying consideration of Obama's nominee. The party's chairman, Reince Priebus, described it as the GOP's most comprehensive judicial response effort ever.

On the other side, Obama allies have been drafted to run a Democratic effort that will involve liberal groups that hope an Obama nominee could pull the high court's ideological balance to the left. The effort would target states where activists believe Republicans will feel political heat for opposing hearings once Obama announced his nominee.

For Obama, Garland represents a significant departure from his past two Supreme Court choices. In nominating Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, the president eagerly seized the chance to broaden the court's diversity and rebalance the overwhelming male institution. Sotomayor was the first Hispanic confirmed to the court, Kagan only the fourth woman.

Garland - a white, male jurist with an Ivy League pedigree and career spent largely in the upper echelon of the Washington's legal elite - breaks no barriers. At 63 years old, he would be the oldest Supreme Court nominee since Lewis Powell, who was 64 when he was confirmed in late 1971.

Presidents tend to appoint young judges with the hope they will shape the court's direction for as long as possible.

Those factors had, until now, made Garland something of a perpetual bridesmaid, repeatedly on Obama's Supreme Court lists, but never chosen.

But Garland found his moment at time when Democrats are seeking to apply maximum pressure on Republicans. A key part of their strategy is casting Republicans as knee-jerk obstructionists ready to shoot down a nominee that many in their own ranks once considered a consensus candidate. In 2010, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch called Garland "terrific" and said he could be confirmed "virtually unanimously."

The White House planned to highlight Hatch's past support, as well as other glowing comments about Garland from conservative groups.

A native of Chicago and graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, Garland clerked for two appointees of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower - the liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan Jr. and Judge Henry J. Friendly, for whom Chief Justice John Roberts also clerked.

In 1988, he gave up a plush partner's office in a powerhouse law firms to cut his teeth in criminal cases. As an assistant U.S. attorney, he joined the team prosecuting a Reagan White House aide charged with illegal lobbying and did early work on the drug case against then-D.C. Mayor Marion Barry. He held a top-ranking post in the Justice Department when he was dispatched to Oklahoma City the day after bombing at the federal courthouse to supervise the investigation. The case made his career and his reputation. He oversaw the convictions of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, and went on to supervise the investigation into Unabomber Ted Kaczynski.

President Bill Clinton first nominated him to the D.C. Circuit in 1995.

His prolonged confirmation process may prove to have prepared him for the one ahead. Garland waited 2½ years to win confirmation to the appeals court. Then, as now, one of the man blocking path was Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, argued he had no quarrel with Garland's credentials, but a beef with the notion of a Democratic president trying to fill a court he argued had too many seats.

Grassley ultimately relented, although he was not one of the 32 Republicans who voted in favor of Garland's confirmation. Nor was Sen. Mitch McConnell, the other major hurdle for Garland now. The Republicans who voted in favor of confirmation are Sen. Dan Coats, Sen. Thad Cochran, Sen. Susan Collins, Sen. Orrin Hatch, Sen. Jim Inhofe, Sen. John McCain, and Sen. Pat Roberts.

[Dianne]

This Judge is no second amendment guy:

But Garland has a long record, and, among other things, it leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalia’s most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms. Back in 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. The liberal District of Columbia government had passed a ban on individual handgun possession, which even prohibited guns kept in one’s own house for self-defense. A three-judge panel struck down the ban, but Judge Garland wanted to reconsider that ruling. He voted with Judge David Tatel, one of the most liberal judges on that court.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/432716/moderates-are-not-so-moderate-merrick-garland

[JK/SEA]

round file.

[alucard13mm]

Who would hillary, cruz, or trump nominate as the supreme court?

[jkob]

DOA, won't even get a hearing

will work more as a boogeyman for the GOP to run against than help the Dems

[Lucille]

Trolls (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?448000-Bestest-picture-thread-evaar!-%28The-trilogy%29/page474&p=6167427#post6167427) gonna troll.

710127596155973632

[Lucille]

710121676458037249

[Suzanimal]

710121883870568449

[Lucille]

710121883870568449

710126336971448321

[muh_roads]

Oh boy, more gun debates. Are there detailed stats of crime reduction in DC since 2007? Time to prepare.

[donnay]

He's a big anti-second amendment. What a shock. :rolleyes:

[Lucille]

https://reason.com/blog/2016/03/16/obama-nominates-merrick-garland-to-repla


In the area of criminal law, for example, Garland’s votes have frequently come down on the side of prosecutors and police. In 2010, when Garland was reported to be under consideration to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, SCOTUSblog founder Tom Goldstein observed that “Judge Garland rarely votes in favor of criminal defendants' appeals of their convictions.”

Likewise, Garland voted in support of the George W. Bush administration’s controversial war on terrorism policies in the Guantanamo detainee case Al Odah v. United States, in which Garland joined the majority opinion holding that enemy combatants held as detainees at the U.S. military facility at Guantanamo Bay were not entitled to habeus corpus protections. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately overruled that decision, holding in the landmark case Boumediene v. Bush that Guantanamo detainees do enjoy habeus corpus rights.

Conservatives and libertarians are likely to be concerned by Garland’s actions during the litigation that ultimately culminated in the landmark gun rights case District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), in which the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, not a collective one, to keep and bear arms. In 2007 that case was decided in favor of Dick Heller’s Second Amendment rights by a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit. Washington officials promptly appealed that loss, asking a full panel of the D.C. Circuit to rehear the case, which would have had the immediate effect of putting a stop to the panel’s judgment. Garland was among the D.C. Circuit judges who voted in favor of a rehearing by a full D.C. Circuit panel. That rehearing was ultimately denied and the case went on to the Supreme Court. While this example is by no means conclusive, it does at least suggest that Garland may believe that both the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court got it wrong in Heller. It would be helpful to hear more from Garland about his views on the meaning and scope of the Second Amendment.

[euphemia]

I heard the President's speech. I did not appreciate the lecture at the end. This is the same Barak Obama who fillibustered Samuel Alito. Fair hearing, indeed.

[RJB]

If confirmed, Garland would be expected to align with the more liberal members, but he is not viewed as down-the-line liberal. Particularly on criminal defense and national security cases, he's earned a reputation as centrist,

This guy is the worst of both worlds. The bolded is usually the only time a "liberal" is worth a darn to the liberty movement.

[presence]

Just like every other potential SCOTUS pick obama has pondered.... guess what this dipshit did in the private sector:

corporate fixing


After the administration turned over, Garland joined the law firm of Arnold & Porter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_%26_Porter), becoming a partner four years later.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland#cite_note-ReputationCollegiality-3) He was a partner from 1985 to 1989.[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland#cite_note-ABCProfile-11)


While at Arnold & Porter, Garland mostly practiced



constitutional law? lmao sucker!

no...

go ahead and guess....



corporate litigation.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland#cite_note-ReputationCollegiality-3)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland



https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0187/2004/products/m4_small.jpg?v=1448982759
http://www.arnoldporter.com/en/services/capabilities/practices/white-collar-defense

White Collar Defense






Arnold & Porter LLP's experienced White Collar Defense practice represents individuals and corporations, both US and international, in all areas of defense work, including internal investigations, federal and state investigations, trial, grand jury practice, and appeal.

Our matters range from securities and bank fraud to leaks of classified information; from antitrust/cartel to environmental law, from anti-corruption inquiries under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), and the UK Bribery Act to False Claims Act/qui tam relator defenses, from healthcare fraud to export control matters involving The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), and the Bureau of Industry & Security (BIS).

http://www.arnoldporter.com/en/services/capabilities/practices/white-collar-defense



you might also enjoy:

ALL of Obama's supreme court picks from WHITE COLLAR CORRUPTION law firms (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?490352-Obama-s-supreme-court-picks-from-WHITE-COLLAR-CORRUPTION-law-firms&highlight=corporate+fixer)

Sri Srinivasan, Multinational Corporate Fixer (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?490283-Sri-Srinivasan-Multinational-Corporate-Fixer&highlight=corporate+fixer)

[Lucille]

I'm sure you'll all be shocked at Stato's take on this clown in gown:

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/merrick-garland-best-we-conservatives-could-hope


In a move of masterful politicking, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, to fill the seat left by the untimely death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Garland is the consummate moderate, and he’s likely the best that libertarians and conservatives could have reasonably hoped for from this president.
[...]
This is not to say, however, that we should expect Garland to be a reliable vote in favor of the Second Amendment. Certainly not. But, given his record of neutrality, the behavior of a “Justice” Garland is not easily predictable, and that can be a good thing for libertarians and conservatives when comparing him to other possible Obama nominees or likely Clinton nominees.

All this is why Senator Orrin Hatch, who has been a dogged proponent of the Republican Senate refusing to consider an Obama nominee, said in 2010 that Garland would be a “consensus nominee” and that there would be “no question” that he would be confirmed. Such is the pickle that Republicans are now in and that President Obama strategically placed them in.

Republicans best bet is to play naked politics: the Supreme Court is too important to do otherwise. Read the polls and watch the Republican nomination process. If Trump emerges from the convention as the nominee, and the polls still show that he will take a shellacking from Clinton, then Garland should be confirmed. If something crazy happens, and there are many crazy things that could happen, then it could be cause to delay the nomination until after the election.

Some Republicans will keep saying “let the people decide,” but if there’s one thing we’ve learned this election year, it’s that “the people” are terrifying.

[Son_of_Liberty90]

I'm sure you'll all be shocked at Stato's take on this clown in gown:

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/merrick-garland-best-we-conservatives-could-hope

Obama is such a snake.

[Zippyjuan]

So give him a hearing and vote down their support of him. Then they will have to nominate somebody else.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/03/16/myths-and-facts-on-the-nomination-of-judge-merr/209286

[Lucille]

LOL @ media matters. What, ZippyJeffry, Raw Story has nothing up on this particular clown in gown yet?

[Anti Federalist]

Garland's "moderation" seems to be an affinity with the left on gov. power to regulate, and the right on gov. power to police/incarcerate.

Well, that's just fucking great.

The worst of both worlds.

[Anti Federalist]

Garland - a white, male jurist with an Ivy League pedigree and career spent largely in the upper echelon of the Washington's legal elite - breaks no barriers.

What "barriers" are left to break?

[EBounding]

So give him a hearing and vote down their support of him. Then they will have to nominate somebody else.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/03/16/myths-and-facts-on-the-nomination-of-judge-merr/209286

I don't really care if it's "disproportionate" compared to previous obstructions, but is it unconstitutional to delay a vote?

[Brian4Liberty]

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Obama's SCOTUS Choice a 'Lose-Lose' (https://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/andrew-napolitano-obama-SCOTUS-nominee/2016/03/16/id/719388/)
By Sandy Fitzgerald | Wednesday, 16 Mar 2016


President Barack Obama's choice for the Supreme Court is possibly the "most conservative nominee" picked by a Democratic president in modern years, and it's obvious he was chosen to "pry loose Republicans," Judge Andrew Napolitano said Wednesday.
...
Napolitano said he knows Garland professionally, and described him as a "consummate Washington, D.C. insider" who has worked for both Republicans and Democrats.

"He was a prosecutor in the [President] George H.W. Bush office and nominated to court by President Bill Clinton," said Napolitano.
...
And, Napolitano predicted, Obama will use the nomination to "pry loose Republican senators in tough reelection battles who don't want to defend standing firm as part of their reelection campaigns, and he may succeed there.
...
https://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/andrew-napolitano-obama-SCOTUS-nominee/2016/03/16/id/719388/

[oyarde]

So give him a hearing and vote down their support of him. Then they will have to nominate somebody else.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/03/16/myths-and-facts-on-the-nomination-of-judge-merr/209286

What is the hurry ? I am not sure I mind the 4 - 4 vote.

[qh4dotcom]

The question that no one is asking.

This is the third Obama SC pick. So if this judge is so qualified to be on the Supreme Court.....why didn't Obama appoint him earlier? Why did he pick Kagan who was not even a judge instead of Garland?

[Suzanimal]

The question that no one is asking.

This is the third Obama SC pick. So if this judge is so qualified to be on the Supreme Court.....why didn't Obama appoint him earlier? Why did he pick Kagan who was not even a judge instead of Garland?

I read he's been on the short list for awhile.

[hells_unicorn]

Honestly guys, I think that the GOP should give this guy a hearing, and then allow somebody like Ted Cruz to rip him apart on his supposed "pro-law enforcement" tendencies, make the guy out to be some kind of Fascist who loves putting people in prison, and let the Dems try to defend it. Better yet, bring up any cases of black persons having their appeals denied by this guy and call him a racist. Make the whole Bork-incident look like a walk in the park and see what happens, if nothing else, it'll be fun to watch.

[Zippyjuan]

According to the US Constitution, Congress is required to give "advice and consent" to appointments the President makes. The President has presented his nominee. They are now required to decide to accept or reject the nominee. Congress should exercise their duties. If you like him, vote yes. If you don't like him, vote down the nomination. There is no precedent for waiting until another president comes along.


He[The President] shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

If they want to criticize Obama for not following the Constitution, they should set the example and follow it themselves.

If Ron Paul was president and Congress was doing that to one of his nominees, people here would be screaming about Congress messing with what Ron wanted to accomplish.

(I am not saying either way if he is a good or bad nominee- I don't have enough information on that).

[hells_unicorn]

According to the US Constitution, Congress is required to give "advice and consent" to appointments the President makes. The President has presented his nominee. They are now required to decide to accept or reject the nominee. Congress should exercise their duties. If you like him, vote yes. If you don't like him, vote down the nomination. There is no precedent for waiting until another president comes along.



If they want to criticize Obama for not following the Constitution, they should set the example and follow it themselves.

If Ron Paul was president and Congress was doing that to one of his nominees, people here would be screaming about Congress messing with what Ron wanted to accomplish.

(I am not saying either way if he is a good or bad nominee- I don't have enough information on that).

They could advise and consent by telling Obama that we can do just fine with 8 judges in the SCOTUS for the next year, it's not like Obama has some divine right to have his commie appointments put on the bench. Then again, I think they should just give the guy a hearing, tear him apart and then vote him down. Screw Obama, he got his 2 goyim-haters representing less than 3% of this country, that's plenty.

[Slave Mentality]

Do your jerb Juan says! Constitution!

90% or better of the shit all three branches pull doesn't fit your request dooood.

[spudea]

They should do their fucking job. There's no reason the court should stand at 8 justices for the next 9-12 months. They could also just go lightning speed, have a hearing on this nominee tomorrow and vote him down. Make Obama keep putting up nominees till there's one repubs like. It's bullshit like this that makes people vote trump.

[Slave Mentality]

Do your jerb Juan says! Constitution!

90% or better of the $#@! all three branches pull doesn't fit your request dooood.

Edit: just noticed that dirty words are filtered now? That's fucked up if so freedom lovers. Hopefully just a setting or some shit.

[Suzanimal]

Edit: just noticed that dirty words are filtered now? That's fucked up if so freedom lovers. Hopefully just a setting or some shit.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?491834-New-user-configurable-profanity-filter

[PaleoPaul]

I think what Cato is trying to say is that if Hillary gets elected, she won't nominate people like Garland. She'll nominate some crazy affirmative action pick. Imagine the headlines reading something like this: "President Clinton Nominates First Black Transgender Lesbian to Highest Court in The Land!" That nominee would make Garland look like Thomas Jefferson.

[hells_unicorn]

They should do their $#@!ing job. There's no reason the court should stand at 8 justices for the next 9-12 months. They could also just go lightning speed, have a hearing on this nominee tomorrow and vote him down. Make Obama keep putting up nominees till there's one repubs like. It's bull$#@! like this that makes people vote trump.

The only logical argument in favor of not even giving Obama's commie nutter nominees a hearing is that they are worried that some of their "moderates" might jump ship and one of them will slip through. Obama is going to whine about obstructionism until he gets his way, whether these stooges he sends to the senate are voted on or ignored, so maybe they should do their jobs.

Then again, I don't really see it as a tragedy if we have 8 judges for the next 9-12 months, I'd actually find it interesting to see a bunch of stalemates, maybe we could learn something about how partisan judges work and learn to see the SCOTUS as something other than an object of worship.

[hells_unicorn]

I think what Cato is trying to say is that if Hillary gets elected, she won't nominate people like Garland. She'll nominate some crazy affirmative action pick. Imagine the headlines reading something like this: "President Clinton Nominates First Black Transgender Lesbian!" That nominee would make Garland look like Thomas Jefferson.

Who cares? Having a pinko sitting on the bench doesn't get better if he's white and doesn't have his genitals mutilated.

[RonPaulMall]

The only logical argument in favor of not even giving Obama's commie nutter nominees a hearing is that they are worried that some of their "moderates" might jump ship and one of them will slip through.

Yes, that is the only argument. But it is overwhelmingly powerful argument. Trust in the GOP to uphold Constitutional principles is at all time low. NOBODY believes that if votes were allowed, the GOP would reject the nominee. It is childish for sure, and embarrassing for the party, but it is the reality. GOP just can't be trusted with the power to hold a vote. We have to treat them like babies.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[presence]

Edit: just noticed that dirty words are filtered now? That's $#@!ed up if so freedom lovers. Hopefully just a setting or some $#@!.

wtf right? really fucks with my irate and tireless

[Zippyjuan]

Trump said back in March he would get a list of ten people from the Heritage Foundation that he "would definitely pick from" for a supreme court nominee if he had the chance. Anybody seen that list? I haven't.

http://time.com/4266700/donald-trump-supreme-court-nominations/


Speaking at the construction site for his new hotel in Washington, D.C., Monday, Trump said he will make a list public in the next week of 10 conservative judges that he would consider nominating to the Supreme Court. If elected, Trump said, he would only pick from that list, which is being made in consultation with the conservative Heritage Foundation.

“I’m going to submit a list of justices, potential justices of the United States Supreme Court, that I will appoint from the list,” Trump said. “I won’t go beyond that list. Some people say maybe I’ll appoint a liberal judge. I’m not appointing a liberal judge.”

Do Republicans still think they will get a better nominee from Clinton or Trump for the court to replace Scalila?

[RandallFan]

Do Republicans still think they will get a better nominee from Clinton or Trump for the court to replace Scalila?

Tell the RINOs in the Senate, to do their job & block anything stupid Trump would send them.

Are these pussies unwilling to block 10 crappy nominees Trump suggests, until he gets it right?