Garland Nomination: Put Up or Shut Up

Typical response " shut up " next comes racist .

 

The OP has stated clearly what he wants the thread to be about. He has asked nicely that you take your off-topic bull(*)(*)(*)(*) elsewhere.

Is it really necessary to (*)(*)(*)(*) on every thread in the forum, even when you're asked politely to go elsewhere?

 

How is he qualified if he's for the infringement of 2nd Amendment rights for example?

"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.

 

Trolls will troll. That's what the ignore list is for -- people who cannot post substantively, and will not leave others alone to talk substantively.

Here are Garland's answers to some relevant questions during his confirmation hearings back in 1995:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/03/16/judge-merrick-garland-in-his-own-words/


Sen. Herbert H. Kohl (D., Wisc.): Of the three branches of government, Mr. Garland, how would you place the judicial branch? Where would you place the judicial branch?

Judge Garland: Well, in terms of primacy there is no way to do that. The constitution sets all three branches out as co-equal. The obligation of the judicial branch — as far back as the decision in Marbury v. Madison — is to review the constitutionality and legality of actions by the other branches. And that is its only job, to decide cases and controversies in front of it under article three.

Sen. Kohl: Are there one or two Supreme Court justices for whom you have great admiration? And why?

Judge Garland: Well, of course I have great personal affection for the justice for whom I clerked, Justice Brennan. I would say the one for which — the most admiration, is the one I just mentioned, Justice John Marshall, Chief Justice John Marshall who decided Marbury v. Madison and so deciding established that the constitution is the supreme law of the land. Everybody, I think, who hopes to become a judge would aspire to be able to write as well as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. None are going to be able to attain that. But I’ll try at least — if confirmed to be as brief and pithy as he is.

Sen. Kohl: Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe that an appellate judge should overturn precedent within his or her own circuit?

Judge Garland: The obligation of the judge in the circuit is to follow the previous decisions in the circuit unless those decisions are overruled by an en bloc panel of the court.


Here are some researchers who rate the ideology of justices -- whose rating of Garland was mis-reported by the New York Times:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/17/how-liberal-is-merrick-garland/


The figure below ... is a “smoothed” histogram reflecting the distribution of all circuit court judges over the time period. Unsurprisingly, most judges fall somewhere in the middle of the ideological distribution, with extreme liberal and conservative judges less common.

We then plot ideology estimates for a sample of circuit court judges who eventually served on the Supreme Court or are well-known enough to provide reference points. The figure suggests that Garland is indeed a moderate. He is close to the center of all of the judges who have served on the D.C. Circuit since 1938. He is considerably to the right of well-known liberal judges such as Judge Abner Mikva or Judge Harry Edwards. However, he is to the left of well-known conservatives such as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Indeed, our estimates place him right at the middle of the set of current justices on the U.S. Supreme Court who also served on the D.C. Circuit prior to 2008 (when our data end).


Here is some information on his judicial philosophy, written back in 2010, when his name was being tossed about for the vacancy that eventually went to Kagan:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/04/the-potential-nomination-of-merrick-garland/


During that confirmation hearing, Garland was asked about "judicial activism." He answered that "[f]ederal judges do not have roving commissions to solve societal problems. The role of the court is to apply law to the facts of the case before it "“ not to legislate, not to arrogate to itself the executive power, not to hand down advisory opinion on the issues of the day."

Garland's nomination was stalled by Senate Republicans, not because of opposition to him but because of a dispute over whether to fill the twelfth seat on that court at all. Clinton re-nominated Garland in January 1997, and he was confirmed approximately three months later by a vote of 76-23. But once again, opposition did not relate to Garland's own qualifications. To the contrary, Senator Orrin Hatch called him "not only a fine nominee, but as good as Republicans can expect from [the Clinton] administration" (a sentiment Hatch repeated in 2003). Garland also had the support of senior administration officials from the Reagan Justice Department, as well as that of Judge Laurence Silberman, who was appointed to the D.C. Circuit by Ronald Reagan.


From the same source, an examination of his record:


Judge Garland's record demonstrates that he is essentially the model, neutral judge. He is acknowledged by all to be brilliant. His opinions avoid unnecessary, sweeping pronouncements.

Judge Garland is also the "short list" candidate to replace Justice Stevens who is least likely to prompt a polarizing confirmation fight. He has broad support on both sides of the aisle, and he has few ideologically controversial rulings. Conservative commentators (see here, here, and here) have expressed support for a potential Garland nomination.

Of the three principal candidates -- the other two being Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Judge Diane Wood -- Judge Garland would also likely have the most immediate influence on the Court. He is well known to the Justices and is likely the most respected by them collectively, particularly the more conservative Justices. The fact that Judge Garland is not only extremely intelligent and respectful but exceptionally careful and quite centrist would mean that his views would have particular salience with, among others, Justices Kennedy and Alito.


His record versus SCOTUS:


For a long-tenured judge on a prominent court of appeals, Judge Garland has participated in few cases that resulted in Supreme Court review. The Supreme Court has not granted cert. in any case in which he wrote the court of appeals' opinion. Of the seven cases reviewed by the Supreme Court in which he has stated (or strongly implied) a position, the Justices agreed with him in four.


It's generally a good sign that very few of his opinions resulted in SCOTUS review. Of the seven that were reviewed, SCOTUS agreed with him on four. And on the three reversals, only one represented an instance where SCOTUS disagreed with his view of the case.

There is a TON more at that link. It gets very detailed.

Another assessment of his record finds judicial restraint, not activism:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-garland-legal-analysis-20160318-story.html

Garland's moderate views, preference for narrowly crafted rulings and tendency to defer to regulatory agencies and the executive branch — under both Republican and Democratic administrations — point to a reluctance to engage in the kind of judicial activism that has been condemned, at different times, by both liberals and conservatives.

Does this get the ball rolling?

 

Trying to paint Garland as an anti-gun justice just doesn't hold up under even cursory examination.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=449353&p=1065997665#post1065997665

Heck, one of the groups trying to slam him for being anti-gun -- Judicial Crisis Network -- actually RECOMMENDED him for SCOTUS six years ago.

Were I you, I would stop relying on partisan hacks for information. The NRA and JCN have just completely discredited themselves.

 

You can't see what makes him so unacceptable because you're not a conservative and probably believe the crap about a living breathing constitution the left uses when they want their way!

 

And yet another poster who responds with empty slogans, instead of with what the OP requested -- an intelligent discussion of Garland's record and legal philosophy.

 

Go away , go away , boo hoo this it not what I want to hear , typical !

“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
― William F. Buckley Jr.

 

You are simply being asked to take your off-topic stuff to a different thread. No one is silencing you. They're asking you not to discuss llamas in a thread about solar panels.

 

Overwhelmingly intelligent if you stand up for conservative values!
Get a clue!

 

I see no discussion of Garland's record or legal philosophy in your posts. Merely trolling and slogans.

Could you take it somewhere else, please? DBAD.

 

Nominations have absolutely nothing to do with credentials, records yes, that is precisely why anyone with true conservative values would never except Garland! Why would you expect conservatives to want a justice who has a clear liberal view on the 2nd amendment. Can you honestly say you would welcome a nominee who was anti gay rights or pro choice on his record?

 

Great, but this thread is to discuss Garland's credentials and judicial philosophy. Could you respect that?

For instance, you made an assertion (" a justice who has a clear liberal view on the 2nd Amendment") without providing any evidence to back that up, and in fact that claim has already been addressed by me earlier in this very thread.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=449453&p=1065999965#post1065999965

Can you maybe provide thoughtful discussion of his credentials and philosophy, without the partisan spin?

 

That's why I'm trying to have this debate.... he's got a high-profile record in the Clinton Justice Department and on the DC Court of Appeals - which isn't exactly a legal backwater. I don't pretend to know what you're referring to when you characterize Obama's two previous Supreme Court picks as "shady deals"... I don't know and I don't care. This is about Judge Garland.... he's got a substantial record on the books - why not bring it out and debate it and try to figure out the type of Supreme Court Justice he'd make?

 

On both sides.

 

That works both way, though.... the Founding Fathers intended it to be adaptable to the changing circumstances of changing times. The world we live in today is a very different world from 1789 - if our interpretation of the Constitution didn't adapt to those changing realities then it would soon find itself irrelevant, would it not? Regardless, though, we have over 200 years of legal precedent to guide our legal judgments... and these precedents have to be respected. The trick is in translating the lessons from the past into the changing circumstances of the future. From my own perspective, I want a Justice who doesn't push an ideological viewpoint one way or the other but bases his or her judgments on the merits of the case before them in as an even-handed way as possible, and as I look over Judge Garland's record, that's what I'm seeing. What are you looking for in a Supreme Court Justice?

 

I see you've jumped right to "shut up".... am I to infer from that that you've got nothing to "put up"?

 

I'd happily vote against him if I had the chance. We do NOT need another pro corporate law and order minded justice. Bad for America.

 

In your quote above you said it was also about his record, which by the way I addressed. So go ahead and look, that's your writing, not mine. And why would I have to provide evidence of Garland's liberal view on the second amendment decisions to you, if you are trying to make a case for him, one would expect you to be informed about his record!

 

Exactly! But before they go and tarnish and mischaracterize this man's record, I want to get it out there just exactly what that record is....... I think he has the potential to be a great Supreme Court Justice.

 

What do you base this assertion on? Regardless, the 2nd Amendment argument has been pretty much settled by Heller... I personally didn't agree with it, but my side lost. Oh Well..... you win some, you lose some, but either way life goes on. I don't see any reason why 2nd Amendment cases should come before the Court in the near future, other than to clarify some of the finer points decided by Heller.

 

It does indeed! Thanks for posting that Raytri..... the Tom Goldstein piece is an especially good read:

The Potential Nomination of Merrick Garland

It cites several of Judge Garland's decisions by subject area, for anyone that has a particular axe to grind.

 

So you're against him because you feel he's too conservative?

 

Of course. He has a horrible record so far, why would we want someone who vaguely supported the notion behind citizens united? Why would we ever consider nominating someone who supports mass incarceration and 80s tough on crime policies? Obama is pitiful with this choice.

 

He's too conservative for liberals and too liberal for conservatives. Is it just me, or does that make him the perfect Goldilocks candidate? It's like I keep saying.... if you locked the President and Senator McConnell in a room with no food and didn't let them out until they came up with a name they could both live with, it's hard to think of anyone who'd be a better choice than Judge Garland.