President Obama Nominates Judge Merrick Garland to Supreme Court

[jbrown329]

Guess I'll never know. And I so wished for a real lawyer to tell me...

Don't hold your breath.

 

[rareboy]

Ask him for me then. Don't quote, ask it as your own question.

He apparently has me on 'ignore' as well.....

 

[Rolyo85]

He apparently has me on 'ignore' as well.....

Bahahaha who does he even see on here?

 

[TX-Beau]

Bahahaha who does he even see on here?

He picks on the newbies.

 

[hotatlboi]

SCOTUS doesn't have to overturn Roe v Wade. The states are doing a bang up job with that. And it's gone a long ways since this was done.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/clinic/

Whole Women's Health will likely put a a stop to that. The SCOTUS will have to decide if it will tolerate the states de facto defiance of their previous rulings. If Kennedy still believes as he did in PP vs Casey, he will likely smack them down.

 

[Kulindahr]

You brought abortion up.

And I'm still waiting for your answer - how many major schools of thought are there in regards to interpreting the constitution?

Two: that it is to be read as understood when approved, and that it is fair game to twist and mangle.

from ARTICLE TWO of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

I think it was Kulindahr who claims that this Clause was only to fill the first Supreme Court. No, I don't see that anywhere. I don't see any limitation to the 18th Century - and I notice the word SHALL...which, in legalese, is a command. It is MANDATORY. Even if there is wiggle-room, it sure as fuck is CUSTOMARY to appoint a Supreme Court Justice - and I've heard mentioned somewhere that in all of our history, NO Supreme Court appointment has ever been denied a hearing and a vote. Robert Bork GOT HIS HEARING AND HIS VOTE; in the end he wasn't Confirmed but, the point is, Bork DID GET A SENATE VOTE...it just didn't go in his favor, and that is far from the first time.

I call bullshit if you say it only applied 229 years ago, and not now. That's not how it reads, at all.

The reading, to me, doesn't say that the Senate MUST act (as there is no "shall" part that applies to The Senate), but doing otherwise for the first time in more than two centuries is rather questionable and sleazy, to put it very mildly. I think it's more that the R's want all appointments, from now on, to be Dominionists who will rule, in every possible way, to ABSOLUTELY FORCE their Christianity on every aspect of our life.

The return of heresy crimes, anybody?


Yes...well, Roe v Wade can be overturned, in a sense, but that merely means GETTING RID OF A COURT DECISION; "overturning" Roe doesn't put a new law into place.

It "just" says that the states can do whatever they choose to make sure that EVERY woman, no matter what, is FORCED to take that goddam baby all the way to term and spit it out of their abdomen. Oh, so you're 10 and your uncle raped you and almost killed you? Deal with it. You will probably DIE in childbirth, and the baby will likely not survive? NO PROBLEM...a dead fetus AND a dead mother is MUCH BETTER than just a dead fetus.

If "shall" is mandatory, then we have a problem: it isn't time-constrained. So is the President supposed to appoint a justice every week, every month, every year?

Either he has to appoint justices all the time, or he only has to appoint them when there aren't a plural number, in order to have "judges", i.e. more than one.

So Obama doesn't have to appoint anyone, and the Senate doesn't have to consider anyone.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ Says the guy who thinks that Congress has to be consulted on the nomination.

"Advise" implies that the Senate should be consulted prior to nominating. The Senate would have been wise to come up with a list of possibilities of whom they would approve, and advise the president to pick one of them. As it is, this is a circus.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is a terrible choice: the man has ruled previously to uphold illegal executive actions of presidents, thus indicating that he prefers and imperial model of government to a republican one. He is, thus, disqualified, since one task of the federal government is to make sure we have a republican form of government.

That's probably why Obama likes him: no president before has ever wielded executive authority so blatantly with no regard for the legislative branch. Jonathan Turley, who is on record condemning Obama for his imperial attitude, notes that Garland favors government power over individual rights consistently, which is a warning liberals should listen to.

 

[rareboy]

"Advise" implies that the Senate should be consulted prior to nominating. The Senate would have been wise to come up with a list of possibilities of whom they would approve, and advise the president to pick one of them. As it is, this is a circus.

They did.

Garland has been one of the justices that has been suggested again and again by Senators of both parties.

 

[Rolyo85]

Two: that it is to be read as understood when approved, and that it is fair game to twist and mangle.

You are 100% incorrect but the question wasn't addressed at you anyway.

 

[Kabluey]

This is a terrible choice: the man has ruled previously to uphold illegal executive actions of presidents, thus indicating that he prefers and imperial model of government to a republican one. He is, thus, disqualified, since one task of the federal government is to make sure we have a republican form of government.

That's probably why Obama likes him: no president before has ever wielded executive authority so blatantly with no regard for the legislative branch. Jonathan Turley, who is on record condemning Obama for his imperial attitude, notes that Garland favors government power over individual rights consistently, which is a warning liberals should listen to.

Did he say something about guns, perchance?

 

[rareboy]

According to LawNewz, a decision that is also concerning to gun rights advocates, is his ruling in NRA vs. Reno, a 2000 lawsuit by the National Rifle Assocation that fought against the retention of background check information collected when guns are legally purchased.

Reno, then the U.S. Attorney General, argued that it was necessary and allowed under the Brady Act to retain the data for six months in order to audit the background check system. Garland ruled in her favor.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/03/merri...mendment-history-supreme-court-nominee-obama/

 

[opinterph]

According to the [URL=https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160316/nra-opposes-nomination-of-merrick-garland-to-the-us-supreme-court]NRA-Institute for Legislative Action[/URL], Judge Merrick does not respect our right to keep and bear arms for self defense. Their “basic analysis” seems to be opinion-based – at least the opposition statement released by the NRA-ILA Executive Director doesn’t mention anything specific.

Obama has already nominated two Supreme Court justices who oppose the right to own firearms and there is absolutely no reason to think he has changed his approach this time.

… Therefore, the National Rifle Association … strongly opposes the nomination of Merrick Garland for the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

[jbrown329]

Fuck the NRA in the ass with a sharp stick.