Posted on 03/17/2016 8:39:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
How many times can one remember where the National Rifle Association and the New York Times agree on an issue? One count them on the fingers of one hand, and have a few left over. However, when it comes to Barack Obama’s pick to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, an unexpected synchronicity occurs … of sorts, anyway.
The NRA’s legislative arm accused Obama of showing “utter contempt for the Second Amendment and law-abiding gun owners” with the nomination of Merrick Garland:
“With Justice Scalia’s tragic passing, there is no longer a majority of support among the justices for the fundamental, individual right to own a firearm for self-defense. Four justices believe law-abiding Americans have that right – and four justices do not. President Obama has nothing but contempt for the Second Amendment and law-abiding gun owners,” Chris Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement, remarking upon Obama’s past Supreme Court nominees and their own records on the issue.
Cox concluded that “a basic analysis of Merrick Garland’s judicial record shows that he does not respect our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.”
“Therefore, the National Rifle Association, on behalf of our five million members and tens of millions of supporters across the country, strongly opposes the nomination of Merrick Garland for the U.S. Supreme Court,” Cox said in the statement.
The statement follows the conservative Judicial Crisis Network announcing an additional $2 million ad campaign in opposition to Garland. Carrie Severino, who heads the group, pointed to Garland’s “history of general hostility to the Second Amendment,” in particular his decision to vote in favor of reviewing a ruling on a restrictive gun law that had already been struck down. The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the circuit court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.
Of course, Obama has made gun control one of his final-year crusades. He partnered with CNN on a town hall forum in an attempt to put political pressure on Congress to pass more laws restricting ownership and sales, only to be met by Kimberly Corban and others who pushed the President off his message. The White House would never admit it, but it’s safe to assume that broadening the legal avenues for gun-control legislation would have been a litmus test for this nomination.
However, it wouldn’t have been the only liberal issue Obama considered in the appointment, and Garland clearly passes muster on the rest. The New York Times hailed Garland’s nomination as the opportunity to move the center of the Supreme Court to its furthest-Left position in a lifetime:
There are two ways to think about the change. One is to compare Judge Garland, President Obama’s nominee, with Justice Scalia. The second is to think about how Mr. Garland might shift the court’s balance of power. His addition would make the justice at the center of the court more liberal than at any point in nearly 50 years. …
We don’t yet know exactly how Mr. Garland would vote if he joined the court. But scholars believe that he will be substantially more liberal than Justice Scalia was. According to a ranking of Supreme Court and appeals court judges, Mr. Garland is expected to be ideologically similar to Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s previous picks for the court. …
If his past record is predictive, and Mr. Garland earns confirmation and votes with the court’s current liberal bloc, the new median justice will become Stephen Breyer, the most liberal median justice since 1937, when the scholarly rankingsbegan. If Mr. Garland is more conservative than Justice Breyer but more liberal than Justice Kennedy, Mr. Garland would become the new median, the most liberal in nearly 50 years.
“For the first time in decades, the court might swing to a Democratic court,” said Lee Epstein, a professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis who measures and studies voting patterns on the court. “It’s a major moment.”
Indeed it is — and that’s why Senate Republicans have remained firm on their resolve to force the nomination process into the next presidency. If voters want that kind of dramatic shift in the Supreme Court, they can elect a president who will provide it and a Senate that would confirm it in the upcoming election. Voters elected a Senate in 2014 that would block these kinds of dramatic initiatives during Obama’s lame-duck period. This Senate should stick by that mandate.
A Democrat victory in November will lead to court rulings reversing the First and Second Amendments; so-called individual right to bear arms rescinded or severely curtailed; so-called assault weapons banned; political spending restricted; no opposition to so-called marriage of homosexuals tolerated, lawsuits will impoverish the religious (just take their money and see how fast they turn).
Not in decades. Probably since the beginning.
He’s pro-abortion and anti-gun - it what universe is that considered “centrist”?
In 1992, Joe Biden called for an election-year blockade of Supreme Court nominations
Were there a vacancy, Biden argued, Bush should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”
“Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself,” he continued. “Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.”
Senator Barack Obama said in 2006 that he supported the Democratic-led filibuster to stop Justice Samuel Alito from making it to the Supreme Court.
“There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee…that once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view.”
Obama wasn’t the only Democratic senator to oppose Alito’s nomination. The late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) led an opposition coalition, which attempted to filibuster to block the confirmation process. Kennedy was joined by Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who publicly stated they opposed Alito’s confirmation.
This was reaffirmed in 2007 when Senator Charles Schumer declared, “We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not.”
To this, I add two names, Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. Consider how they were handled by Ted Kennedy.
And our nation will be in open revolt.
Merrick Garland was Jamie Gorelick’s principal deputy at the Clinton Justice dept.
As I posted on another thread:
Michael Savage in speaking about this yesterday said “there is no such thing as a moderate liberal”. Regardless of whatever you think about Savage, he’s right about that one.
The Pubs will cave...they always cave to the Dems. They will vote and confirm. I wish it weren’t so but I don’t expect them to stand up now.
“A Democrat victory in November will lead to court rulings reversing the First and Second Amendments”
While I agree this is not the guy for the job, nor should any Obama nomination be approved now or ever, I fail to see how any court ruling could reverse a constitutional amendment. It would take another amendment to do that. Yes, they could make a ruling that could make some things difficult and ultimately end up doing nothing but enriching lawyers and clogging the courts, but reversing an amendment? I don’t think so.
Really ? The next court can overrule a previous court and judge that the Second Amendment does not refer to any individual right to bear arms. Are you good with that ? Similarly, expect the court to overturn campaign spending rulings and that homosexuals' rights preempt your religious right to deny them weddings or to promulgate hate speech against them from the Bible or otherwise.
Oh, they may SUPPRESS our Rights. At the best, they will only make criminals of a majority of this Country. At worst, they will have opened the door to a full insurrection to take our Rights/Freedom back.
No he won’t. Because he ain’t getting confirmed.
You know - I always thought that they must know that will happen. But then I see how blind and clueless the GOPe is, and I think: "the Libs have no idea the powder keg they are about to ignite"
Shame, too.
Prediction. Gutless GOP cowards will cave and confirm a third Obama justice. Hope I’m wrong.
After Obama appoints that joker, President Hillary Clinton will do what?But, don't worry, just repeat after me -- Clinton will be better than Trump...
Sorry, this isn’t Marie Antoinette we’re talking about here (most would, IMO, presume she really had NO idea what was going on outside the palace walls).
We’re not talking about the hand-set printing press, town-crier or pony express.
There’s NO way in hell We the People blow up their phone lines/fax/e-mail and NOT call it for what it is: willful blind-eye and elitism.
My ONLY hope, if/when the U.S. gets his again, they take D.C. while in full session. That is how much I think We despise our ‘leaders’. Maybe, then, they’ll finally open their eyes.
"A Democrat victory in November will lead to court rulings reversing the First and Second Amendments; so-called individual right to bear arms rescinded or severely curtailed; so-called assault weapons banned; political spending restricted; no opposition to so-called marriage of homosexuals tolerated, lawsuits will impoverish the religious (just take their money and see how fast they turn)."That's why this election is so absolutely critical, and why we can't select Trump as our nominee.
I take it you're all in for Ryan/Romney/Kasich or some derivative as long as they throw Cruz a bone, so to speak. You're NeverTrump, correct ? Testify.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.