Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Pubs have already put themselves in a lose - lose position in regards to the general election in November, and now they'd better be very smart (unlikely) about how they approach this appointment or they'll do it to themselves again. Because if they reject Garland, President Hillary could very well appoint a flaming lib in February and the new Dem-controlled senate would approve it in short order.
Me?
I don't want a flaming lib. I'd like to see a moderate. Garland? I honestly don't know enough about him yet.
The guy is well-qualified for it and would be reasonable accounts be a good pick, but I'm sure the Obstructionists will fight it to the death. They're hoping Trump gets elected and puts someone in there who will be a raving right-wing lunatic (and he probably will).
You mean "obstructionists" like the Dems (led by Kennedy) were with Bork (talk about well-qualified)?
Garland has voted consistently against the 2nd amendment right for individuals to own firearms. This makes him non-confirmable in many senators eyes. If the left is going to use abortion as a litmus test for supreme court nominees; they can certainly expect the right to do the same with 2nd amendment issues. The left uses the argument that the abortion issue has already been settled by the supreme court and I agree. The individual right to keep and bear arms has also been settled in D.C. vs Heller; thereby making Garland a poor choice for a consensus candidate.
I don't believe that is true at all, which cases are you specifically referring to that he consistently voted against the 2nd amendment?
He is extremely well qualified according to both republicans and democrats.
In a National Review piece, Carrie Severino, chief counsel for the Judicial Crisis Network, also wrote about Garland voting to uphold an executive action by President Clinton to establish what some considered a de facto gun registration requirement.
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. As Dave Kopel observed at the time, the “[t]he Tatel and Garland votes were no surprise, since they had earlier signaled their strong hostility to gun owner rights†in a previous case. Had Garland and Tatel won that vote, there’s a good chance that the Supreme Court wouldn’t have had a chance to protect the individual right to bear arms for several more years …
Garland thought all of these regulations were legal, which tells us two things. First, it tells us that he has a very liberal view of gun rights, since he apparently wanted to undo a key court victory protecting them. Second, it tells us that he’s willing to uphold executive actions that violate the rights of gun owners. That’s not so moderate, is it?
The Pubs have already put themselves in a lose - lose position in regards to the general election in November, and now they'd better be very smart (unlikely) about how they approach this appointment or they'll do it to themselves again. Because if they reject Garland, President Hillary could very well appoint a flaming lib in February and the new Dem-controlled senate would approve it in short order.
Me?
I don't want a flaming lib. I'd like to see a moderate. Garland? I honestly don't know enough about him yet.
Garland, unlike a large majority of the American people, does not believe the 2nd is an individual right. He is scum.
Someone who wishes to take away the right to bear arms is no moderate.
The Republicans should go through the process and Bork the SOB and make sure the American public knows why.
Garland, unlike a large majority of the American people, does not believe the 2nd is an individual right.
Prove it.
Quote:
He is scum.
Someone who wishes to take away the right to bear arms is no moderate.
Contact your senators and tell them to filibuster, so that Hill can appoint a flaming lib in 11 months, then.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
