Merrick Garland

BPR Political Post:
(Uh oh, I’ve been gradually posting more of these recently; need to keep tabs on that…)
It’s eye-rolling that the Republicans are stone-walling Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court. From everything I’ve read, Merrick Garland is a superb choice who is a moderate, and frankly a more palatable pick for the Republican Senate to live with than what they can expect from a President Sanders or a President Clinton. There’s no legitimate reason to block him.
But I “get it”; Republicans want to hold out and see what happens if Cruz or (GULP) Trump get in and can choose a conservative justice. Fine, so be it. As long as they’re honest about why they’re stalling. And for all the Democrats and liberals up in arms over this move, let me tell you, if the tables were turned and it was the last year of George W. Bush and a liberal judge’s seat came open, you would be doing the EXACT. SAME. THING. And giving the EXACT. SAME. EXCUSES. And you know it.
It’s all just political bullshit.
#supremecourt #supremecourtjustice #merrickgarland #Obama
EDIT, March 18th, 8pm: In response to comments conservatives made on my FB page asserting Garland “voted against the Second Amendment”, this was my response:

Interesting. I got curious to find out more regarding both of your assertions that Garland “voted against letting citizens own firearms”, so I decided to research the subject, reading both what would be considered “conservative” and “liberal” websites. 

I’m assuming you’re both referring to Parker vs. District of Columbia, which in 2007 ruled a Washington DC handgun ban was unconstitutional…it was a 2-1 decision, but it turns out that Garland was NOT involved in the ruling; he merely agreed to the city’s request to have the entire court’s judges reconsider the case, not just three of them. Ultimately the court denied the request with a 6-4 vote, Garland being one of the four “yes” votes that included both a liberal judge named David Tatel, but also a renowned conservative judge named A. Raymond Randolph. There’s really nothing in such a vote—voting to reconsider the case—to indicate hostility to the Second Amendment, especially considering Randolph’s vote. Perhaps if they had reheard the case and voted on it, we would know something more definitive.

The other thing I’m finding is that in 2000 he voted to affirm that the FBI could hold on to gun purchase records for six months for auditing purposes in order to make sure background check systems worked…which the NRA asserts amounted to an “illegal national registration of gun owners”. Garland’s vote disagreed with that assertion. Your interpretation may vary.

My take on this is that conservatives are grasping at straws.

Leave a Reply