Moderate Merrick Garland Is Obama Choice For Supreme Court
President Obama will nominate Merrick Garland for the United States Supreme Court, at 11 a.m. eastern time today
Merrick Brian Garland (born November 13, 1952) is the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court to replace the seat of Antonin Scalia .
Considered a judicial moderate, [16] Garland told senators during his U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 1995 that the U.S. Supreme Court justice for whom he had the greatest admiration was Chief Justice John Marshall , and that he had personal affection for the justice for whom he clerked, Justice William Brennan . "Everybody, I think, who hopes to become a judge would aspire to be able to write as well as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes ," Garland told the committee at that time. "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." [ citation needed ]
Tags
Who is online
50 visitors
A consensus choice called "judicially unassailable".
A good choice. Let's see the republicans stomp their feet and say that he's not qualified.
This should be interesting.
I'm not a Repub - and I'll say he's not qualified.
'Nuff said.
''Nuff said''. Actually it isn't 1st. If he's not qualified, why not?
Actually, it is. I don't have to justify/explain my decision to anyone - 'cept my wife.
Garland, born in Chicago, is a graduate of Harvard and Harvard Law School - no diversity.
Presidents generally like to choose nominees younger than the 63-year-old Garland to ensure they will serve for a long time.
Garland won appointment to the federal appeals court in D.C. in 1997 by a Senate vote of 76-23 - not enough support.
Judge Garland has a very limited record on Indian law issues. He was on the panel that decided Ramapough Mountain Indians v. Norton, an unsigned per curiam decision from 2001, that affirmed the Interior Department’s decision not to acknowledge the Ramapough nation.
SAN MANUEL INDIAN BINGO AND CASINO and San Manuel Band of Serrano Mission Indians, Petitioners v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent Unite Here! and State of Connecticut, Intervenors. - See more at: - We hold the Board may apply the NLRA to employment at this casino, and therefore we deny the petition for review..
Garland's "constitutional" rulings have been few and far between. He, at the Appleate level, ruled on laws/regulations - not even close to the same thing.
"I have fulfilled my constitutional duty," the president said Wednesday. "Presidents don't stop working in their final year; neither should a senator." The Senate, per the U. S. Constitution is only REQUIRED to give the President Advice and Consent. Their advice him was to wait until the next president - a very wise choice that many in the House and Senate - Dems and Repubs - agree on.
Well I guess that you can explain to your wife than 1st.
No diversity...Well I guess that that eliminates most of the justices. Since most are from Harvard.
Age. many of the court served into their late 70's or 80's. That would give him 15 to 20 years on the bench.
No experience in Indian law...Seems that none of the justices have any experience in Indian law. Just take a look at some of the decisions of the strict constitutionalists on the court regarding Indian law.
If you feel that he didn't have enough support, that should work against him if the republicans choose to vote on him. Seems to be a good reason to hold a vote.
Kagan - a ttended Princeton , Oxford , and Harvard Law School , professor at the University of Chicago Law School , leaving to serve as Associate White House Counsel , and later as policy adviser, under President Clinton , professor at Harvard Law School and was later named its first female dean, served as Solicitor General for the U. S. where she argued the constitutionality of cases in front of SCOTUS.
Sotomayor - Yale, Princeton, U. S. District Court for Southern New York, U. S Court of Appeals for the Second District - heard over 3,000 cases, wrote over 380 Opinions.
Ginsberg - legal career as an advocate for the advancement of women's rights as a constitutional principle, volunteer lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union , professor at Rutgers School of Law–Newark and Columbia Law School .
Breyer - B.A. from Magdalen College, Oxford, and an LL.B. from Harvard Law School. law clerk to Justice Arthur Goldberg of the Supreme Court of the United States during the 1964 Term, Special Assistant to the Assistant U.S. Attorney General for Antitrust, 1965–1967, Assistant Special Prosecutor of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, Special Counsel of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Chief Counsel of the committee, Assistant Professor, Professor of Law, and Lecturer at Harvard Law School, 1967–1994, Professor at the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government, Visiting Professor at the College of Law, Sydney, Australia and at the University of Rome. From 1980–1990, he served as a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and as its Chief Judge, 1990–1994.
No, Garland isn't qualified.
Despite what Wikipedia says, he's liberal enough. That's enough reason for Republicans not to confirm if they so choose. The idea that qualifications matter went out the window with Bork. To pretend otherwise is silly.
Of course, Republicans might think he's a better choice than anyone HRC or her replacement if she's indicted will nominate and decide to confirm him. It's up to the Senate. The looming Trump nomination changes the calculus.
Hell, since we are likely one terrorist attack away from a Trump Presidency, it may make sense to confirm him since Trump's likely to pick a more liberal judge, given Trump's admiration for the jurisprudence of his crazy liberal sister. He's a better choice than Trump's sister, hands down.
Reuters was reported something else this morning:
BREAKING NEWS: Obama likely to nominate appellate judge Srinivasan for Supreme Court: source — Reuters Top News (@Reuters) March 16, 2016
There are already many cracks in the "We won't even consider an Obama nominee" crowd. Several GOP Senators have already said they will at least meet with him. The GOP Senators who are up for re-election really, really don't want to have to explain to their constituents back home why they didn't give him a hearing and a vote on the floor of the Senate, where he will be confirmed. Then Senator Grassley raised the stupidity meter to a whole new level by saying that they would consider him in a lame duck session after the election, which makes all the voters back home start to think that if he's good enough to give a hearing and a vote to then, why is he not good enough to give a hearing and vote to now? They're shooting themselves in all of their collective feet with their ignorant partisanship of a very serious position to fill.
I think the GOP "leadership" will cave and give him a hearing and a vote before the election. They're already trying to calculate how many Senate seats they'll lose if they don't. Answer? Many.