President Obama made good on his threat and nominated what he and many liberals consider a moderate choice for the Supreme Court vacancy created with the death of Antonia Scalia. The President’s choice is the perfect judge to move the Supreme Court far to the left and his liberal legacy for decades.
Garland was born on November 13, 1952, in Chicago, Illinois. He graduated from Harvard Law and became special assistant to the U.S. attorney general for the U.S. Department of Justice, before entering private practice in Washington, D.C. Garland joined the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice in 1993, where he supervised the prosecution of the Oklahoma City bombing and Unabomber cases, before being confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1997.
In a questionnaire submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1995, Garland wrote:
“I provided volunteer assistance on a Presidential Debate for President Clinton in October 1992 and for Michael Dukakis in October 1988. I did some volunteer work for Walter Mondale’s presidential campaign in 1983-84. As a college student, I worked two summers for the campaign of my then-congressman, Abner Mikva, in 1972 and 1974.”
Judge Garland once clerked for the court’s liberal icon, Justice William Brennan, and was reportedly considered for a cabinet post in President Obama’s administration.
Liberals consider Merrick Garland a judicial moderate and it is still unknown how hard the true progressives will fight for him to get a nomination, although most are expected to try and push Republicans to get a confirmation hearing.
Democracy for America, a progressive activist group launched by Howard Dean, called the choice of Garland deeply disappointing. Executive Director Charles Chamberlain said, “This selection will make it harder to excite grassroots progressive about the slog ahead.”
Kurt Walters from the online advocacy group Demand Progress said that Obama had “missed the opportunity to solidify his legacy by appointing a true progressive.”
Another leftwing group, CREDO, said that Garland wasn’t likely to be a progressive champion, but that he’s clearly qualified.
How the Democrats call this man a moderate is baffling and also downright scary when you start to consider what their idea of a true progressive judge would be.
A History of Anti-Gun Decisions
In 2000, Judge Garland Ruled in favor of the Federal Government plan to retain Americans’ personal information from background checks for firearm purchases. The federal appeals court ruled that the FBI can hold on to gun purchase records for six months to ensure that the federal computer system that conducts millions of instant criminal background checks is working properly.
The 2 to 1 ruling was a defeat for the National Rifle Association, which argued that the practice amounted to an illegal national registration of gun owners. The NRA contended that the law requires the FBI to destroy records of approved purchases immediately.
In 2004, he ruled against rehearing another pivotal Second Amendment case (Seegars v. Gonzales), thereby casting a vote against the individual right to Keep and Bear Arms.
In 2007, he ruled in favor of reviewing the D.C. Circuit’s decision that invalidated the city’s handgun ban, the very ban Scalia helped overturn at the Supreme Court.
There is little doubt that District of Columbia v. Heller would be overturned if Garland is on the bench, which would be the end of the Second Amendment as we currently know it. It would be expected that any new anti-gun legislation that made it to the Supreme Court would be upheld, which would pave the way for many of the nation’s gun restrictions or “assault weapons” bans to be upheld.
A liberal anti-gun judge on the Supreme Court is far more dangerous to the Second Amendment than even a Hillary Clinton presidency.
Not Just Guns Would Be in Danger
Judge Garland’s record on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals proves that he would be a reliable fifth vote for many extreme liberal priorities, not just the gutting the Second Amendment. This would also be the Democrats chance to pass the legalization of partial-birth abortions, which has long been a top goal of the party.
Garland was the only dissenter in a 2002 case striking down an illegal, job-killing EPA regulation nicknamed the Haze Rule. The majority stated that passing the case would have forced businesses “to spend millions of dollars for new technology that will have no appreciable effect” on haze in the area.
He has a long record of deference to unaccountable government bureaucrats at the Department of Labor, EPA and other agencies whose regulations kill jobs and stifle economic growth. I’m sure the Bureau of Land Management would be given full reign to continue stealing even more land because any cases against them would be ignored or ruled in their favor.
No Hearing, No Vote
That is the rally cry of FreedomWorks, the Koch-funded advocacy group, who also added: “This debate is over the process, not the nominee.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has stated that the American people should make the choice based on the direction they go in the General Election. But McConnell has caved to pressure from Democrats before, and it is a 50/50 split on what he will do this time.
Five GOP Senators whose seats are considered endangered and up for reelection appear to be waffling. They are Kelly Ayotte (NH), Mark Kirk (IL), Rob Portman (OH), Ron Johnson (WI) and Pat Toomey (PA). It is expected that Democrats will use the no hearing, no vote against these senators in the upcoming election if they don’t cave to the pressure and call for a vote.
While the Presidential race is getting all the attention, your future could be won or lost with this nomination.