Barack Obama has seemingly picked a moderate judge who is center right on some issues but his choice is not an innocent one. Everything this president does is agenda-driven. The president is going for the prize – the Second Amendment.
Obama has been quoted by a college classmate as saying he doesn’t think people should be allowed to have guns and all his actions shows us that is what he basically still believes. Garland could be and likely is his legacy pick to destroy gun rights in the United States.
A brilliant Harvard graduate, Garland is friends with Barack Obama and John Roberts and he has clerked for the outspoken Progressive Justice Brennan. Garland has been described by Judge Napolitano Wednesday as center-right and the most conservative judge a Democrat president could ever appoint to the Supreme Court though most describe his cumulative opinions as moderate. Today, Senator Lee of Utah, who has clerked in the Supreme Court, described Garland as a Progressive Liberal but explained that it doesn’t matter who the candidate is. This must be left to the next president.
Judge Garland was appointed to the bench by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1997, winning Senate confirmation by a vote of 76-23. Prior to that, he served in the Justice Department during the Clinton administration.
The Republican position is a risk, Judge Napolitano said today because if Hillary wins she will appoint someone to the far left. It’s a gamble but Lee said the Senate Judiciary Committee will not allow this nomination to come to the floor.
There is one very important decision Garland would probably reverse if he becomes Justice and if he succeeded, you can expect the entire Bill of Rights to fall. This is the ultimate prize for Obama as he goes out the door.
There is evidence that Garland would work to reverse D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and which stands as Justice Scalia’s legacy.
Garland’s record regarding gun control points to his voting to pave the way for stricter gun laws in D.C.. Garland’s decision marked a major turning point in restrictions that would prevent gun ownership for those seeking handguns as protective tools for self-defense.
JCN chief counsel Carrie Severino said in a National Review Online post that Judge Merrick’s record on the bench since 1997 “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.”
There is also Garland’s 2000 decision in NRA v. Reno. In that case, the National Rifle Association fought against retention of background check information that is collected when people legally purchase guns. The NRA argued that the information was required to be immediately destroyed under the Brady Act. Then-Attorney General Janet Reno’s position was that it was necessary and allowed under the act to retain the data for six months in order to audit the background check system. Garland ruled in Reno’s favor, stating that her interpretation of the Brady Act was reasonable.
Senator Lee said today that Garland will not be considered.
“In light of the contentious presidential election already well underway, my colleagues and I on the Judiciary Committee have already given our advice and consent on this issue: we will not have any hearings or votes on President Obama’s pick,” Mr. Lee said. “Any meeting with any nominee put forward by President Obama would only be a waste of the Senate’s time. The Court has very ably dealt with temporary absences in the past and will do so again now.”
Justice Grassley said it is a lifetime appointment that could change the direction of the Supreme Court for generations and we need a serious discussion about its purpose.
“A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice. Do we want a court that interprets the law, or do we want a court that acts as an unelected super legislature? This year is a tremendous opportunity for our country to have a sincere and honest debate about the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system of government.”
Senator Mitch McConnell rejected the nomination because it’s not the time and it’s about the process, not the candidate. To paraphrase:
This morning, he reminded the public before Congress that the current Democratic leader rejected nominees in the final year and the incoming leader told the Senate to NOT consider any of George Bush’s Supreme Court nominees. The Biden Rule supports their action to not appoint a Justice. He called for Democrats to work on those issues they can agree on “instead of endlessly debating an issue on which we don’t agree.” “Let’s let the American people decide”, he said, after the people pick the next president, “whoever that may be.”
Media Matters, the far-left Hillary website, is out presenting these facts as myths, but it’s obvious that Judge Garland was chosen because he will give Barack Obama the prize – the erosion of the Second Amendment.