Tag: Merrick Garland

Following through on a campaign promise, President Trump has nominated 10th Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch. Trump promised a strict Constitutionalist would fill the seat left by the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia. Like Justice Scalia, Judge Gorsuch interprets the Constitution and its language as that language was understood at the time of a passage’s adoption. For our proposes here on these pages, that means that “militia” means, as it did in c. 1788, “the whole people, except for a few public officials”, and not the National Guard; a 20th Century invention.

Predictably, the wingnut left has retired to their fainting couches. Gorsuch, who was approved by the Senate in 2006 on a voice vote, is suddenly an outrageous, “extremist” pick for the Supreme Court. (And keep in mind who was part of that Senate which approved Judge Gorsuch that day!)

Leading the howls of outrage is the Old Grey Lady. The NY Times editorial board refers to Judge Gorsuch as the “Nominee for a Stolen Seat“. Let me say from the start that I didn’t read the entire OP-ED piece. There quickly came a point where I just couldn’t stop laughing. It was probably this part…

It’s been almost a year since Senate Republicans took an empty Supreme Court seat hostage, discarding a constitutional duty that both parties have honored throughout American history and hobbling an entire branch of government for partisan gain.

President Trump had a great opportunity to repair some of that damage by nominating a moderate candidate for the vacancy, which was created when Justice Antonin Scalia died last February. Instead, he chose Neil Gorsuch, a very conservative judge from the federal Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit whose jurisprudence and writing style are often compared to those of Justice Scalia.

Those, by the way, were the 1st two paragraphs.

Let’s break that down a bit, shall we? The “constitutional duty” the Times refers to is to provide “advice and consent” to a President’s picks for positions such as Supreme Court justice. This would be Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the US Constitution. This is not, however, an obligation to rubber-stamp whatever picks the President may make. Indeed, the last Senate opted to abide by the Biden Rule and abstained from a vote on Merrick Garland’s nomination.

Some of the “damage” the Times mentions is spelled out later; namely the toxic political environment that the Times and others like them created following President Trump’s election! Apparently, Trump should have nominated a “moderate” (i.e. a barking mad liberal) because Muslims or some such. Maybe it has something to do with vagina hats. I don’t know. It’s hard to read while I’m laughing.

That last line, however, is a ringing endorsement of Judge Gorsuch. Anyone who compares to the late Justice Scalia is a fine pick for the high court.

Legal News

The anti-gun, liberal, wingnut butthurt continues. This time it’s this lament from Slate editor Jeremy Stahl that Merrick Garland wasn’t able to attend the inauguration as a Supreme Court Justice. Worse yet, “Now Trump will get to nominate whomever he wants to fill this seat.” The horror!

News

From NRA News:


It should be noted that the Senate has done its Constitutional duty with regard to the nomination of Merrick Garland to the US Supreme Court. They’ve said “no”. One would expect that a con-law professor to know that the Senate’s duty is to provide advice and consent before the President may appoint someone to the high court. Its job is not to rubberstamp whatever choice the executive makes. The Senate has opted to not consent.

Legal News

Via Fox News this morning: A “split” is growing in the Senate GOP over the confirmation of Obama’s extremist pick for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland. So if you were expecting rock-ribbed Republicans to hold the line and protect your civil liberties, then you need to put that meth pipe down. This is not a fight that will be won by the GOP and their “staunch commitment to the 2nd Amendment”. It will more likely be won by holding their unwilling feet to the fire. Left to their own devices, many Senate Republicans would run off like scared, little rabbits rather than stand firm to protect American gun owners. And it wouldn’t take too many of these scared, little rabbits to send the 2nd Amendment down the memory hole.

No action is required of our members just yet; this is only a heads-up. Continue monitoring these pages and CalNRA.com for more information.

News Politics

Barack Hussein has submitted Judge Merrick Garland’s name to the Senate to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Garland is certainly no friend to gun owners. He was one of two circuit court judges that wanted to rehear Heller in 2007, presumably because he disagreed with the 3-judge panel’s ruling that overturned the DC gun ban. He also voted seven years earlier to allow Janet Reno’s illegal gun owner registry to continue operation. (The Clinton DOJ was illegally retaining NICS data in violation of the 1968 GCA.)

If “Present” Obama was looking for yet another way to motivate American gun owners, he’s found it. Let’s hope that the Senate GOP sticks to their promise to apply The Biden Rule to this nominee.

Legal News