OBAMA'S SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: LIBERAL, ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT, UNION FRIENDLY, WORKED ON DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGNS
Obama Nominates Jewish ‘Moderate’ Appeals Judge for U.S. Supreme Court Scalia Opening
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) — President Barack Obama nominated veteran appellate court judge Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, setting up a potentially ferocious political showdown with Senate Republicans who have vowed to block any Obama nominee.Considered a moderate, Garland, 63, is currently chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. He was picked to replace long-serving conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who died on Feb. 13.“I’ve selected a nominee who is widely recognized not only as one of America’s sharpest legal minds but someone who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, even-handedness and excellence,” Obama said in the White House Rose Garden.“These qualities and his long commitment to public service have earned him the respect and admiration of leaders from both sides of the aisle (Democrats and Republicans). He will ultimately bring that same character to bear on the Supreme Court, an institution in which he is uniquely prepared to serve immediately,” Obama added.Senate confirmation is required for any nominee to join the bench and Senate Republicans have vowed not to hold confirmation hearings or a vote on any nominee picked by the Democratic president for the lifetime position on the court.Republicans are demanding that Obama leave the seat vacant and let the next president, to be elected in November and sworn in next January, make the selection.Garland, is a long-time appellate judge and former prosecutor who Obama also considered when he filled two previous Supreme Court vacancies.Federal appeals court judge Sri Srinivasan had also been a finalist for the nomination.In a foreshadowing of the pressure campaign the White House and its allies plan to wage in the coming weeks, the White House noted that seven current Republican U.S. senators voted to confirm Garland to the DC Circuit court in 1997.PRAISE FROM BOTH PARTIESGarland, who has earned praise from lawmakers of both parties in the past, was named to his current job by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1997, winning Senate confirmation in a 76-23 vote. Prior to that, he worked in the Justice Department during the Clinton administration.Without Scalia, the nine-member Supreme Court is evenly split with four liberals and four conservative justices. Obama’s nominee could tilt the court to the left for the first time in decades.Republicans, hoping a candidate from their party wins the Nov. 8 presidential election, want the next president to make the selection.Billionaire Donald Trump is the leading Republican presidential candidate. Obama’s former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, is the front-runner on the Democratic side.Republicans and their allies already have geared up to fight Obama’s nominee. The Republican National Committee on Monday announced the formation of a task force that will work with an outside conservative group to spearhead attack ads and other ways of pushing back against Obama’s choice.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has served as a springboard to the Supreme Court for several justices including Scalia in recent decades.Obama may have been looking for a nominee who could convince the Republicans to change course. Garland could fit that bill with his moderate record, background as a prosecutor and history of drawing Republican support.Garland was under consideration by Obama when he filled two prior high court vacancies. Obama, in office since 2009, has already named two justices to the Supreme Court: Sonia Sotomayor, who at 55 became the first Hispanic justice in 2009, and Elena Kagan, who was 50 when she became the fourth woman ever to serve on the court in 2010.Presidents tend to pick nominees younger than Garland, so they can serve for decades and extend a president’s legacy. But Obama may reason that the choice of an older nominee might also entice Senate Republicans into considering Obama’s selection.Trump, speaking on ABC’s “Good Morning America” program, said it was critical for Republicans to take back the White House to avoid Democrats shaping the Supreme Court.“You have four Supreme Court judgeships coming up, and that would mean they would take over, that would mean for 50 years, probably, this country will never be the same,” Trump said.“The Republicans should do exactly what they are doing. I think they should wait till the next president and let the next president pick,” Trump said.______________________________________________________OBAMA SELECTS 2ND AMENDMENT FOE FOR SUPREME COURT
Expected to overturn Scalia ruling on 2nd Amendment if confirmed
BY KURT NIMMO
SEE: http://www.infowars.com/obama-selects-2nd-amendment-foe-for-supreme-court/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and
research purposes:
Judge Merrick Garland, Obama’s pick to replace the late Antonin Scalia, “has a very liberal view of gun rights,” according to Judicial Crisis Network (JNC), a judicial group run by a former law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
Garland is the chief judge of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He was nominated by Bill Clinton. Garland’s nomination languished in the Republican controlled Senate until after the 1996 election.Republicans did not specifically object to Garland’s liberal views, but rather said the DC court did not need another judge and objected to the additional “cost to taxpayers of $1 million a year,” according to Senator Chuck Grassley.As deputy assistant attorney general in the Criminal Division of the Clinton Justice Department, Garland supervised the prosecutions of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols in the Oklahoma City bombing case. He was responsible for major decisions in the case, including seeking the death penalty for McVeigh.According to JNC chief counsel Carrie Severino, Garland’s judicial record “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.”The Court ruled during its 2007-08 term that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm and that the D.C. law banning handguns was unconstitutional.“Ultimately, the Court agreed with Heller that D.C.’s ban on all functional firearms in the home is unconstitutional ‘under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights,” writes Robert A. Levy. “Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) did not sign the brief. In fact, he reportedly stated, prior to issuance of the Heller opinion, that he backs the D.C. gun ban and opposes all laws allowing concealed carry.”In January Obama announced a series of unconstitutional executive actions, including prohibiting the sale of firearms between individuals.“Mr. Obama will now require that anyone who sells a gun, that is even an ‘occasional’ seller will be required to perform a background check. By defining what an “occasional seller” is, the president is essentially interpreting the law, a job reserved for the courts,” Judge Andrew P. Napolitano wrote after the actions were announced.Attorney General Loretta Lynch sent a letter to the states demanding the federal government receive complete criminal history records and criminal dispositions, information on persons disqualified because of a mental illness, and qualifying crimes of domestic violence.The FBI also announced it will tweak its background check system. The changes include processing background checks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and improving notification of local authorities when”prohibited persons unlawfully attempt to buy a gun.”Republicans in Congress and state legislatures denounced Obama’s executive actions. “Congress must be swift to respond to any executive action, and there will certainly be legal challenges as well. This debate is about more than the Second Amendment. This debate is about standing up to an out-of-control President who refuses to follow the Constitution,” declared Alabama Rep. Bradley Byrne.”.@RepMoBrooks: Assuming we can find a court that does its job of upholding the Constitution, these actions will mean nothing.— 1070 WAPI Birmingham (@wapiradio) January 5, 2016If Merrick Garland is nominated there will be little guarantee the highest Court will uphold the Constitution. It is now up to Republicans to reject Garland and force Obama to find another candidate or delay the appointment until a new president is in the White House._______________________________________________________Obama Supreme Court Nominee Has Anti-Gun Record
Gun rights proponents say Merrick Garland should not be confirmedBY STEPHEN GUTOWSKIrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee to replace Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, has a record of opposing gun rights as a federal judge, which includes a vote to undo a landmark gun rights ruling.Garland was one of four judges who voted to rehear the case of Parker v. District of Columbia with a full ten-judge panel after a smaller panel struck down the District of Columbia’s total ban on handguns. Garland’s vote for this en banc hearing indicates that he may believe the decision to strike down the city’s gun ban was mistaken.The other six judges on the appeals court voted not to rehear the case, and the Supreme Court went on to rule in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to bear arms in the case.District of Columbia v. Heller is considered by gun rights activists to be the most important Second Amendment case in history.The Heller case is not the only time Garland has ruled against gun rights. In 2000, he ruled against the National Rifle Association in a lawsuit challenging the Justice Department’s handling of gun purchaser’s information. Garland ruled that is was permissible for the department to retain up to six months of records from the National Instant Background Check System, over the NRA’s argument that this practice effectively created an illegal national registry.Conservatives and gun rights activists reacted negatively to Garland’s nomination, saying he should not be confirmed because of his rulings on guns.“This is not a good nomination and should not be confirmed,” Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation told the Washington Free Beacon“Judge Garland voted to grant an en banc hearing to Heller after the three judge panel struck down the District of Columbia’s gun ban law,” Gottlieb said. “The only reason to do so would be to overturn the pro-Second Amendment ruling. That was hostile to gun rights.”The NRA, the nation’s largest gun rights organization, said it would lobby against Garland’s appointment.“With Justice Scalia’s tragic passing, there is no longer a majority of support among the justices for the fundamental, individual right to own a firearm for self-defense,” said Chris Cox, the head of the NRA’s lobbying arm. “Four justices believe law-abiding Americans have that right—and four justices do not. President Obama has nothing but contempt for the Second Amendment and law-abiding gun owners. Obama has already nominated two Supreme Court justices who oppose the right to own firearms and there is absolutely no reason to think he has changed his approach this time. In fact, a basic analysis of Merrick Garland’s judicial record shows that he does not respect our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.”“Therefore, the National Rifle Association, on behalf of our five million members and tens of millions of supporters across the country, strongly opposes the nomination of Merrick Garland for the U.S. Supreme Court.”Conservative activists have raised other questions about Garland’s voting record.“Merrick Garland has been called the ideal judge to move the Supreme Court to the left and cement President Obama’s liberal legacy for decades into the future. He was recently considered for an Obama cabinet post and clerked for the court’s liberal icon, Justice William Brennan,” said Brian Rogers, the executive director of America Rising Squared, in a statement.Republican senators said they will not hold hearings or vote on Garland’s nomination because of the upcoming presidential election.“The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country, so of course the American people should have a say in the court’s direction,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement. “The Senate will continue to observe the ‘Biden Rule’ so the American people have a voice in this momentous decision.”________________________________________________________Obama’s Supreme Court Pick Has Worked on Multiple Democratic Political Campaigns
'Moderate' Merrick Garland volunteered for Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, and Bill ClintonBY BRENT SCHERrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
President Barack Obama’s choice for the vacant seat on the Supreme Court was presented as a moderate that could have bipartisan appeal, but Merrick Garland has previously disclosed in official documents that he has offered his services to numerous Democratic presidential candidates.Buried in a questionnaire Garland submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1995 is his disclosure of volunteer work for Democratic politicians that stretched from his years as a college student up to Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign in 1992.“I provided volunteer assistance on a Presidential Debate for President Clinton in October 1992 and for Michael Dukakis in October 1988,” Garland wrote in response to a question on his previous political involvement. “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.”Garland was not a regular volunteer when he offered his services to Democratic presidential campaigns.Garland’s work for Mondale, Dukakis, and Clinton all came after his graduation from Harvard Law School, once he had begun his professional legal career.During the 1988 election, Garland was already a partner at a prominent private law firm. By the time he volunteered for Clinton in 1992, he was working as a prosecutor for the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C. After Clinton won in 1992, Garland got a job in the administration as deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s criminal division.Although the bulk of Garland’s volunteer work was for presidential candidates, his most interesting political work may be the two summer internships he completed with Rep. Abner Mikva (D., Ill.).Mikva, a University of Chicago Law School graduate who served as a representative for a Chicago district from 1969 to 1979, was named to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by President Jimmy Carter.He held that position until Clinton offered him a position in his administration as White House counsel. Clinton then nominated Garland, Mikva’s former intern, to take over his seat on the D.C. Circuit.Mikva is also a longtime acquaintance of Obama. In 1991, when Obama graduated from Harvard Law School, he received a clerkship offer from Mikva. Obama declined the position but started a lasting friendship with Mikva that still exists.It remains a long shot that the Republican-controlled Senate will confirm or hold hearings on Garland, Obama’s nominee. The New York Times wrote Wednesday that if Garland were put on the court, it would become “the most liberal in decades.”The four other judges that Obama was reportedly considering for the nomination were all donors to his political campaigns for president._______________________________________________________Obama’s Union-Friendly Supreme Court Nominee
Analysis reveals Garland’s deference to labor regulators, pro-union attitudeBY BILL MCMORRISrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee has had a friendly relationship with labor regulators at the expense of business.D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Justice Merrick Garland has a history of showing deference to federal labor regulators in reviewing unfair labor practice charges against employers. An analysis conducted by OnLabor found that Garland ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a top federal labor arbiter, in 18 of 22 appeals that appeared before his court. Garland granted the agency leeway in interpreting its regulatory approach and interpretation of its mission.“Judge Garland wrote the majority opinion in 22 cases involving appeals of NLRB decisions. In all but four, Judge Garland upheld the entirety of the NLRB’s decision finding that an employer had committed unfair labor practices,” ONLabor said in a blog post. “This deference to the NLRB has had favorable consequences for labor and unions.”Labor unions welcomed President Obama’s nominee. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka called on Senate Republicans to confirm Garland quickly, citing his “impeccable credentials and deeper experience.”“Judge Garland’s career shows a deep commitment to public service and to the rule of law,” Trumka said in a release. “Judge Garland is a superbly qualified nominee who deserves prompt consideration and confirmation by the United States Senate. Working people deserve and expect no less.”The NLRB serves as the nation’s top arbiter of labor disputes at the federal level and is designed to help employers, unions, and workers settle conflict outside of the judicial system. Cases begin at the local level and can be appealed all the way to the Washington, D.C.-based five-member board. Parties then have the option of appealing to their local circuit court or the D.C. Circuit.OnLabor said Garland’s track record shows that he is generally deferential to all regulators, but noted that many of his rulings indicate a pro-union approach to labor law. In the four cases when he ruled against the NLRB he demonstrated “an outlook that is generally favorable to union activity.”“In two of these four cases, for example—Carpenters and Millwrights, Local Union 2471 v. N.L.R.B., 481 F.3d 804 (D.C. Cir. 2007) and Guard Publishing Co. v. N.L.R.B, 571 3.d 53 (D.C. Cir. 2009)—Judge Garland upheld the aspects of the NLRB’s decisions that were favorable to the union involved, and overturned only the part of the NLRB’s decision in each case that was favorable to the employer,” OnLabor found.Steve Bernstein, a labor attorney with Fisher & Phillips, said that Garland’s track record falls in line with the ideology President Obama has sought in other nominations.“During Judge Garland’s 19-year tenure on the D.C. Circuit, he has developed a track record of authoring decisions that are consistently deferential to the NLRB,” Bernstein said in an email. “If Judge Garland is appointed to the Supreme Court, we can certainly expect him to continue to be highly deferential to the federal agencies in their exercise of administrative authority.”Obama nominated Garland to replace conservative Justice Antonin Scalia on Wednesday. Senate Republicans have vowed to block any nomination to the court before the November election.________________________________________________________Former NLRB Judge: Garland Pushed the Envelope to Advance Unions
Obama’s Supreme Court nominee ignored the ‘court’s duty to interpret the law’by BILL MCMORRISrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:A former top labor arbiter warned that President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, will “push the envelope” on constitutional interpretation to advance liberalism.Garland ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the nation’s highest federal labor arbiter, on 18 of 22 cases and even when he sided with employers he demonstrated “an outlook that is generally favorable to union activity,” according to an analysis from OnLabor.Peter Schaumber served as an NLRB board member from 2002 to 2010 and witnessed several of his agency’s decisions appear before Garland, the chief justice of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. He said that the nominee’s jurisprudence in those cases indicates that he will “significantly tilt the balance of the court” in favor of the regulatory state and ideological liberalism.“Garland certainly on NLRB issues will defer to the agency even in circumstances that push the envelope,” Schaumber told the Washington Free Beacon. “In some respects [the NLRB] seems like a narrow issue but it says lot. He came down on the wrong side.”Schaumber pointed to Northeast Beverage Company v. NLRB (2009) as an example of Garland’s “results-oriented” jurisprudence.The NLRB ruled that a Rhode Island beer and soda distributor was guilty of an unfair labor practice after firing five employees who walked off the work site. Schaumber dissented in the ruling, saying that there was no evidence of an “ongoing labor dispute” that would warrant legal protections given the presence of a “no-strike clause” in the union contracts. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the NLRB findings with Garland dissenting.“The employees simply used working time to engage in union-related activity customarily reserved for non-working time,” the Court of Appeals said in its ruling. “We hold the drivers’ departure from work to obtain information is not protected by [the law]. Because the employees’ walkout was unprotected, Northeast had a legitimate business reason for disciplining them. We therefore deny enforcement to the Board’s order with respect to the suspensions and subsequent discharges of the Vetrano drivers.”Garland dissented, saying that the courts should defer to the agency because “reasonable minds can differ about what is reasonable,” and he was “unable to conclude that the Board’s application of [the law] to the facts of this case was unreasonable.” He also said that the NLRB had sufficiently demonstrated that the employer favored non-union workers over those belonging to the Teamsters.“Evidence is sufficient to support the conclusion that Northeast’s ‘policy was to avoid hiring Union-represented employees’ and that the reasons it offered for suspending, discharging, and refusing to hire them at Bethel were pretextual,” Garland wrote in his dissent.Garland’s colleagues said that Garland’s dissent was not rooted in the letter of the law.“Our dissenting colleague points to no facts that establish an ongoing labor dispute—that is, a controversy—between the drivers and Northeast,” the majority wrote in a response. “As our dissenting colleague correctly notes, we defer to the Board’s reasonable interpretation of its own precedents … but we will not uphold an order of the Board when it has “erred in applying established law to the facts of the case.”Schaumber said that Northeast Beverage Co. v. NLRB helps illustrate one of the main conflicts in modern jurisprudence. When courts fail to crack down on misinterpretations of the law from federal agencies it opens the door to regulatory abuse and leaves citizens and Congress with no check on executive power. He said that Garland’s approach would lead agencies to “achieve desired results” at the expense of the rule of law.“Judge Garland did not exercise his authority to correct the bureaucrats who misapply the law and fulfill the court’s duty to interpret the law,” he said. “Everything I’ve seen suggests he would do the same on the Supreme Court.”Obama nominated Garland to replace the recently departed Justice Antonin Scalia on March 16. Republicans promised to block any nomination in the Senate until after the November election.