Vendtre

I agree he is very smart, and I think this pick shows it. I still say that come this fall is the GOP is not sure they can win they will have a choice to make because there are lots of worse choices for the Supreme Court than this guy. And keep in mind they could win the White House and loose the Senate, the GOP has a lot of seats to defend, more than twice as many as the DNC. I think also from a GOP establishment point of view, they do not trust Trump to make a good choice.

Maybe because Obama knows the chance of him getting a fair hearing are just a little more than zilch, so why waste a good anti-gun judge.

Of course they are, they have an extreme agenda and anyone that does not agree with it 100% they are against. I assumed people would look at the facts themselves and not blindly follow the NRA.

I have actual blood relatives I cannot stand to be around and very rarely see them because of this. Being family does not mean you have to like everyone.

Here is where the NRA is wrong, from your Free Beacon link... “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.” This is just false, plain and simple. From Wiki (emphasis mine)... En banc is often used for unusually complex cases or cases considered to be of greater importance.[2] Appellate courts in the United States sometimes grant rehearing en banc to reconsider a decision of a panel of the court (generally consisting of only three judges) in which the case concerns a matter of exceptional public importance or the panel's decision appears to conflict with a prior decision of the court It should also be pointed out that one of the most conservative judges in the entire Circuit Court system, Judge Raymond Randolph, also agreed with the en banc request. Every story I have read about this from a right wing source has used the same lie that granting an en banc means you disagree with the ruling. As for the temporary storage of gun registration information, yes, he did uphold a lower court ruling that since it was a temporary storage it did not violate the law. And you who else agreed? The Supreme Court did, so it would seem that Garland got it right.

I think it was a calculated can't lose move by Obama. If he is confirmed it is a win, if he is not Obama can use it against the GOP. Also the GOP has to factor in how sure they are they will win in November , this guy is way better than anyone Hillary would nominate.

1. Did all the "many" sources use the same reason that he was anti-gun. 2. True we all fit in a box, some of us just don't fit in the cookie cutter boxes most people try and use. With the exception of abortion my views on things tend to be a conglomeration of the views of both liberals and conservatives. Setting aside abortion for which I am very conservative, none of my views are either liberal nor conservative on any other issues, they are a mix of both worlds. and I hate being lumped into either camp, which is why I get so defensive when people do that to me.

You make two mistakes here. 1. All the news accounts are using the same reason for saying he is anti-gun rights. One case that all he did was agree to a review by the full bench. He has been a judge for decades and that is all that they have. That should tell you something. I also understand the workings of the higher levels of our judicial branch and I know that supporting review denotes neither support or opposition to the ruling. 2. You assume because I do not support the GOP I must support the DNC. Most of the left dislike Garland as much as you folks on the right. My views on gun laws are pretty much right between the far right and the far left. I am not a Republican not a Democrat, I am neither a liberal not a conservative. I have beliefs that would fall under both labels, which is the problem with them. Most people of my generation are that way, we do not fit into the boxes of our parents or grandparents.

It is what is known as an "expression" or a "figure of speech". http://grammar.about.com/od/fh/g/figuresterms.htm I consider being accused of supporting the DNC an insul, but nobody has a problem with those sorts of things. Seems a double standard is at play here

If it is the truth, is is an insult?

Would never ask anyone to trust Obama

Trump and Hillary are in a boat that is sinking...who survives? America!

Not an insult at all, just an observation. Anyone that thinks I support the Democratic party either has not been paying attention or lacks common sense.

In what practical way is this useful? What comes from this that changes anything?

I have no party, neither party embraces my views.

Assuming the GOP holds the Senate, which is a large assumption.

This is the sort of hysteria that is killing our country. He agreed that a case of this magnitude deserved to be heard by the full bench instead of just a panel. His decision had nothing to do with if he agreed with the outcome or not, that should be totally irrelevant. And for this he is branded with the big Scarlet 2 for being against the 2nd amendment. The logic of such a thing is so incredibly wrong that it is inconceivable that an adult would even think it was valid. We have become so divided along ideological lines that we even think the judicial system should be biased towards our views, instead of being blind to such things like it was intended to be. The perfect judge/justice is one whom we do not know what their ideological perspective is, just what their legal sense is. The Supreme Court fails to be relevant when it is no less a political tool than the other two branches. The Judicial branch was never meant to be divided between party lines. Here is my prediction for you, next year when President Clinton nominates someone you will look back on Garland and wish they had given him his fair shot because he is as disliked by the left as he is by the right, which means he is perfect for the position.

I do not know where "Worthy News" gets its news, but that whole thing is just false except for one part... Garland was one of four judges who voted to rehear the case of Parker v. District of Columbia with a full ten-judge panel The rest is either just wrong... which includes a vote to undo a landmark gun rights ruling. or unsupported speculation... indicates that he may believe the decision to strike down the city’s gun ban was mistaken.

A debate with 3 people is a very different animal than one with 5 or 8.

Nothing is that simple. But I will check out the book that's for sure

Personally I think Trump is afraid of a debate with so few people. He would have to give real answers and could not get away with repeating "fraud, waste and abuse" 100 times.

I am not talking about the collapse of a single country, but of the entire worldwide economic system. Something that has never happened before, but something many people think is possible

Maybe instead of gold the guy with the heard of cattle gives you one or two. Which would be more useful in a world with no viable economic system? If I am the one with the hay that is what I am asking for.

Chances are most sit there and rot. But then again if you are willing to trade something of true value for the gold I would be happy to oblige. You can feed your cows the gold, I will feed mine the hay

A currency with some sort of intrinsic value, one that serves you a better use than making ear rings