Obama Supreme Court Nominee Has Anti-Gun Record

[WorthyNewsBot]

(Worthy News) - 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. [ Source ]

No related posts.

View the full article

[other one]

Obama did say his focus for the rest of his stay in the White House would be focused on Gun control....

[Vendtre]

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.

 

[other one]

2 hours ago, Vendtre said:

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.

 

Yes, that was his decision, but the supreme court heard the appeal and sided with the 6 judges......   with him on the supreme court it might not have gone that direction....    one has to always use the word might, but might's are important when it comes to supreme court judges and that one decision could set a legal step to lose all gun rights from following cases...

if any of our people in the senate would put him on the court, it would end thier political careers here.  Both have agreed with me and will not vote in his favor.....   actually maybe not even take it to a vote.    I don't know where you live Vendtre, but around here it is a very important thing.

The last revolution started when the British tried to confiscate the ammunition for the guns at the time and I don't want to push things to that point again.....   There are dozens of people I personally know that would start procedures for breaking off from the union if that should be attempted...  Texas would follow or lead depending on who got there first.

[Vendtre]

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.

[other one]

if she does, he/she will not be confirmed.....

[Vendtre]

17 minutes ago, other one said:

if she does, he/she will not be confirmed.....

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

[MorningGlory]

35 minutes ago, Vendtre said:

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

You can always hope your party gains control again.

[Vendtre]

Just now, MorningGlory said:

You can always hope your party gains control again.

I have no party, neither party embraces my views. 

[MorningGlory]

1 hour ago, Vendtre said:

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.

Oh wow; you're coming out for your candidate now?  I'm sure that took courage.