Obama Supreme Court Nominee Has Anti-Gun Record

[The_Patriot21]

this isnt the only time this judge has ruled against guns, hes done so before and truly does have a history. The NRA has voiced their opposition to this nomination, and listed more cases then just this one, and I have seen nothing, to suggest the NRA is wrong. 

 

http://freebeacon.com/issues/obama-supreme-court-nominee-has-anti-gun-record/

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/432716/moderates-are-not-so-moderate-merrick-garland

[Vendtre]

6 hours ago, The_Patriot2016 said:

this isnt the only time this judge has ruled against guns, hes done so before and truly does have a history. The NRA has voiced their opposition to this nomination, and listed more cases then just this one, and I have seen nothing, to suggest the NRA is wrong. 

 

http://freebeacon.com/issues/obama-supreme-court-nominee-has-anti-gun-record/

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/432716/moderates-are-not-so-moderate-merrick-garland

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. 

 

 

[MorningGlory]

2 hours ago, Vendtre said:

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. 

 

 

However you spin it, the NRA is against his nomination. 

[Vendtre]

41 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

However you spin it, the NRA is against his nomination. 

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.

[other one]

You can't be super why he voted the way he did, and with Obama making gun control his main goal for the rest of the year, how can anyone trust he had anything but wanting to overturn the decision. Taking in all going on.

[Vendtre]

4 minutes ago, other one said:

You can't be super why he voted the way he did, and with Obama making gun control his main goal for the rest of the year, how can anyone trust he had anything but wanting to overturn the decision. Taking in all going on.

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.  

[other one]

I don't think he would take that chance... I may disagree with what Obama is and stands for, but he is pretty smart.  Makes him more dangerous

[Vendtre]

8 minutes ago, other one said:

I don't think he would take that chance... I may disagree with what Obama is and stands for, but he is pretty smart.  Makes him more dangerous

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. 

[MorningGlory]

7 minutes ago, Vendtre said:

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. 

I was waiting for you to drag Trump's name into it.  I think your agenda is pretty much along the lines of the President's.  The NRA is the voice to listen to.

[MorningGlory]

54 minutes ago, Vendtre said:

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.

You were wrong, huh?