One sided argument?

The writer justifies Democrat threats to try packing the Supreme Court if they gain power based on Merrick Garland not getting a hearing. As a matter of strategy, I agree he should have gotten a hearing. A long, leisurely hearing that ran out the clock on the possibility of another nominee, and then he should have been rejected based on his hostility to the 2nd Amendment.

In particular, as an appellate judge, he voted to allow the FBI to retain background check records, explicitly forbidden by the clear language if the Brady Law, as that would create a backdoor registry.

That alone is more than justification for rejecting him. Judges don’t get to ignore the clear language of the law just because they don’t like it.

I appointing an anti-gun zealot to replace, of all people, Scalia, Obama dared the GOP to reject him. That was a bridge too far.

He should have had his hearing, but he was never going to be confirmed.

22 thoughts on “One sided argument?

  1. Both links go to the same Washington Times opinion piece.

    I thought you were a literalist when it come to the Constitution.

    I guess that doesn’t apply to the NICS law which was vague in wording so people had to guess intent, time frames etc.

    You are excusing McConnell’s behavior against a fully qualified jurist because he ruled in favor of the letter of the law.

    And it apparently didn’t jive with your interpretation.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. OK fixed the first link, not sure how they got chained .

      The WA Times author wrote the section of the Brady Law that applies. There is nothing vague about it, the records are to be destroyed immediately after a successful check. There is no wiggle room.

      I didn’t defend McConnell, I said Garland should have had a hearing and been rejected. Registration attempts are the ‘third rail’ in gun control.

      Garland did not rule by the letter of the law, he ruled in exact contradiction of the letter of the law. He put his own anti-gun prejudices, and Janet Reno’s influence, ahead of the clear intent of Congress.

      That is more than enough reason he should not be on SCOTUS, or even retain the appellate seat he holds.


  2. According to your link, the word “immediately” was not in the original legislation.

    Intent is not enough for conservatives.

    Except when it suits them I guess.

    The information was to be destroyed, so no record would be longer than 6 months. That is not registration.

    Nothing too fear except if you lied on your application or were a straw buyer.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Again, you misunderstand the way the NICS system works. If there is a crime detected, the records are intact in the hands of the licensed dealer for 30 years and available by court order. But the FBI is not allowed to retain any record once the check is approved.

      As the dissenting judge put it “Ms. Reno’s argument that Congress did not say that she had to destroy the records “immediately” reminded Judge Sentelle of a mother telling a child to stop pulling her sister’s hair, but she continues under the excuse: “Mama, you didn’t say I had to stop right now.”

      When you pull up to a stop sign, trying driving through and then telling the judge that the sign didn’t read “Stop, immediately” and you were going to stop at some future time.

      Reno knew she was disregarding the law and Garland knew it too, but he wanted the law to be different.

      He doesn’t belong on any bench.


  3. You may not be defending McConnell but you are failing to criticize one of the most egregious abuses of power ever witnessed with regard to the Supreme Court. By denying Judge Garland a hearing and a vote McConnell allowed the Republicans – who you say would have voted him down from being held accountable by their constituents.

    What goes around, comes around. The size of the Supreme Court is not set in the Constitution. It is a matter for Congress. By 2021 given the extremist ideology of these activist GOP Justices the public may not only support expanding it, but may be demanding it.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. Well, I guess my feelings aren’t as hurt as yours. I saw Obama appointing an anti-gun zealot to replace Scalia as such an insult that it could only be a deliberate provocation.

      I disagree with McConnell’s method, but one way or the other, Garland did not belong on the court. Had Obama appointed a more acceptable justice, I might see it as more partisan.


      1. “such an insult that it could only be a deliberate provocation.”

        Kinda sounds like “hurt feelings”

        If Garland wasn’t qualified he shouldn’t have been confirmed and given your absolute certainty of his lack of qualification that shouldn’t have been a problem.

        Of course Moscow Mitch wasn’t going to take that chance.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Feelings? Anti-gun zealot? Insult? You are the one in the grip of “feelings.” A combination of love of guns and hatred of President Obama.

        “McConnell’s method” was massively destructive of our Constitutional order and of ANY legitimacy of ANY decision SCOTUS may make for years to come.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. McConnell’s method?

          Yet you had no problem with passing Obamacare by making an end run around the reconcilliation committee when Scott Brown won the special election for Ted Kennedy’s seat, denying Harry Reid a party line cloture vote vote in the Senate.

          1/7th of the nation’s economy taken under government control by changing the rules in mid stream is OK but not giving Garland a vote he was sure to lose anyway is a Constitutional Crises?

          The truth is that both parties use the arcane Senate rules for political gain. It’s not right, but it is no more right when it is someone else’s ox getting gored.

          I would have rather McConnell had done it my way instead but don’t make it a bigger thing than it is.

          Would you approve if Trump expanded SCOTUS right now preemptively and packed it with real conservatives (instead of justices who follow original intent as he has so far) while he can?


          1. While he can? Maybe you are forgetting that Trump is not the King? Expanding the Supreme Court is not legislation that will pass Congress until he is gone.

            As for the whining about use of the reconciliation end run around the filibuster to get the ACA passed, that was the same parliamentary maneuver the GOP used to pass the disastrous Bush tax cuts.

            Up until now there was no “arcane Senate rule” that allowed them to simply ignore a Supreme Court appointment. But, since you think this exercise of raw power to subvert the will of the American people (Obama won handily and the majority supported his appointing Garland) is just dandy, then you will have no legitimate complaint when the next Democratic Senate abolishes the filibuster and Congress expands the Supreme Court so that President Warren can appoint some actual jurists and relegate the likes of Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to the irrelevance they so richly deserve.

            Liked by 2 people

          1. Why?

            It’s just another example of what I wrote, that using the Senate rules for political advantage is not new.

            It precedes Obama, Bush, and both Roosevelts, for that matter.


  4. Didn’t the GOP also announce that, should Clinton win, they wouldn’t seat any of her nominees either? The Republicans are clearly willing to do anything to preserve their power. They don’t have much of a choice, since most of their platform is unpopular with voters.

    Court packing seems the logical Democratic response. I wouldn’t worry about it though. DNC leadership is clearly not interested in anything but preserving a cowardly, sclerotic institution at the expense of working people.

    Liked by 4 people

          1. What, did you want an oath signed in blood by every senator?

            Two of the three mentioned in this particular article were recent presidential candidates. I imagine they have considerable clout among their colleagues. McCain only backtracked because he miscalculated the political fallout from AZ.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Um, your Dear Leader suggested that there could be “Second Amendment Solutions” to the “problem” of Clinton judicial appointments.

            By-the-way, trying to equate Presidential nominee McCain with AOC is a dog that will not hunt.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. Maybe if Trump had nominated an acceptable justice, then the Dems would have lined up in support.

            McConnell did all he could to prevent the Obama presidency from having any effect and he FAILED. His lack of Senatorial leadership in not even 1)meeting with Garland, or 2) granting a hearing in the Judicial Committee.

            And McCain, Cruz and Burr are all senior senators, so your point is just bogus.

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s