Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee Garland a Threat to Gun Rights

By David Codrea

ScreenHunter_04 Mar. 16 11.26
Obama nominee Merrick Garland wasn't picked because he'll disappoint “progressives” on guns. The question now is, will Republicans get scared, and figure a critical mass of gun owner will let them get away with caving, because they have nowhere else to turn?
AmmoLand Gun News
AmmoLand Gun News

USA –  -(Ammoland.com)- Barack Obama today nominated Merrick Garland, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to fill the Supreme Court vacancy resulting from the death of Antonin Scalia. Garland, appointed to his current position by Bill Clinton, has a record that does not bode well for gun owners.

The Judicial Crisis Network, an advocacy group committed “to the Constitution and the Founders’ vision of a nation of limited government,” warns Garland “has a very liberal view of gun rights,” The Washington Times reports.

“JCN chief counsel Carrie Severino said in a blog post that Judge Merrick’s record on the bench since 1997 ‘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 Times explains.

It doesn't actually “confer” anything, but that's a different argument.

That the nomination is calculated to be used by Democrats in their political campaigns leading to the November elections is obvious. By recounting how prominent establishment Republicans supported Garland’s confirmation to the DC court, by presenting arguments for confirmation as a noble idealistic goal above political considerations, by claiming the Constitutional high ground and popular support, and by then asserting he has done his duty and the ball is now in the Senate’s court, Obama threw a political grenade to blast Republicans as obstructionist.

Supportive media will, of course, use more of those grenades. And the GOP “leadership” is not exactly famous for standing on principles in the face of risk.

Garland wasn't picked because he'll disappoint “progressives” on guns. The question now is, will Republicans get scared and figure a critical mass of gun owner will let them get away with caving because they have nowhere else to turn?

That’s one thing gun owners can’t give them a pass on. If Garland doesn’t get confirmed, the next president’s (Hillary’s?) pick will. If they want continued support, senators counting on the gun vote must only confirm nominees who are acceptable. That means the job applicant (that’s what hopeful nominees are, you know) must agree that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms, that all Second Amendment cases be considered under strict scrutiny, and that the legal concept “in common use at the time” must, at a minimum, apply to weaponry carried by soldiers for battlefield use, in addition to those commonly used for self-defense and sport.

In the furor following Scalia’s passing, there’s one other danger that can’t be ignored, and that’s been rarely even mentioned: Remaining SCOTUS justices aren’t getting any younger. Filling one vacancy might be something than can be stalled. What happens if another robe goes empty?

Also see: “Disorder in the Court

David Codrea in his natural habitat.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and also posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

Subscribe
Notify of
14 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
trumped
trumped
4 years ago

Keep the pressure on with emails and calls to your senators not to allow a vote on the gun banning justice.

Janek
Janek
4 years ago

This is all political theater, both Parties will come together in order to disarm the populace. Can you remember the last time the Republicans stood their ground against O’commie and his minions?

truckeral
truckeral
4 years ago

He was a Clinton stooge and now an Obama stooge, that’s all we need to know about this progressive hack. A yes vote would sink what little is left of the Constitution.

justtryit
justtryit
4 years ago

Fire and Brimstone rain down on any F*RINO that even comes close to siding with BHO’s festering nominee. Stand firm and oblige your American constituents by just saying “NO”!

Eric_CA
Eric_CA
4 years ago

Did you see how Obama and Biden applauded and nodded their heads in approval? And sitting in the front row with a ear-to-ear smile on her face was Feinstein.

The LA Times wrote that Garland was a centrist. What a load of crap from the LA Times and Obama.

Chuck
Chuck
4 years ago

The little pissants from the Ovomit administration are already out with their welcoming media to peddle this anti-gun loser.

ChicagoGuy
ChicagoGuy
4 years ago

“And the GOP “leadership” is not exactly famous for standing on principles in the face of risk.” Beware NRA doesn’t get involved. When attorney Alan Gura & SAF toiled on the McDonald v. Chicago case, NRA hired former Solicitor General Paul Clement to barge in at the last minute and steal 10 minutes from Gura’s 30 minute oral argument time in front of the Supreme Court. When the U.S. Federal Appeals Court in Chicago overturned Illinois concealed weapons statute in the Moore v. Madigan case based on McDonald in 2012, NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde sold out to the police unions… Read more »

HP
HP
4 years ago
Reply to  ChicagoGuy

You have a Vandermyde post on literally every topic here, don’t you? We get it, you don’t like him.

TEX
TEX
4 years ago

The Supreme Court is a Supreme Joke ! We don’t need another liberal,gungrabber. !

Michael Gilson
Michael Gilson
4 years ago

And don’t forget, if Merrick is confirmed that makes an opening on the DC Circuit for Obama to fill. Even if Merrick was a perfect judge from our point of view, if the DC Circuit is nothing but flaming left radicals they would do enormous damage. Look at the Ninth Circuit.

Eric
Eric
4 years ago

SCOTUS needs to understanding of the Constitution , supportive of it , lastly fair and impartial with it and never utter for public safety rights should curbed. If the nominee can not be that person , they do not belong being a Judge on ANY level.

Woody W Woodward
Woody W Woodward
4 years ago

If obama would have nominated a truly disinterested individual who hasn’t already acknowledged his preconceived contrary ideas as to OUR Constitution I would agree that the time spent vetting his nomination would be well invested. Both political parties have equal share of, and should admit equal blame for, the mess in DC and the federal judiciary. Neither party respects or supports OUR Constitution or for that matter, We-The-People. Party loyalty is more important to them than is the welfare of OUR Country. The men who drafted, along with those who ratified, Our Constitution and its first ten amendments were honorable… Read more »

MITCHELL
MITCHELL
4 years ago

They already said they would not even vote on a replacement. If they cave and actually have hearings and a vote they will be betraying us all. The Tea Party needs to Step Up now and let the House os Representative and Congress know they are on thin ice and they will be replaced if they do not follow the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. It is the PEOPLE FIRST not the government.

Scott
Scott
4 years ago
Reply to  MITCHELL

It is not up to the tea party, IT IS the FULL Responsibility of each and every American to quit voting for the same power hungry idiots each election and being part of the problem. I have not voted for a sitting rep or senator or president in over 20 years….. I like normal citizens not the elite.