U.S. Senate Must Hold Firm Against Appointing Obama’s Darling Child, Judge Garland

The U.S. Senate Must Hold Firm: Obama’s Darling Child, Judge Merrick Garland, Must Not Gain Justice Scalia’s Seat On The U.S. Supreme Court.
By Roger J. Katz, Attoney at Law and Stephen L. D’Andrilli

Judge Merrick Garland
Judge Merrick Garland
Arbalest Quarrel
Arbalest Quarrel

New York, NY  -(Ammoland.com)- Obama is tenacious. His intention to make Judge Merrick Garland a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court will not let up.

If anything, Obama’s efforts to place Judge Garland on the high Court are gathering steam. Obama is continuously thrusting Judge Garland into the limelight.

Obama is well aware that, if the Senate relents and allows a hearing on Judge Garland’s confirmation, Judge Garland is very likely to become a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, replacing the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

If that should occur, Obama’s goal of control over the Judiciary will be complete. Obama will be three for three on his Judicial nominees, and the liberal wing of the Judiciary will have a clear majority.

The Democrats would love to see this. That is bad enough. What is worse, two Republican Senators, Mark Kirk of Illinois, and Susan Collins of Maine, have called for a hearing in defiance of Senate Mitch McConnel’s clear orders that Republican Senators hold firm: no hearing on Obama’s nominee, Judge Garland!

Senator Mark Steven Kirk rated "F" by the NRA
Senator Mark Steven Kirk rated “F” by the NRA

Senator Kirk is a virulent opponent of the Second amendment. That, we know. But, Susan Collins views on the Second Amendment is suspect now in light of her support for a hearing and vote on Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court, in defiance of Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnel’s call to Senate Republicans to hold firm.

Hardly a day goes by without Obama thrusting Judge Garland like a dart into the Senate’s eye. And the mainstream media is doing its part as a puppet of the Obama Administration to keep Garland’s name and photo before the public. The New York Times reported, Wednesday, April 13, 2015, that Judge Garland met with Republican Senator, Charles Grassley, for breakfast in the Senate dining room.

Although several other Republican Senators have previously met with Judge Garland and have talked informally with him – and more Republican Senators will likely meet with Judge Garland in the near future – a meeting between Senator Grassley and Judge Garland is especially ominous because Senator Grassley is Chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee.

Senator Grassley will ultimately decide whether a hearing on Obama’s nominee takes place. But, he won’t do so without the blessing of Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnel. Mitch McConnel certainly won’t give it!

For all the fanfare over the finer points of Judge Garland’s intelligence, character, and seemingly benign, pleasant nature, precious little information, if any at all, is available from the mainstream media about Judge Garland’s judicial decisional history. Why is that?

The New York Times reports, in the same April 12, 2016 article, that Judge Garland met with U.S. Senator Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania. The Senator made this cryptic comment about Garland:

“Based on a number of decisions and my conversation with Judge Garland, I’m not convinced that he would be willing to play the role of a sufficiently aggressive check on an administration.”

The “decisions” Senator Toomey is referring to are case law decisions. Senator Toomey did not, unfortunately, elaborate on the point.

How does Judge Garland view the Bill of Rights in light of the decisions he has handed down as United States Court of Appeals Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit? What, specifically, is Judge Garland’s position on the Second Amendment? The President isn’t saying; nor is the Vice President; nor is any Congressman; nor is the mainstream media. We, however, at the Arbalest Quarrel, will, as we must.

To address the chasm in reporting on Garland’s decisional case law history the Arbalest Quarrel has taken a look at one particular case that provides a very clear indicator of Judge Garland’s position on the Second Amendment.

In a multi-part series ( to publish here at AmmoLand News) we peer closely at one particular case. The case is National Rifle Association of America, Inc. vs. Reno, 216 F.3d 122, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 15906, 342 U.S. App. D.C. 231 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

While the case has been mentioned on several occasions on Ammoland Shooting Sports News, there has not been, to our knowledge, a thorough analysis of the case. The Arbalest Quarrel plunges deeply into the mind of Judge Garland. You can see for yourself what we have found. It isn’t pretty. Our report will appear here, in full, on Ammoland Shooting Sports News.

Make no mistake, if a hearing is held on Obama’s nominee, and votes are cast, and Judge Garland is confirmed as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Justice Scalia’s legacy, as a staunch defender of the Second Amendment, will be systematically eroded. The seminal Second Amendment cases, Heller and McDonald, will either be overturned outright or whittled away to the point they cease to have legal significance. That means that four lone Justices, who comprise the conservative wing of the Court, will be unable to stop the coming onslaught wrought by the antigun establishment.

The endgame – complete destruction of the Second Amendment – would be, then, just a matter of time.

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.

14 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
justtryit
justtryit
5 years ago

All “GOOD” Republicans in the Senate should remember, and re-learn, if necessary; the childhood slumber prayer: ” Now I lay me down to sleep
I pray the Lord my soul to keep
If I should die before I wake….Oh CRAP, I voted to put Garland on the High Court”!
Pay attention. Americans will only say this to you ONCE!

JohnC
JohnC
5 years ago

Wild Bill, thank you for your generosity in allowing my word. Look it up. Let’s just say the Republican Senators are being pussies, an incorrect term.
Mike this not war, ask a veteran what war is. This is republicans playing politics and politics should not be part of the SCOTUS.

Brian Fitzgerald
Brian Fitzgerald
5 years ago

Judge Merrick Garland should be voted down, period. He’s not Second Amendment friendly and just a terrible pick. Obama is trying to play politics as usual and he has his back against the wall on this one — he can’t win. If the Left tries to dismantle the Second Amendment it will get ugly real fast in America and they know it.

Clark Kent
Clark Kent
5 years ago

Why take the chance? Do you drive without seatbelts? Eat undercooked food? Play golf during a thunderstorm? I will take the word of the NRA any day over yours.

Non Sequitur II
Non Sequitur II
5 years ago

If we are to presume that Garland would have voted to overturn Heller/Parker, why shouldn’t we make the same presumption about indubitably conservative judge Randolph, who also voted to rehear Parker/Heller? There are many reasons why a judge would want to rehear a case, but the issue is HIS reason. Instead of presuming, why doesn’t the Senate just hold hearings and ask him? If they don’t like his answers, they can vote him down. However, presuming the reason is intellectually dishonest. Moreover, the Supreme Court voted to hear the case to AFFIRM it. Presumably, the Supreme Court could have refused… Read more »

Rich
Rich
5 years ago

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall… Read more »

abelhorn
abelhorn
5 years ago
Reply to  Rich

Well said, you have hit on the only way left to get our country back
if this election does not turn the country around.
Clinton or Trump appointments will look the same and
the 2nd Amendment will be gone.

Mitch
Mitch
5 years ago

Whoa! Don’t you guys know that it has been policy, by both sides, NOT to vote on any Supreme Court Justice during an election year. They (the Senate) are NOT derelict in their duty. They are following a protocol that has been around for decades and even Joe Biden understands this, he said so himself. The problem with the nomination is, simply, that Obozo isn’t getting HIS way and he’s the one throwing temper tantrums and stomping his feet…and the media is playing right along as usual.

terdog
terdog
5 years ago

Jimboy, why are you so afraid of a vote? Isn’t that what the Founding Fathers decreed? If he’s so bad, get the votes. Or, here’s a unique concept … find someone who will be accepted by both parties. The Senate’s job is to govern, not act like small children who pout until they get their way.
And, while I love my firearms, they are NOT the only issue that this country needs to deal with. Stop being so myopic.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 years ago
Reply to  terdog

The Senate is withholding it consent. That is what the “Founding Fathers decreed”. Garland is Soetoro’s failed selection. Let Soetoro select another candidate, and let the Senate move on to other pressing business rather than waste time on a hearing. Jimboy is correct.

Jimboy
Jimboy
5 years ago

Disagree.
Better not to have a vote.
If that anti-Bill-of-Rights judge gets a full hearing before the Senate there are too many RINOs running for Re-election who will vote essentially against the 2A for political expediency, and then we’d have that worst case scenario of a liberal SCOTUS..

JohnC
JohnC
5 years ago

If the authors are correct, he should be voted down. By not moving forward and either accepting or rejecting the nominee the Senators are disserving the nation and are in dereliction of their duty.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 years ago
Reply to  JohnC

I don’t think that “disserving” is a word, but I’ll let that pass. As far as the Senate not giving Garland a hearing, the Senate need not waste their time on him, he is already a failed candidate. Nor are they required to. Nothing requires the Senate to act, neither is there a time requirement.

Mike
Mike
5 years ago
Reply to  JohnC

Sorry John C, this is a war, and our enemies don’t mind using deceit and clever propaganda to win. The Senate is well within its Constitutional parameters when it declines a presidential request to hear a nominee.