By David Codrea
USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “Senate Republicans are refusing to hold a hearing for President Obama's nominee Chief Judge Merrick Garland,” the White House complains, presenting its (public) case to move confirmation hearings along. “It will be harmful and create unsustainable uncertainty if Congress fails to act on the President's nominee.”
Who it will be harmful to and left uncertain for is left unstated. One thing we can reasonably surmise is, if Garland is confirmed, a deadlock on the Supreme Court will be broken, and the 5 – 4 majority that gave gun owners wins in Heller and McDonald will be reversed.
“Hogwash,” cry “progressives” who hate guns, hate gun owners, and especially hate anything that would challenge their totalitarian monopoly of violence dreams. They want us to believe suspecting Garland of sympathy for “gun control” is based purely on unwarranted speculation, as if Obama would entertain nominating a conservative. Egalitarianism may be something they pretend to stump for on the campaign trail, but when it comes to the most equitable power-sharing arrangement yet devised by man (womyn?), the collectivists suddenly lose trust in their beloved proletariat and opt for their time-honored police state.
Do we really have to settle for the unconvincing rebuttal that Garland hasn't directly decided a 2A case and that we can't read his mind? Anybody want to flip that coin? Besides the Democrats? And why does the contention come off with all the believability of a Bart Simpson denial?
There is a way around the impasse, and while it may not be consistent with the way things have traditionally been done, there’s no law against Merrick Garland exercising his First Amendment rights as a private citizen to tell us where he stands philosophically on RKBA. Nominees generally are given a pass in hearings for the excuse they don’t want to prejudice any appeals that may come before them — but since when do job applicants (outside of government) get hired if they refuse to even generally disclose their thoughts on conflicts they will be responsible for resolving?
In short, not just Garland, but any candidate for a federal judgeship, ought to be expected to disclose answers to fundamental questions:
- Do you believe the Second Amendment articulates an individual right?
- Should Second Amendment cases be considered under strict scrutiny?
- Does the legal concept “in common use at the time,” at a minimum, apply to weaponry carried by infantry soldiers for battlefield use, in addition to those commonly used for self-defense and sport.
If they don’t wish to answer to We the People (or to our representatives) on those points, I understand the car wash is hiring.
It is with the lower courts that some of the most damaging decisions have been made, in many cases decisions allowed to stand simply because the Supreme Court chose not to hear an appeal. And these courts are increasingly dangerous places, as another “under the radar” Democrat objective — one enabled by Republican Senate squishes — may have already rendered justice for gun owners unobtainable.
“When Obama entered the Oval Office, liberal judges controlled just one of the 13 circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals,” The Daily Signal notes. “Fifty-five successful presidential nominations later, liberal majorities now control nine of those appeals benches, or 70 percent.”
What chance will gun owners have if Hillary, who has already told us she disagrees with earlier rulings, wins? She will then fill not just the Scalia vacancy on SCOTUS, but also other vacancies that will surely arise on the high court and all the lower ones. She’ll conceivably get that number into the 90 percent bracket – especially if pro-amnesty / ”pathway to citizenship” GOP turncoats succeed in helping her create an overwhelming Democrat supermajority.
Those crying “Molon Labe!” may just get their wish, although it does make fair the question:
Wouldn’t it be easier to vote first, for the only person with a chance of beating Hillary, and see if these potential nominees can make a difference?
Also see: “Disorder in the Court.”
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.
In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.