Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Another Harvard Law Graduate Nominated By Obama To The Supreme Court

Judge Merrick Garland
Unless you graduated from Harvard or Yale, you may as well dismiss any chances you have of being nominated to the Supreme Court. President Barack Obama turned to his alma mater once again for his choice to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who died under suspicious circumstances last month at a ranch owned by a large Democratic donor with ties to the Obama White House. Obama's choice to replace Scalia is Merrick Garland, a 63-year old reliable Democratic partisan and alum of the very corrupt Clinton Justice Department. Garland would become the sixth member of the current Supreme Court who attended Harvard (the other three are from Yale), and he would become the fourth Jewish member of the 9-member court. The other five justices are all Catholic.

Garland, who was nominated by President Bill Clinton to the D.C. Court of Appeals in 1997, is a Chicago native. He attended Niles West High School in Skokie and is the son of an advertising executive, Cyril Garland. Garland clerked for the late Justice William Brennan, one of the court's more liberal justices in recent memory, after graduating with high honors from Harvard Law School. He briefly worked in the Carter Justice Department before he joined Arnold & Porter, an international law firm based in Washington.

Garland worked as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in D.C. after Clinton came to power before joining the Justice Department where he worked under the highly-partisan and corrupt Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick. Garland was assigned to work on several high-profile cases, including the supervision of the Oklahoma City bombing case where federal prosecutors lied to the American people about the true circumstances of that bombing. Contrary to government assertions, Timothy McVeigh remained in an undisclosed role working for the U.S. military after he was supposedly discharged from the Army. Federal prosecutors covered up the role played by Timothy McVeigh's handlers in the bombing and confiscated and withheld surveillance video that would have proven there was an explosion that occurred from within the federal building, not just the truck bomb driven by McVeigh.

Judge Garland's very liberal judicial philosophy ensures that the Second Amendment will be written out of the Constitution if his nomination is confirmed. He disagreed with an opinion issued by a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals striking down the District of Columbia's handgun ban, a decision which ultimately was decided in the landmark Heller decision that affirmed the Second Amendment right of people to bear arms in a 5-4 decision. Judge Garland wanted to rehear the panel's decision before it went to the Supreme Court, indicating his belief the panel had ruled incorrectly. His confirmation would give liberals the clear majority on the court they seek to radically re-write the Constitution.

BTW--Does anyone else think that Garland is a Bob Woodward doppelganger? Woodward is also an Illinois native who was born in Geneva, Illinois, a western Chicago suburb. Woodward's father was an Illinois appeals court judge.
[Image: BobWoodward.jpg]
Bob Woodward

at

13 comments:

  1. Anonymous11:21 AM EST

    Yes, I like him. He sounds honest. We should confirm him. They say Trump has a sister who's a judge. If we wait who knows who he'll nominate.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous11:25 AM EST

    Maybe they all come from Harvard is because the lawyers out here are all dishonest. Nobody wants an Indiana Judge for anything important.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Paul K. Ogden11:59 AM EST

    With Clinton or Trump waiting in the wings, as well as possible (probable) loss of the Senate, it might be time for Republicans to cut a deal with a President Obama for a moderate jurist like Garland than wait until after the election and likely get a more liberal nominee.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gary R. Welsh12:52 PM EST

    A moderate? Stop drinking the Kool-Aid, Paul. Just because the liberal media describes him as a moderate doesn't make him one. He's always ran with the elitist, liberal Washington crowd. The guy was a mentee of Jamie Gorelick. Do you know who she is? She's the gal who got to sit in judgment of her own inactions as a member of the 9/11 Commission and lied about close to $10 billion in losses incurred by Fannie Mae when she was the number two person in charge of the agency. Breyer was also described as a moderate when he was appointed, but he's been consistently one of the most liberal members of the court.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous1:20 PM EST

    Paul has been off his oats ever since Trump phobia took over. With all the excitement and interest in ideas taking place why expect to lose the Senate? Seems a lot of people are pretty sure the Establishment Republicans are owned by the same people who own Clinton. It might be unfair comparison but Truman ran against a "do nothing" Congress.....what has this current Congress accomplished for us?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous1:22 PM EST


    Attention Republicans: This is your chance to get a reasonably moderate justice to replace Scalia. If things don't go the way you want in November, and in particular if you lose control of the Senate, the new president will be under exactly zero pressure at all to nominate a moderate.

    Do you really want to roll those dice?


    I think they will pay dearly for ignoring their duty.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous4:32 PM EST

    As much as I respect Ogden's opinions, Anon 1:20 could have a valid point.

    How is Mr. Ogden any different than Karl Rove or Reince Priebus in that they are really frosted "their" candidates are not winning just as Mr. Ogden wages words for "his" candidate being the only one who should be elected?

    The people are speaking, like it or not, and it is the establishment Republicans who have created the outcomes we are seeing.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous5:25 PM EST

    Obama met Senior Republican Senator Orrin Hatch's challenge and nominated Garland for Supreme Court Justice. The R's must be favoring to nominate a magna cum redneck from Trump University.
    And 1:20, presently the House Committee on Government Reform is feverishly working on Texas Congressman Pete Sessions' bill to designate magic as a national treasure - finally a solution to global warming.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous6:22 PM EST

    I think Mitch McConnell is a fool to call Judge Garland today and tell him they won't take up his nomination. I think Garland ought to get a fair hearing. And I think there ought to be an up or down vote on the record. I don't care whether the Democrats stalled or didn't stall a hearing in the past. This is now. Trump may nominate someone more shocking to your senses, McConnell. You're making a big mistake refusing to sign off on this nominee. Makes you look hateful. Trump is winning because people of tired of the way Washington does stuff like this. Up or down on the nominee. Get it over with.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Paul K. Ogden6:57 PM EST

    I totally agree with Anon 1:22. If we nominate Trump, the conservative movement is over and we likely lose the Senate. I don't know if this guy is enough of moderate or not, but the time is to cut a deal with President Obama while we have some leverage left.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous8:06 PM EST

    Instead your so-called "conservative movement" Ogden, how about a movement by the American people for a change. People tossed your old GOP out with the trash where it belongs. I've been watching this "conservative movement" since the Contract with America came and went and it's been an unmitigated disaster.
    You can either sit on the sidelines pissing and moaning about something that never was or get with the new movement. Either way the train is leaving the station.
    Your either the one hanging on the cross or the one driving in the nails Ogden.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous10:13 AM EST

    Absentminded Coats must have forgotten that he once voted to confirm Garland for the Washington DC Circuit Court. The constitutionalists should know that a SCOTUS nominee is confirmed by the Senate and not every four years in a general election. With control of the Senate, it should little problem to deny approval but if an up or down vote is taken Republican senators would appear more foolish than they already are.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Paul K. Ogden3:05 PM EST

    I so love that Democrats, who invented the politicization of the Supreme Court confirmation process, are now complaining that the confirmation process has become politicized. Yeah, like the Dems wouldn't be doing the exact same thing if the situation were reversed.

    ReplyDelete