Flashback: Senate Democrats in 1960 pass resolution against election-year SC

So funny to see the NYT tell the truth on this matter while politico is flat out lying

Merreck is one of the most liberal judges to possibly ever step foot on the bench.

NYT:"A Supreme Court with Merrick Garland Would Be the Most Liberal in Decades"
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/16/us/politics/garland-supreme-court-nomination.html

Politco:The appellate court judge blends a penchant for judicial restraint associated with conservatives with a deference to executive power more typical of liberals.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/supreme-court-merrick-garland-220904

As noted in the NYT piece, TI, they made an error- that's Bill Clinton's score, not Garlands's. What you put in quote marks in your post is not in the piece.

Garland has had Republican support in the past; he's considered a moderate.

Typical, they print shit for headlines, then edit after with tiny footnotes that nullifies the whole thing.👆

Might as well pull the whole god damn story.

I copied and pasted the wrong quote, this is where that came from.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/17/nyt-a-supreme-court-with-merrick-garland-would-be-the-most-liberal-in-decades/

Matt Schlapp of CPAC says he is still far left and no way a moderate.

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/acu-slams-scotus-pick

"If it were up to Judge Garland, DC citizens would have been stripped of their Second Amendment rights and the EPA would have virtually unlimited control over the private property of Americans. Republican Senate leaders should be applauded for standing on principle and upholding their role of advice and consent in filling Supreme Court vacancies."

Well you are always going to be able to find Republicans who despise him as a choice- it's not as if the ACU represents the consensual wing of the Republicans.

The fact remains that Garland is not a judge with a history of Republican antagonism- on the contrary, Republicans have previously voted in favour of his court appointments. That makes him about as moderate as these things get.

He is not pro second ammendement and his views and past decions with the EPA would be disasterous for the low income portion of America.

Obama has picked him for those two reasons. Scalia shot down Obama's climate change legislation. And Heller vs DC.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-obama-climate-change-20160209-story.html

Now Obama has picked a judge that will defy and try and reverse the ruling on this as well as second amendment rights like he did in DC.

Well, yes. But also a judge who has some Republican support. 'Moderate' is not code for 'Republican' you know. Obviously Obama will want to pick someone who represents his views- that is Obama's right as President. But this is not a completely partisan pick; it is a person who has support on both sides. You may not like his views- fine. But he's still a compromise candidate as these things go.

I don't have faith in any republicans any more, nor democrats. So because he had "republican" support means very little to me honestly.

Here is some more info on his gun stances

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/16/is-obamas-moderate-supreme-court-pick-a-trojan-horse-for-gun-control/

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/16/nra-garland-confirmation-will-lead-to-gun-confiscation/

"In 2007, Garland voted to allow Washington D.C. a second chance to allow its handgun ban to be upheld after a three-judge panel struck it down. Three years earlier he voted against rehearing a Second Amendment case, Seegers v. Gonzales, where the plaintiff challenged the city’s firearm ban.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/16/nra-garland-confirmation-will-lead-to-gun-confiscation/#ixzz43AyaBI6V"

From the first source above

"However, there is one politically-charged issue Garland has come across in his legal career and his record on the matter should concern conservatives.

In two separate court cases, Judge Garland voted in a way that favored gun control provisions.

As a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals justice, he ruled against the NRA and in favor of the Clinton administration in 2000 on a practice that allowed the federal government to retain background information on gun owners. Second Amendment advocates consider this program a precursor to a more-developed federal gun registry, an idea strongly backed by liberals.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/16/is-obamas-moderate-supreme-court-pick-a-trojan-horse-for-gun-control/#ixzz43Ayt2Kao"

Well you did just post a bunch of stuff trying to shoot down the idea that Garland was a moderate. If he has Republican support, that rather bolsters the 'moderate' argument.

Yea but I don't think republicans are moderates anymore, and a lot of people, meaning 40% of the population is on that same belief. I see what you are saying but this guy is trouble, I promise you that.

Also to note, Obama is not going to nominate someone that is not going to fix the gaps in his agenda for America. This guy is obviously anti-gun and pro-epa. The two opposite views of Scalia. Part of Obama's nomination process is looking at his past decisions, and these are two of his big judicial rulings. So Obama knows this is the guy to accomplish his dream.