“He was born and raised in the Land of Lincoln…in my home state of Illinois.”
“Merrick graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law, and the early years of his legal career bear all the…marks of excellence”
“He walked away from a comfortable and lucrative law practice to return to public service.”
“Merrick accepted a low-level job as a federal prosecutor in President George H.W. Bush’s administration.”
“He quickly made a name for himself, going after corrupt politicians and violent criminals.”
heh. This’ll guarantee Chuck Grassley calls for hearings and a vote. ;-) No?
More bio on Garland (and Sri Srinivasan).
(I wish the President cared about our Constitutional Rights, don’t you?)
I was hoping for career public defender Jane Kelley; Grassley liked her, too. ;-)
“Obama called McConnell today to discuss the Garland nomination and the pair spoke, NBC News reports. And apparently did not budge in their stances of total opposition on the Supreme Court nominee question.”
Poppy ‘prosecutor’ Goes The WEASEL, agin’ TERRISTS! Couldn’t have any jurist AGIN’ The E$TABLI$HMENT and Its Freedom 0f $PEE¢H; like Say, Lawrence Lessig!
really, i only scanned the scotus blog piece, given that he’s not likely to see confirmation hearings, unless there’s some huge backroom trade afoot, like…move gitmo (lock, stock, and camp x-ray) to mitch mcconnell’s backyard er something… ;-)
but why lessig bruce? can’t say i’m a fan. if i weren’t busy on something else, i’d prolly poke around to see more reactions. i grabbed it early due to advance notice from the white house. lol, they even created that darling #hashtag to check!
since comrade aXe ain’t here, might i say ‘ha ha hah!’ for him?
‘This Landmark Merrick Garland Ruling May Make Liberals Cringe ‘
it turns out that the author at Bustle did read the scotus blog link in the ‘more bio’ link i stuck into the OP.
“While serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Garland often ruled in support of George W. Bush’s Guantanamo Bay detainee policies and “showed great deference to President George W. Bush’s indefinite detentions at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,” the Washington Post noted in 2010. In 2014, Garland was part of three-judge panel that unanimously ruled a “new policy of probing into a prisoner’s groin area and alongside his clothed genitals is a reasonable security measure,” as Josh Gerstein at Politico wrote.
Garland’s most famous decision, though, in regards to Guantanamo Bay policies may be the 2003 ruling in Al Odah v. United States. In that case, Garland joined the majority opinion that Guantanamo Bay detainees were not entitled to habeas corpus, which effectively blocked them “from seeking relief in civilian courts,” as Ian Millhiser at ThinkProgress noted. That ruling was overturned the next year by the Supreme Court in Rasul v. Bush, which said the detainees were entitled to challenge their detention.”
then a few caveats of minimizing his votes by citing extant scotus precedent, etc.
but otoh, the nra is somewhat peeved at the choice. ;-)
On edit: Yves smith rec’d this post at slate; i’ll read it later. ‘Merrick Garland Is Obama’s Rope-a-Dope Nominee; The president has learned to let the GOP punch itself out.’
something tells me the alberto gonzales endorsement might not be persuasive…
way-ullll...O was shore hoping to appeal to (shall we say)…a certain demographic/side of the aisle… in the senate.
on edit: i guess i found this baffling as all giddy-up: ‘Obama, Sanders and the Supreme Court’, by Rob Hager
“One of the most legitimately “interested parties” should be Senator Sanders. His chances of reaching the White House have improved since his historic Michigan primary upset. As Senator. Sanders has a constitutional duty to provide “advice” to the president. By winning or virtually tying in Democratic strongholds, in blue and purple state primaries from Maine to Minnesota and Michigan to Colorado, Sanders has become the most prominent Senator on the Democratic side of the aisle.
But we have heard no word of Sanders’ current advice, or future preference, for the swing seat on the Court.”
“Sanders wasted his last debate opportunity before the important March 15th primaries in core red and purple states to announce the kind of nominee he would support. His only comment on the subject repeated his six-year old applause-line talking point “we’re going to have to overturn this disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision,“ even though that would have negligible impact on the “Billionaires and Wall Street … buying elections” that Sanders opposes. Sanders has apparently still not figured out that it is Buckley v Valeo that must be overturned to accomplish his goal”, tra la la…