Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
so much for "we the people" (unless the "We" is the rightwingnut minority, of course)
"Americans are more likely to favor (52%) than oppose (29%) Senate confirmation of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, according to Gallup’s first reading on public support for his nomination. That level of support essentially matches the average 51% in initial readings for the eight nominees Gallup has tested since 1991. CONT."
U.S. Support for Garland Average for Supreme Court Nominees
The public definitely needs to be more informed about Chief Judge Garland. Here's just a smattering of information about Garland the public would benefit from learning:
Judge Garland’s record on the D.C. Circuit Court:
In NAHB v. EPA, Judge Garland in 2011 refused to consider a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) claim by the National Association of Home Builders against the Environmental Protection Agency despite the law’s clear language. The RFA is one of the few federal statutes that explicitly require certain agencies to take into account the effect of their actions on small employers.
Consider that the federal government itself estimates that the typical small business must spend $12,000 per worker annually just to be compliant with federal regulations. With Judge Garland on the Supreme Court, the EPA and other regulators would have a freer hand to impose even more costs on small businesses.
In another case, Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, in 2003, Judge Garland argued that the Commerce Clause, which regulates economic activity between the states, applies to an animal species found in only one state and which has no economic value. In doing so he foreshadowed the creative reasoning that the Obama administration used to defend the Affordable Care Act inNFIB v. Sebelius.
Wouldn’t Garland as a pivotal justice on the Supreme Court, apply his elastic view of the Commerce Clause to almost anything else?
In two other cases involving the National Labor Relations Board, Judge Garland didn’t just side with the government—he argued that business owners should be personally liable for labor violations. In other words, their personal assets, including their homes and their savings, would be exposed to government penalties.
Judge Garland has been consistently wrong on labor law. In 16 major labor decisions examined, he ruled 16-0 in favor of the National Labor Relations Board.
Judge Garland would be a strong ally of the regulatory bureaucracy, big labor and trial lawyers.
Based on these facts Garland would not be confirmed, were he to be given a hearing; there is no way.
Bullshit. I have been calling the republicans hacks for not voting. Its childish theater. That's it.
Vote, then deny that fucker and be done with it.
deny him based on what, exactly? blind obstruction is not leadership..
"that fucker" is a highly accomplished individual whose work is as a judge is highly regarded by all, and the man deserves the dignity of a thorough review process, and should only be denied based on an expressed valid rationale to deny him.
Ho lee fuk. The right has hamstrung all of our agencies? You broke the stupid meter on that one.so much for "we the people" (unless the "We" is the rightwingnut minority, of course)
"Americans are more likely to favor (52%) than oppose (29%) Senate confirmation of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, according to Gallup’s first reading on public support for his nomination. That level of support essentially matches the average 51% in initial readings for the eight nominees Gallup has tested since 1991. CONT."
U.S. Support for Garland Average for Supreme Court Nominees
The public definitely needs to be more informed about Chief Judge Garland. Here's just a smattering of information about Garland the public would benefit from learning:
Judge Garland’s record on the D.C. Circuit Court:
In NAHB v. EPA, Judge Garland in 2011 refused to consider a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) claim by the National Association of Home Builders against the Environmental Protection Agency despite the law’s clear language. The RFA is one of the few federal statutes that explicitly require certain agencies to take into account the effect of their actions on small employers.
Consider that the federal government itself estimates that the typical small business must spend $12,000 per worker annually just to be compliant with federal regulations. With Judge Garland on the Supreme Court, the EPA and other regulators would have a freer hand to impose even more costs on small businesses.
In another case, Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, in 2003, Judge Garland argued that the Commerce Clause, which regulates economic activity between the states, applies to an animal species found in only one state and which has no economic value. In doing so he foreshadowed the creative reasoning that the Obama administration used to defend the Affordable Care Act inNFIB v. Sebelius.
Wouldn’t Garland as a pivotal justice on the Supreme Court, apply his elastic view of the Commerce Clause to almost anything else?
In two other cases involving the National Labor Relations Board, Judge Garland didn’t just side with the government—he argued that business owners should be personally liable for labor violations. In other words, their personal assets, including their homes and their savings, would be exposed to government penalties.
Judge Garland has been consistently wrong on labor law. In 16 major labor decisions examined, he ruled 16-0 in favor of the National Labor Relations Board.
Judge Garland would be a strong ally of the regulatory bureaucracy, big labor and trial lawyers.
Based on these facts Garland would not be confirmed, were he to be given a hearing; there is no way.
what you call "regulatory bureaucracy" I call operation of government. I think the way the right has hamstrung all of our agencies so they can't function is a disgrace. garland is a moderate judge. my guess is you'd agree with some of what he's done and disagreed with other things he's done.
that said... I'm all for him having a confirmation hearing.
He picked him. The Senate is saying "No!".
actually, ijit, they're not saying no... that would require vetting him and an up or down vote.
where's all your "we the people" BS when "we the people" want him seated on the court?
nutter.
The people don't seat the Supreme Court, the Senate does. The Senate advised the President they will not hold a hearing, this fulfilling their Constitutional duty. Do try to keep up...
but the radical right is always yelling about "we the people".
perhaps *you* should keep up. although it is always amusing when idiots like you try to insult others' intelligence.
Again for the slow....."We the People" already spoke for this in 2014. Remember how elections have consequences? The people already had their say. Since we have a Constitutional Republic & the Constitution spells out the process, all the boxes have been checked. It's not that hard...
we the people re-elected this president twice with 52% of the vote. your gerrymandered house still had more democratic votes than republican votes.... and the senate...well, no question dems didn't do their job in the midterms.
but like I said, we the people RIGHT THIS SECOND want this justice confirmed by 52%
so what we the people are you loons talking about ... your 40% of 47% of the electorate who have obstructed the government for 7 years?
