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.
Is this the benchmark you really want to set?District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That is the case in which he supported a rehearing on. SC voted down the re-hearing with a majority.
In 2007, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, of which Garland was Chief Judge, accepted the District of Columbia v. Heller case challenging Washington, DC’s gun control measures. A four-judge panel not including Garland ruled 3-1 that the measures were incompatible with the Second Amendment, a ruling eventually upheld by the Supreme Court. DC mayor Adrian Fenty then petitioned the court for a hearing en banc, meaning that the entire Court and not just a specific panel would hear the case. Garland voted in favor of the petition, which was defeated 6-4.
Merrick Garland: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know
If this guy supports unconstitutionality, WTF is he doing being nominated for SC?
I wont argue he seems to favor the leftists.. His family is rooted in leftism. His grandfather (maybe grandfather in law? idk lol) worked for FDR. You just need to check out his history. He supported an opinion that basically made it to where Guantanamo Bay prisoners couldn't find "relief" in civilian courts.. Of course, that was ALSO overruled by SCOTUS.. He also rarely votes for criminal conviction appeals.He seems to favor the law enforcement community, from what I can tell.Of course he's Jewish. Pro-BLM, anti-white. Anti-gun rights. When are the people in this country finally going to wake up? We keep allowing this ethnic group domination of our society.
Source? He appears to be liberal to me. Frames himself as 'moderate' republican.
Scalia is dead....
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That is the case in which he supported a rehearing on. SC voted down the re-hearing with a majority.
In 2007, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, of which Garland was Chief Judge, accepted the District of Columbia v. Heller case challenging Washington, DC’s gun control measures. A four-judge panel not including Garland ruled 3-1 that the measures were incompatible with the Second Amendment, a ruling eventually upheld by the Supreme Court. DC mayor Adrian Fenty then petitioned the court for a hearing en banc, meaning that the entire Court and not just a specific panel would hear the case. Garland voted in favor of the petition, which was defeated 6-4.
Merrick Garland: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know
If this guy supports unconstitutionality, WTF is he doing being nominated for SC?
I wontThis isn't about Scalia you hack POS.He is supposedly the most qualified for the job. I didn't know qualifications for SCOTUS involved supporting unconstitutionality.So ? Justices "lose" all the time and then write decents .
That dead Scalia was on the losing end lots of times too. I guess he was supporting unconstitutionality too, right?
The point of the OP is that being on the losing end of a SC ruling means you support unconstitutionality. Scalia's losses are relevant.
I can mention all the others one, tooIs this the benchmark you really want to set?District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That is the case in which he supported a rehearing on. SC voted down the re-hearing with a majority.
In 2007, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, of which Garland was Chief Judge, accepted the District of Columbia v. Heller case challenging Washington, DC’s gun control measures. A four-judge panel not including Garland ruled 3-1 that the measures were incompatible with the Second Amendment, a ruling eventually upheld by the Supreme Court. DC mayor Adrian Fenty then petitioned the court for a hearing en banc, meaning that the entire Court and not just a specific panel would hear the case. Garland voted in favor of the petition, which was defeated 6-4.
Merrick Garland: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know
If this guy supports unconstitutionality, WTF is he doing being nominated for SC?
If a judge has had one of his rulings overturned by the Supreme Court, he should not be appointed to the Supreme Court? That's the benchmark you want?
You suuuuuure?
Think about how many times Scalia lost.So ? Justices "lose" all the time and then write decents .
AwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwWhat a great way to honor Scalia.
Don't attend his funeral. Nominate a 'direct opposite', and then the guy nominated steps over Scalia's dead body (so to speak) to cast the deciding vote to overturn Scalia's opinion to help strip Americans of their right to bear arms.
What a great way to honor Scalia.
Don't attend his funeral. Nominate a 'direct opposite', and then the guy nominated steps over Scalia's dead body (so to speak) to cast the deciding vote to overturn Scalia's opinion to help strip Americans of their right to bear arms.
Because our SC is appointed for life. And our Congress has NEVER battled our SC (I think). Maybe someone can correct me?District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That is the case in which he supported a rehearing on. SC voted down the re-hearing with a majority.
In 2007, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, of which Garland was Chief Judge, accepted the District of Columbia v. Heller case challenging Washington, DC’s gun control measures. A four-judge panel not including Garland ruled 3-1 that the measures were incompatible with the Second Amendment, a ruling eventually upheld by the Supreme Court. DC mayor Adrian Fenty then petitioned the court for a hearing en banc, meaning that the entire Court and not just a specific panel would hear the case. Garland voted in favor of the petition, which was defeated 6-4.
Merrick Garland: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know
If this guy supports unconstitutionality, WTF is he doing being nominated for SC?
Why are the conservatives who lost the gay marriage case still on the Court?
Are you sure this is the benchmark you want set for people appointed to the Supreme Court?I wontThis isn't about Scalia you hack POS.He is supposedly the most qualified for the job. I didn't know qualifications for SCOTUS involved supporting unconstitutionality.So ? Justices "lose" all the time and then write decents .
That dead Scalia was on the losing end lots of times too. I guess he was supporting unconstitutionality too, right?
The point of the OP is that being on the losing end of a SC ruling means you support unconstitutionality. Scalia's losses are relevant.
I can mention all the others one, tooIs this the benchmark you really want to set?District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That is the case in which he supported a rehearing on. SC voted down the re-hearing with a majority.
In 2007, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, of which Garland was Chief Judge, accepted the District of Columbia v. Heller case challenging Washington, DC’s gun control measures. A four-judge panel not including Garland ruled 3-1 that the measures were incompatible with the Second Amendment, a ruling eventually upheld by the Supreme Court. DC mayor Adrian Fenty then petitioned the court for a hearing en banc, meaning that the entire Court and not just a specific panel would hear the case. Garland voted in favor of the petition, which was defeated 6-4.
Merrick Garland: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know
If this guy supports unconstitutionality, WTF is he doing being nominated for SC?
If a judge has had one of his rulings overturned by the Supreme Court, he should not be appointed to the Supreme Court? That's the benchmark you want?
You suuuuuure?
I just thought THIS one was pretty important. Know what I mean?
You would have been upset if President Obama had gone to his funeral. But we can see who really wants to step on Scalia's dead body.What a great way to honor Scalia.
Don't attend his funeral. Nominate a 'direct opposite', and then the guy nominated steps over Scalia's dead body (so to speak) to cast the deciding vote to overturn Scalia's opinion to help strip Americans of their right to bear arms.
You summed it up perfectly. Nuff said.
That they should support and defend the Constitution? Goddamn rightAre you sure this is the benchmark you want set for people appointed to the Supreme Court?I wontThis isn't about Scalia you hack POS.He is supposedly the most qualified for the job. I didn't know qualifications for SCOTUS involved supporting unconstitutionality.
That dead Scalia was on the losing end lots of times too. I guess he was supporting unconstitutionality too, right?
The point of the OP is that being on the losing end of a SC ruling means you support unconstitutionality. Scalia's losses are relevant.
I can mention all the others one, tooIs this the benchmark you really want to set?District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That is the case in which he supported a rehearing on. SC voted down the re-hearing with a majority.
In 2007, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, of which Garland was Chief Judge, accepted the District of Columbia v. Heller case challenging Washington, DC’s gun control measures. A four-judge panel not including Garland ruled 3-1 that the measures were incompatible with the Second Amendment, a ruling eventually upheld by the Supreme Court. DC mayor Adrian Fenty then petitioned the court for a hearing en banc, meaning that the entire Court and not just a specific panel would hear the case. Garland voted in favor of the petition, which was defeated 6-4.
Merrick Garland: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know
If this guy supports unconstitutionality, WTF is he doing being nominated for SC?
If a judge has had one of his rulings overturned by the Supreme Court, he should not be appointed to the Supreme Court? That's the benchmark you want?
You suuuuuure?
I just thought THIS one was pretty important. Know what I mean?
Bo, stick to speaking for yourself because you SUCK trying to speak for me. All you're doing is embarrassing yourself.[
You would have been upset if President Obama had gone to his funeral. But we can see who really wants to step on Scalia's dead body.
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That is the case in which he supported a rehearing on. SC voted down the re-hearing with a majority.
In 2007, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, of which Garland was Chief Judge, accepted the District of Columbia v. Heller case challenging Washington, DC’s gun control measures. A four-judge panel not including Garland ruled 3-1 that the measures were incompatible with the Second Amendment, a ruling eventually upheld by the Supreme Court. DC mayor Adrian Fenty then petitioned the court for a hearing en banc, meaning that the entire Court and not just a specific panel would hear the case. Garland voted in favor of the petition, which was defeated 6-4.
Merrick Garland: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know
If this guy supports unconstitutionality, WTF is he doing being nominated for SC?
What a great way to honor Scalia.
Don't attend his funeral. Nominate a 'direct opposite', and then the guy nominated steps over Scalia's dead body (so to speak) to cast the deciding vote to overturn Scalia's opinion to help strip Americans of their right to bear arms.
