President Barack Obama has made his selection for nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Appellate court Judge Merrick Garland from the District of Columbia is his choice. Of course, the Senate Republicans have vowed to block any Obama nominee. This is purely politics. Historically, those who have been appointed to the Supreme Court do not always follow the desires of those who appoint them. Once in that position, they are there for life. The greatest negative against Garland is the fact he was a prosecutor, went to a private law firm and practiced corporate law, and then returned as the assistant attorney general for the District of Columbia. You cannot be a prosecutor and honestly function under the Constitution for their job is always to deny its existence and that government has the power to do whatever it desires at that instant. The danger is that a prosecutor has an inherent bias against people in general, and I have never met one who I would say can really be trusted as a judge.
I have checked my records and have not encountered him before personally. I probably know more people on the Supreme Court through direct contact than anyone prior to their appointment. That presents a problem if I were to argue before the Supreme Court because it may have caused a real problem with recusals, whereas in any other level of federal court they will NEVER recuse themselves.
I will read over some of his decisions where he actually wrote them for the majority. I would NEVER say that someone was a piece of shit just because Obama nominates them. Quite frankly, it has been many of the “conservative” judges appointed by Republicans who have stripped us of most of our rights. It was Chief Justice Roberts who was appointed by George W. Bush and screwed us royally by upholding Obamacare on grounds not even argued. He held it was a tax, which the Democrats swore it would not be. Chief Justice John Roberts did far more damage than simply saving Obamacare. He made this the law of the land that will plague the youth for a generation to come. Justice Scalia was a strict constructionist. His dissent in KING ET AL. v. BURWELL explained it all and demonstrates that just because a Republican president appoints someone, he does not necessarily adhere to the same philosophy.
The Act that Congress passed provides that every individual “shall” maintain insurance or else pay a “penalty.” 26 U. S. C. §5000A. This Court, however, saw that the Commerce Clause does not authorize a federal mandate to buy health insurance. So it rewrote the mandate-cum-penalty as a tax. 567 U. S., at ___–___ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 15–45). The Act that Congress passed also requires every State to accept an expansion of its Medicaid program, or else risk losing all Medicaid funding. 42 U. S. C. §1396c. This Court, however, saw that the Spending Clause does not authorize this coercive condition. So it rewrote the law to withhold only the incremental funds associated with the Medicaid expansion. 567 U. S., at ___–___ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 45–58). Having transformed two major parts of the law, the Court today has turned its attention to a third. The Act that Congress passed makes tax credits available only on an “Exchange established by the State.” This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUScare. (KING ET AL. v. BURWELL)
Therefore, I will read some of Garland’s decisions to see if there can be any insight into his philosophy, and, more importantly, his thinking process. The former can change with circumstances. The latter never changes. So just because Obama nominated Garland is not sufficient grounds to say you should block him. Judges are not beyond reproach. Federal Chief Judge Richard Roberts of DC just retired March 16th, 2016 the same day sexual charges were alleged in a civil lawsuit by a woman. So just because someone was a judge does not alter anything.