March 18, 2016

Where the Supreme Court was to the left of Garland

FAIR - As a candidate in 2008, Obama praised a Supreme Court ruling that affirmed that prisoners had a right to habeas corpus regardless of where they were held, calling it “a rejection of the Bush administration’s attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantánamo” (New York Times, 6/13/08). But that ruling was a reversal of an appeals court ruling that Garland had voted for; if you’re glad that the Supreme Court rejected the legal black hole theory, why put another judge there who embraced it?

As SCOTUS Blog (4/26/10) noted when the former prosecutor was considered a potential nominee in 2010, “Judge Garland rarely votes in favor of criminal defendants’ appeals of their convictions,” often splitting from his more liberal colleagues. As many such issues now split 4/4 among the current justices, this means that with Garland the court would often side with the state on criminal justice issues.


Anonymous said...

This Garland guy is getting the Yuri Andropov treatment: loves chamber music, well thought of, etc.

One anecdote from his high school graduation had an angry parent pulling the plug on another student's criticism of Vietnam. The mike was plugged back in and valedictorian Garland quickly noted how important free speech was in a democracy. He did not allow the other student to finish his remarks. Fuck this fucking perfect resume drone.

None of Obama's appointments are qualified to wipe Thurgood Marshall's nether regions. I hope the Republicans stonewall this mediocrity.

Anonymous said...

And then we may easily end up with someone picked by Trump. Would he pick someone better or worse than Garland?

Anonymous said...

@7:38PM By all means aim low, because what else can we do?