Not that I believe that Merrick Garland is really a serious nominee, as I tweeted this morning, here and here.
But if I play along, and pretend that he is really the guy that Obama wants, I oppose him.
From the Washington Free Beacon:
Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee to replace Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, has a record of opposing gun rights as a federal judge, which includes a vote to undo a landmark gun rights ruling.
Garland was one of four judges who voted to rehear the case of Parker v. District of Columbia with a full ten-judge panel after a smaller panel struck down the District of Columbia’s total ban on handguns. Garland’s vote for this en banc hearing indicates that he may believe the decision to strike down the city’s gun ban was mistaken.
The other six judges on the appeals court voted not to rehear the case, and the Supreme Court went on to rule in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to bear arms in the case.
District of Columbia v. Heller is considered by gun rights activists to be the most important Second Amendment case in history.
The Heller case is not the only time Garland has ruled against gun rights. In 2000, he ruled againstthe National Rifle Association in a lawsuit challenging the Justice Department’s handling of gun purchaser’s information. Garland ruled that is was permissible for the department to retain up to six months of records from the National Instant Background Check System, over the NRA’s argument that this practice effectively created an illegal national registry.
There was really no reason for this guy to go all Kasich this morning when he was with the One in the Rose Garden. He’s not going to get the job. He’s not even going to get a hearing, nor should he. Still, it’s worth knowing about his anti-gun stance, if for no other reason than to see what Obama’ idea of a “moderate” is.