You Might Like

Justice: For or Against The Second Amendment & Judge Garland


Judge Merrick Garland

Arbalest QuarrelHow would Judge Garland would really decide a case involving Americans’ fundamental rights and liberties?

Now that President Obama has nominated a judge to the U.S. Supreme Court, a few pertinent questions arise. What will the Senate do? What ought the Senate do?

And, most importantly, what do we, the American people, know about the individual Obama has nominated to replace a respected – indeed, a revered – Supreme Court Justice, a man whose shoes cannot easily be filled, Justice Antonin Scalia.

Before we get to the third question, let us respond briefly to the first two. The U.S. Constitution sets forth the authority of the U.S. President to nominate an individual to the U.S. Supreme Court. But the Constitution does so with a most important caveat. Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution sets forth, in pertinent part that the President, “. . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court.”

Many news sources are turning this matter into a major spectacle – castigating the U.S. Senate for allegedly dragging its feet in handling this nomination. But, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires the U.S. Senate to do anything. It need not proffer its advice and consent; and, if it does not, then the appointment cannot be made. In this instance the U.S. Senate has good reason not to proffer its advice and consent.

The appointment of a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court is not to be taken lightly. The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is for life. A poor decision can undermine the rights and liberties of all Americans. A poor decision can weaken our Republic. The Court’s decisions mold and shape our institutions and impact the life of every American citizen for decades. So, in a very real sense, A U.S. Supreme Court Justice wields  more power than the President of the United States. Would President Obama’s nominee truly faithfully support and defend the Constitution of the United States?

President Barack Obama has, to date, nominated two Justices to the United States Supreme Court, and the U.S. Senate has confirmed them. They are Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, two liberal-wing Justices. No one can reasonably contest the sufficiency of the legal and judicial experience of these two Justices; nor can anyone reasonably contest the intellectual acumen of Justices Kagan and Sotomayor. In most cases, Americans may reasonably assume that the individuals, nominated by the United States President and subsequently confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve as Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, do have the necessary intellectual gifts, necessary moral stature and character, and necessary experience to serve as Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. But is that enough?

Many news sources suggest that the academic credentials of a nominee, along with that nominee’s intellectual capacity, and along with the breadth and depth of that nominee’s judicial and legal experiences, and, along with that nominee’s necessary moral bearing, stature and character are all the factors the U.S. Senate need consider to support confirmation of a nominee to the highest Court in the Land. But are satisfaction of those factors enough. Are those factors, alone, sufficient to support confirmation of a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court? The answer is a resounding, “no.” For, before the United States Senate confirms a nominee, the U.S. Senate should definitely take a close look at the prior judicial decisions of a particular nominee if that nominee had happened to serve in a judicial capacity on a lower court prior to his nomination. Such is no less true of Judge Merrick Garland in the event the U.S. Senate does consider the President’s nominee at all.

The U.S. Senate must ask, and the American public has a right to know, whether a given nominee – if he or she is to ascend to the position of Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court – is truly likely to render decisions faithful to the U.S. Constitution and, in particular, whether that nominee would render decisions supportive of an American citizen’s fundamental rights and liberties as codified in the Bill of Rights. The United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, presided by Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican Iowa, obviously has its doubts in the present instance and, rightfully so, and this would account for the Committee’s reluctance to consider President Obama’s nominee – his third –  especially since Obama will soon be leaving Office and a Republican Party candidate for U.S. President may very well be taking his place.

Republican Senators are asking and we must ask as well: what do Americans really know about President Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland? What is Judge Garland’s position on the Bill of Rights? Is he a strong proponent of individual Rights and Liberties, as codified in the Bill of Rights, or isn’t he?

Each Justice, who presently sits on the U.S. Supreme Court, certainly has a definite idea how he or she construes the Bill of Rights. A few construe the Bill of Rights literally and narrowly, giving particular weight to our founders’ view of it. On this view a U.S. Supreme Court Justice would ascribe to the idea that our founding founders believed that, regardless of the current fashion of any particular age, the import and purport of our fundamental rights and liberties remain constant from one generation to the next. They are not to be tampered with. Justice Scalia certainly fell into this camp. Other Justices tend to consider fundamental rights and liberties of Americans apropos of conditions as they exist in American society and in the world today. Those Justices happen to think our Bill of Rights is malleable; that it is subject to change in accordance with popular opinion vis-à-vis political mandates. They have a decided predilection for legislating from the Bench. The Bill of Rights, though, has nothing to do with one’s being comfortable with it or with particular Amendments within it. The Bill of Rights is what it is. It is not a thing to be toyed with. It is not to be subjugated or changed, along with popular culture. The Bill of Rights defines clearly and explicitly what rights and liberties we, as Americans, are entitled to exercise as a free people, living in a free Republic.

The point here is that a particular philosophy, regarding the Bill of Rights, has considerable impact on how a Justice ultimately will decide a case. An opinion by a simple majority of Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court affects us all. It affects America’s institutions. It affects the very nature of and continued existence of our Nation, as conceived by the founding fathers.

So, contrary to what the left, reporting through a compliant media,  maintains, the question the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary must wrestle with extends well beyond a nominee’s native ability, intellectual gifts, judicial and legal experience, and moral bearing and character. The question the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary must wrestle with is subtle and complex. As it pertains to President Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, the question goes to the manner in which Judge Garland perceives the Bill of Rights. For, the manner in which Judge Garland perceives our fundamental rights and liberties will color his perception of the cases that come before him. Does he tend to view our fundamental rights and liberties as Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor do – as transitory, ephemeral and infinitely malleable? Or, does Judge Garland view our fundamental rights and liberties in the same vein as Justices Alito and Thomas do, and as Justice Scalia did? Or, perhaps, Judge Garland’s perception of our fundamental rights and liberties fall somewhere in the middle, commensurate with the views of Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts.

As the Wall Street Journal reports, Judge Garland says, “Fidelity to the Constitution has been the cornerstone of my professional life.” Well, one would certainly expect as much. But, that really take us anywhere. That assertion doesn’t tell us anything about how Judge Garland would really decide a case involving Americans’ fundamental rights and liberties.

Each current Justice would certainly assert “fidelity to the Constitution,” and that Justice would honestly believe the assertion. The assertion is little more than a platitude. But, within the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights speaks squarely to the fundamental rights and liberties of the people. In any one case before the U.S. Supreme Court, those rights and liberties will be strengthened or weakened by the Majority on the Court.

 

THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Of the specific Rights and Liberties expressed in the first Eight Amendments – all critical to a Free Republic – none of those Rights and Liberties speak more loudly to the unique character of the United States than does our Second Amendment. In no other Constitution of any other Nation on the face of this Earth does there exist any Right boldly setting forth: “. . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Yes, a few nations do permit the citizenry to keep and bear arms but in every such case that “right” is not really a right at all because the purported “right” emanates from government. It does not reside in the people. The “right” expressed is more in the nature of a grant by a nation’s government, or a license, or a privilege.

But, the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution operates as a right in the purest sense – preexistent in each individual. If there exists any doubt about that, Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, in the seminal case, District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), laid that doubt to rest.

What the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary should really be asking, assuming it decides to consider the matter of Judge Merrick Garland’s appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court – or not, as consistent with its prerogative under Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution – is this: would Judge Garland if he were to gain the U.S. Supreme Court, tend to weaken or strengthen our Bill of Rights?We can use the Second Amendment as a good example here. How might we explicate this? Just so: would the Heller case have been decided differently if – in a parallel world – Justice Garland had worn the robes of Justice Scalia?

Do we have any clues? Well, we have two important clues. The first involves the case Parker vs. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

Important Note: the Parker case is the seminal Second Amendment Heller case. The Parker case was renamed District of Columbia vs. Heller when the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

 

ANALYSIS OF PARKER

The Appellants, Parker and others, are residents of the District of Columbia. They wanted to carry their handguns in their own homes for self-defense, but the District of Columbia prohibits anyone from having an operable handgun in the home for the purposes of immediate self-defense. The Appellants brought action against the District of Columbia, claiming that the D.C. code violated their Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms.” The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia sided with the Appellee government, District of Columbia, finding that the D.C. code did not violate Appellants Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms because, according to the U.S. District Court, the “right to bear arms” only accrues to one who serves in a militia.

Appellants, residents of the District of Columbia, appealed. The United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia disagreed with the lower Court. Reversing the U.S. District Court’s decision, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dealt squarely with the issue as to the meaning of and impact of the prefatory and operative portions of the Second Amendment andwhether, on the one hand, “the right to keep and bear arms” is an individual right, as Appellant, District of Columbia residents maintain, or whether, on the other hand, “the right to keep and bear arms” is a collective right that applies only to those who serve in a militia, as the Appellee, District of Columbia had argues.

In finding for the Appellant residents, against the District of Columbia, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia pointed out that the wording of the operative clause also indicates that “the right to keep and bear arms” was not created by government, but rather preserved by it. The United States Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Appellee District of Columbia’s claim that the phrase, “keep and bear arms” has only a military purpose related to the “militia.” Two of the three Judges on the Circuit Court sided with the Appellants in the case and thereupon reversed the decision of the U.S. District Court.

The losing party in the Parker case, namely the District of Columbia, then petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for reconsideration, asking the United States Court of Appeals to hear the case en banc. What this means is that the Appellee District Columbia petitioned to have the entire United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia hear the case.

Keep in mind that, although Judge Garland serves as Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, there are several U.S. Circuit Court Judges. Generally, a panel of three Circuit Court Judges hears a case on appeal from the lower District Court.

Judge Garland did not sit on the three-man panel in the Parker case. We are not, though, left merely to speculate as to how he might have ruled in Parker had he served as one of the three original Judges who heard the case. We do have an inkling as to how Judge Garland would have ruled, and therein rests one reason, at least, why the U.S. Senate, on behalf of the American people and on behalf of the well-being of Americans’ Bill of Rights, has no desire to contemplate the nomination, during the remaining months of Obama’s term as U.S. President.

Likely, Judge Garland would have ruled against the Appellant D.C. residents and for the District of Columbia in Parker. We know this because of a further action involving the Parker case that transpired before the case was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, renamed, District of Columbia vs. Heller.

Now, no party, in any jurisdiction, can insist, as a matter of right, to have an entire United States Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its own decision. A United States Circuit Court of Appeals will do so only if a majority of the Court’s Judges agree to reconsider the decision, in which case the entirety of the Court will rehear the case – that is to say – the Court will hear the case, en banc.

There are ten Judges on the D.C. Circuit. Only four of those ten agreed to hear the Parker case en banc. Notably, Judge Garland was one of those four Judges. The case is Parker vs. District of Columbia, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 11029 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

We really do not need to speculate as to why Judge Garland had sought to have the Parker case reheard by all ten United States Circuit Court of Appeals judges. Yes, Judge Garland may have thought – as some news sources infer – that the issue was important enough to warrant a hearing by the entire Court, so that all of the Judges could weigh in. After all, the Parker case dealt directly with the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms. But, likely, there was more to Judge Garland’s desire to have an en banc hearing of the case. And it is just this: if Judge Merrick Garland really feels strongly about Americans’ fundamental rights and liberties, as had Justice Scalia, it is likely that Judge Garland would have voted with the majority of the Court. That means he would have voted againsttaking up the Second Amendment issue again in an en banc hearing of the case. For, what more could be gained through an en banc hearing of the case? The majority opinion, which supported Appellants’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, was clear, and cogent, and unequivocal.  Moreover, a vote in favor of an en banc hearing would, quite probably, invite a reversal of the decision by the three member United States Circuit Court of Appeals panel. A true advocate for the Second Amendment would never have voted in favor of a rehearing. Tactically, it would make no sense. Appellants, District of Columbia residents had already won. The case should have stopped there.

Be that as it may, the Appellant, District of Columbia, having failed to secure a rehearing of the Parker case by the full United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia thereupon petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, of course, agreed to hear the case. Parker vs. District of Columbia was renamed District of Columbia vs. Heller. Justice Scalia, writing for the Majority, affirmed the decision of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by a narrow margin: 5 to 4.

Granted, while it is not absolutely clear that Judge Garland would not have voted with the Majority in Heller, had he sat on the U.S. Supreme Court, the fact that he voted for en banc review of Parker, as a Judge sitting on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia strongly suggests his unhappiness with the decision and, hence, his reluctance to view the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms generally favorably and expansively.

A second and, perhaps, even stronger clue suggesting that Judge Garland is not likely to be a strong proponent of the Second Amendment is evidenced from a perusal of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia’s decision in NRA vs. Reno, 216 F.3d 2000 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Judge Garland did have a hand in that decision and, while the case does not deal directly with the meaning of language in the Second Amendment, the case does deal with matters impacting the Second Amendment, and impacting the Fourth Amendment as well. In Part 2 of this article, we will explicate the NRA case for you and explain why, more likely than not, Judge Garland is not a proponent of the Second Amendment and that, for this reason alone, the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary should not consider Obama’s appointment of Judge Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court, as an Associate Justice.

To be continued. . . .

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: www.ArbalestQuarrel.com.

Previous Malcolm Gladwell: Gun Control Won’t Work, So We Need More Gun Control
Next First Amendment Under Attack, In Chicago Where The Second Amendment Is Trampled

34 Comments

  1. April 8, 2020

    Viagra Achat Online [url=http://cialibuy.com/#]Cialis[/url] Progesterone Legally Cialis Do They Sell Trazadone Over The Counter

  2. April 16, 2020

    Thank you.

    Youseful blog. Good post.

  3. April 20, 2020

    though difficulty [url=https://amstyles.com/#]generic albuterol inhaler[/url] seriously industry less meeting ventolin hfa inhaler for sale yet training generic albuterol inhaler honestly agent https://amstyles.com/

  4. ciprofloxacin 500mg antibiotics walmart cost

    Justice: For or Against The Second Amendment & Judge Garland – Weapons Media

  5. April 25, 2020

    best generic viagra

    Justice: For or Against The Second Amendment & Judge Garland – Weapons Media

  6. May 24, 2020
  7. JamesCycle
    June 10, 2020

    Знаете ли вы?
    Не удержавшись от писательства, Амалия Кахана-Кармон создала одну из важнейших книг в истории Израиля.
    Будущего чемпиона Европы по боксу в детстве одновременно дразнили «хохлом» и «москалём».
    Индонезийской закуской начиняют пирожки, посыпают рис и кладут в лапшу и супы.
    Бывший министр финансов удостоился высшей государственной награды за распространение знаний о психических расстройствах.
    Кустурица пропустил получение «Золотой ветви» в Каннах, так как любит друзей больше, чем церемонии награждения.

    [url=http://0pb8hx.com/]0PB8hX[/url]

  8. JamesCycle
    June 14, 2020

    Знаете ли вы?
    Плата за проезд в последний путь у древних была скорее символической.
    Английский крейсер ценой четырёх попаданий защитил конвой от немецкого рейдера.
    Российских легкоалетов могут сурово наказать за действия чиновников от спорта.
    Будущего чемпиона Европы по боксу в детстве одновременно дразнили «хохлом» и «москалём».
    Согласно мифу, Марута Сар пыталась примирить Арарат и Арагац, но не смогла.

    [url=http://0pb8hx.com/]http://www.0pb8hx.com/[/url]

  9. June 19, 2020

    What i do not understood is in truth how you are no longer really a lot
    more smartly-appreciated than you might be right now.
    You are very intelligent. You recognize therefore significantly in terms of this subject, produced
    me in my opinion consider it from so many varied angles.
    Its like women and men aren’t interested unless it is something to do with
    Girl gaga! Your own stuffs excellent. At all times
    maintain it up!

  10. June 21, 2020

    Aw, this was an exceptionally nice post. Taking a few minutes
    and actual effort to make a superb article… but what can I
    say… I hesitate a whole lot and never seem to get nearly anything done.

  11. I visited many web pages however the audio quality for audio songs existing at this website
    is truly superb.

  12. June 27, 2020

    After exploring a number of the blog articles on your blog, I honestly like your way of blogging.
    I saved it to my bookmark site list and will be checking back
    soon. Please check out my website as well and let me know how you feel.

  13. heasels
    June 30, 2020

    Xopenex [url=https://cheapcialisll.com/]Cialis[/url] Acquistare Viagra On Line E Reato Cialis Canadian Healthcare Mall

  14. July 8, 2020
  15. July 9, 2020

    generic viagra on line https://viatribuy.com/

  16. July 17, 2020

    Outstanding quest there. What occurred after? Thanks!

  17. July 18, 2020

    With havin so much written content do you ever run into any problems of plagorism or copyright infringement?
    My site has a lot of exclusive content I’ve either created myself or outsourced but it appears
    a lot of it is popping it up all over the web without my agreement.
    Do you know any solutions to help protect against content from being ripped off?
    I’d genuinely appreciate it.

  18. July 25, 2020

    of course like your web site but you have to check the spelling on several of your posts.
    A number of them are rife with spelling problems and I find it
    very troublesome to inform the truth nevertheless I will certainly come back again.

  19. July 27, 2020

    Howdy! This is my first visit to your blog! We are a team of volunteers and starting a
    new initiative in a community in the same niche.
    Your blog provided us valuable information to work on.
    You have done a marvellous job!

  20. July 28, 2020

    Thanks for one’s marvelous posting! I truly enjoyed reading it, you might be a great author.
    I will be sure to bookmark your blog and definitely will come back sometime soon. I want to encourage continue your great job, have a
    nice day!

  21. July 28, 2020

    It’s amazing to go to see this website and reading the views
    of all mates on the topic of this piece of writing, while I am also eager of
    getting know-how.

  22. August 6, 2020

    I always spent my half an hour to read this weblog’s content every day along with a cup of coffee.

  23. August 7, 2020

    Oh my goodness! Amazing article dude! Thank you so much, However I am experiencing issues
    with your RSS. I don’t understand why I cannot join it.
    Is there anybody having similar RSS issues?
    Anyone that knows the solution can you kindly respond?
    Thanx!!

  24. August 10, 2020

    I was able to find good advice from your articles.

  25. August 10, 2020

    Hi I am so delighted I found your weblog, I really found you by error, while I was searching on Bing for something else, Regardless I am here now and would just like to say cheers for a remarkable post and a all round
    exciting blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to go through
    it all at the minute but I have bookmarked it and also included your RSS feeds, so when I have time
    I will be back to read much more, Please do keep up the fantastic work.

  26. August 13, 2020

    cialis package insert http://cialisoni.com/

  27. August 14, 2020

    cvs prednisone cost https://bvsinfotech.com/

  28. is there a generic for januvia http://lm360.us/

  29. August 24, 2020

    Write more, thats all I have to say. Literally, it seems
    as though you relied on the video to make your point.
    You definitely know what youre talking about, why waste your intelligence on just posting videos
    to your site when you could be giving us something enlightening to read?
    cheap flights 31muvXS

  30. August 25, 2020

    Oh my goodness! Amazing article dude! Thanks, However I
    am experiencing troubles with your RSS. I don’t understand the
    reason why I can’t join it. Is there anyone else having identical RSS problems?
    Anyone that knows the answer can you kindly respond?

    Thanx!! 32hvAj4 cheap flights

  31. September 2, 2020

    azithromycin capsules 500mg https://azithromycinx250.com/

  32. September 9, 2020

    can viagra 100mg be dangerous

    Justice: For or Against The Second Amendment & Judge Garland – Weapons Media

  33. September 16, 2020

    how much is a viagra pill https://mymvrc.org/

  34. September 22, 2020

    viagra in usa prescription https://www.jueriy.com/

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *