Merrick Garland
I have established that Merrick Garland was chosen by President Barack Hussein Obama as a suitable replacement of Antonin in the uppermost court in the judicial arrangement, a nomination that gave rise to criticisms across the different political divide where democrats supported and republicans objected. Many of the criticisms were based on his previous pronouncements that were allied to firearms and the convicts’ rights at the Guantanamo Bay and despite his nomination the senators allied to the republican wing or dimension declared they were not going to support any candidate fronted by Obama merely due to political reasons (Jeffrey n.pag).
It is speculated that he appeared to have supported the ruling that asserted that the ban on ownership of a firearm in the country was contrary to the constitution despite republicans vowing to protect gun rights advocates. In the Guantanamo bay detention, he partook by joining the view that individuals incarcerated at Guantanamo did not merit an appraisal and perusal of their cases, though this was later supported by the highest court that admitted that the convicts’ cases needed a review (Jeffrey n.pag). According to assertions by law experts it is in record that Garland has consistently been voting against ordinary criminal defendants.
Many criticisms may have been leveled against Garland, one being an appeal resolution he made that was disparaged by the bodies that regulated industries where is opponents argued that his declaration about the issue made him to appear as an anti-business. It can also be remembered that in 2013 took sides with the Drug Enforcement Administration against individuals who were pursuing to force the postponement of use of marijuana to allow enough time for extensive research on how the drug could be used for medical reasons. It was later established that a section of marijuana entrepreneurs, nevertheless, provided assertions through supporting his decisions on how scientific substantiation was important on the issue (Jeffrey n.pag).
The republicans have argued that the next president could be a Republican who could pick a much more conservative replacement for Antonin Scalia (Shear and Gardiner, New York Times). However, despite them being the majority several senators like Mark Kirk III have signaled that they are ready to vote for Garland and it is believed that other senators may join Mark in supporting Obama’s nominated candidate. My view is that in most cases politicians do not care about the courts but rather their political futures and aspirations. My observation is that most of the republican senators believe that in real sense Obama does not want to see Garland in the Supreme Court but he has done so for political reasons and for the elections, this is the notion by McConnell.
The democrats have attacked their counterparts and accused them of hypocrisy that there are some sitting senators who supported Garland in 1997. Their views are that Garland may not be an ideal candidate for the republicans but I differ with their statements since according to me he is fit to serve due to two factors, first, his ideology is very strong as he does not appear to be moderate in making decisions and would occupy the liberal wing of the court. The second factor is his age, he is 63 and many have applauded that this could be a lifetime appointment as he will not stay for long in the Supreme Court.
The democrats have put forward a more convincing argument by describing Garland as a moderate and a more liberal judge with a definite pro-prosecution bent in criminal cases. This is supported by the fact that his views in the area of criminal law are considerably more conservative than those of the man he would replace, Justice Antonin Scalia (Shear and Gardiner n.pag). Information available has pointed out that he has been a persuasive voice for liberals, managing to bring conservatives over to his side on issues ranging from the environment to national security (Shear and Gardiner n.pag). For instance, it can be remembered that in a case that involved Chinese Uighurs who were detained at Guantanamo Bay; it is clear that Garland asked the Justice Department for the details of its proof and then wrote a judgment for him and two conservative judges that resolved that the Bush administration’s prerogative that they were enemy fighters was absolutely unfounded by the evidence. This notion is also supported by the assertions of Chief Justice Roberts who pronounced that at any time that Judge Garland disagrees in an opinion then other judges are in a difficult area (Shear and Gardiner n.pag).
According to my opinion, his confirmation will likely be a pivotal moment in the Court’s modern history. Though the scenario may be different, in the case that republicans do not support Obama’s nomination and in the likely event that a democrat wins the election, they may make a turn to support Garland so as to prevent Hillary Clinton from picking a more liberal candidate to fill the position.
Works Cited
Jeffrey R. The Atlantic: The Nomination of Merrick Garland Is a Victory for Judicial Restraint.
March 17, 2016. Web. 22 April 2016. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/why-merrick-garland-is-a-judges-judge/474246/
Shear M., Julie H. and Gardiner H. New York Times: Obama Chooses Merrick Garland for
Supreme Court. March 16, 2016. Web. 22 April 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/us/politics/obama-supreme-court-nominee.html?_r=0