Board
Search
Member List
Calendar
Red Dot Arms
Help
04-04-2016, 05:09 PM
WAPO Fact Checker: Claims that Senate is Shirking a “Constitutional Duty” on Merrick “Mostly False”
Probably one of the earliest lessons most people learn in life is, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” Nobody likes a hypocrite, and when you apply a standard to someone else, don’t expect much sympathy when that same standard gets applied to you.
Take Judge Merrick Garland, Barack Obama’s pick to replace Justice Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. We’ve heard a lot recently from the president’s cheerleaders about who Judge Garland is.
Judge Garland was willing to defer to the government on how long it could keep firearm purchaser information from NICS background checks on file, because even though the law states it has to be “destroyed,” it did not specify when. “To begin with,” according to the opinion in NRA v. Reno that Judge Garland joined, the law “does not say ‘destroy immediately’; it says only ‘destroy.’” In other words, the mere existence of a duty does not imply any necessary timeline for that duty. Or so Judge Garland himself obviously believes.
So it’s amusing to see so many Merrick Garland boosters now faulting the Senate for failing to take up his nomination, as if the senators are somehow violating a constitutional duty. The Constitution states the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the Supreme Court ….” The Senate is expected to provide “advice” and “consent” at some point. But the Constitution doesn’t say when.
Probably one of the earliest lessons most people learn in life is, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” Nobody likes a hypocrite, and when you apply a standard to someone else, don’t expect much sympathy when that same standard gets applied to you.
Take Judge Merrick Garland, Barack Obama’s pick to replace Justice Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. We’ve heard a lot recently from the president’s cheerleaders about who Judge Garland is.
Judge Garland was willing to defer to the government on how long it could keep firearm purchaser information from NICS background checks on file, because even though the law states it has to be “destroyed,” it did not specify when. “To begin with,” according to the opinion in NRA v. Reno that Judge Garland joined, the law “does not say ‘destroy immediately’; it says only ‘destroy.’” In other words, the mere existence of a duty does not imply any necessary timeline for that duty. Or so Judge Garland himself obviously believes.
So it’s amusing to see so many Merrick Garland boosters now faulting the Senate for failing to take up his nomination, as if the senators are somehow violating a constitutional duty. The Constitution states the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the Supreme Court ….” The Senate is expected to provide “advice” and “consent” at some point. But the Constitution doesn’t say when.
WAPO Fact Checker: Claims that Senate is Shirking a “Constitutional Duty” on Merrick “Mostly False”
Probably one of the earliest lessons most people learn in life is, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” Nobody likes a hypocrite, and when you apply a standard to someone else, don’t expect much sympathy when that same standard gets applied to you.
Take Judge Merrick Garland, Barack Obama’s pick to replace Justice Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. We’ve heard a lot recently from the president’s cheerleaders about who Judge Garland is.
Judge Garland was willing to defer to the government on how long it could keep firearm purchaser information from NICS background checks on file, because even though the law states it has to be “destroyed,” it did not specify when. “To begin with,” according to the opinion in NRA v. Reno that Judge Garland joined, the law “does not say ‘destroy immediately’; it says only ‘destroy.’” In other words, the mere existence of a duty does not imply any necessary timeline for that duty. Or so Judge Garland himself obviously believes.
So it’s amusing to see so many Merrick Garland boosters now faulting the Senate for failing to take up his nomination, as if the senators are somehow violating a constitutional duty. The Constitution states the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the Supreme Court ….” The Senate is expected to provide “advice” and “consent” at some point. But the Constitution doesn’t say when.
Probably one of the earliest lessons most people learn in life is, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” Nobody likes a hypocrite, and when you apply a standard to someone else, don’t expect much sympathy when that same standard gets applied to you.
Take Judge Merrick Garland, Barack Obama’s pick to replace Justice Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. We’ve heard a lot recently from the president’s cheerleaders about who Judge Garland is.
Judge Garland was willing to defer to the government on how long it could keep firearm purchaser information from NICS background checks on file, because even though the law states it has to be “destroyed,” it did not specify when. “To begin with,” according to the opinion in NRA v. Reno that Judge Garland joined, the law “does not say ‘destroy immediately’; it says only ‘destroy.’” In other words, the mere existence of a duty does not imply any necessary timeline for that duty. Or so Judge Garland himself obviously believes.
So it’s amusing to see so many Merrick Garland boosters now faulting the Senate for failing to take up his nomination, as if the senators are somehow violating a constitutional duty. The Constitution states the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the Supreme Court ….” The Senate is expected to provide “advice” and “consent” at some point. But the Constitution doesn’t say when.