White Supremacist Blasts Merrick Garland and "Jewish Agenda"

According to David Duke, "three open Jewish members" is too many on SCOTUS, because "those Jews" will do "whatever the Jewish agenda is."

Hrafnkell Haraldsson has the story.

Beyond the Pale

Pale of Settlement map

Those who set their DVRs to record the announcement of President Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick Garland may have caught a reference Mr. Garland made to his heritage.

"My family deserves much of the credit for the path that led me here. My grandparents left the Pale of Settlement at the border of Western Russian and Eastern Europe in the early 1900s, fleeing anti-Semitism, and hoping to make a better life for their children in America. They settled in the Midwest, eventually making their way to Chicago," said Garland.

For the edification of our, (Wisconsin's), senior Senator Ron Johnson (R):

The Pale of Settlement refers to the forced concentration of Jews by Russia, centuries-long Russian anti-Semitism, invasions of Eastern Europe and militarism, and finally pogroms in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Johnson is not on the south-heavy Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

However, "dumb Ron Johnson," as he known in Wisconsin for his astonishing lack of policy knowledge, doctrinaire and reactionary politics, can use all the help he can get.

Notes Carlo Wolff:

Supporters, meanwhile, said the president’s submission of Garland, the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, not only met the requirements of the position, it also spoke well of – and for – the Jewish community.

'I love the pick,' Stuart Garson, the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party chairman, said by email.

'I just saw his (Garland’s) remarks after the president nominated him. He is right out of our tradition and our uniquely American Jewish immigration experience. He will be an outstanding Supreme Court justice.' (Cleveland Jewish News)

So, we have a brilliant, universally acclaimed and ethical jurist and a man of decency nominated as justice to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Writes the Atlanta Jewish Times:

Merrick Garland would become the fourth Jewish justice on the current U.S. Supreme Court and the ninth ever if the U.S. Senate endorses President Barack Obama’s nomination of the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Obama announced Garland’s nomination outside the White Houseon Wednesday, March 16. During that ceremony, Garland pointed to his Jewish heritage and credited his parents with instilling in him a belief in justice and community service.

Said Jay Michaelson, a Forward columnist who clerked for Garland on the Court of Appeals in 1998 and 1999. "He’s a total mensch. He really wanted to get the law right."

Michaelson added, "I found Merrick Garland to be culturally, though not religiously Jewish, but inspired by the highest values of our ethical and social justice traditions."

Dumb Ron Johnson and his Republican colleagues working to deny, obstruct and banish from the Court decency, and fidelity to the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law should be made aware of this.

If the Republican-led Senate has an ounce of decency, it would expedite confirmation hearings. Then again if these ass-hats leading the Senate had an ounce of decency, they would not be Republicans today.

Obama Supreme Court Nominee Is Judge Merrick Garland

The honorable Merrick B. Garland is the Chief Judge
of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

President Obama nominated Judge Merrick B. Garland for consideration by the U.S. Senate as justice on the United States Supreme Court.

The honorable Merrick B. Garland is currently the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (White House).

Senate Republicans immediately repeated their vow not to meet with or hold hearings for Judge Garland (Washington Post).

The White House notes the words of Senator Orin Hatch (R-Utah) prior to today's announcement:

"[President Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man,"
Senator Orrin Hatch (March 13, 2016).

The White House also includes a quote from Chief Justice John Roberts: "Any time Judge Garland disagrees, you know you're in a difficult area" (September 14, 2005).

Former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) said, "President Obama just announced his nominee for the next justice of the Supreme Court: Judge Merrick Garland. Now, it's the Senate's turn to do its job. Judge Garland is a highly credentialed jurist, and he deserves a full and fair hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee."

The Latino rights group, Mi Familia Vota, sent a mass email reading in part:

Before today’s announcement, President Obama promised to appoint a person with a ‘sterling record,’ a ‘deep respect for the judiciary’s role,’ and ‘an understanding of the way the world really works.’ Today, the president nominated Judge Garland.

The Supreme Court and the decisions it makes affect all of us, including our basic rights as Americans. This is too important to be treated by the Senate as a partisan fight.

Unfortunately, even before President Obama announced Garland as his pick -- a judge who was widely praised by Republicans when he was previously considered for the high court -- Senate Republicans decided not to consider the nominee; not even show respect by meeting with him.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, a GOP leader and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the nominee will be treated like a ‘piñata.’ That kind of talk is disrespectful to us, the voters.

By refusing to act, the Republican-controlled Senate is undermining a pillar of our democracy. It is obstructing justice by denying full court consideration of cases that are important to our community.

These senators also are disregarding one of the basic rules of life: do your job or get fired. 

The White House notes:

The Senate's Constitutional Responsibility to Act

The confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice is a solemn responsibility that the President and the Senate share under the U.S. Constitution.

Throughout history, members of both parties in Congress and in the White House have done their jobs so that the Judicial Branch can do its own. Failing to do so would be an unprecedented dereliction of duty.

The Senate has almost a full year to consider and confirm a nominee. In fact, since 1975, the average time from nomination to confirmation is 67 days. The longest time before confirmation in the past three decades was 99 days, for Justice Thomas, and the last four Justices, spanning two Administrations, were confirmed in an average of 75 days.

"Here's a look at where President Obama's Supreme Court nominee stands in the confirmation process compared to those of recent nominees under three different administrations," notes the White House:

It's likely extremist, anti-Constitutional Senate Republicans will find out, sooner than they apparently believe, the vast number of Americans like the idea of their rights guaranteed by an honest, brilliant and principled judge.

Obama Is Blowing Court Appointment

Right now millions of Americans should be receiving e-mails from David Plouffe, the 2008 Obama-Biden campaign manager, asking for input, thoughts, and concerns about the pending U.S. Supreme Court appointment.

Selecting the presidential nominee to the Supreme Court is one of the most important powers of the presidency, and the naming and confirmation of a nominee is one of the highest-profile political processes.

The appointment process is also shrouded in secrecy, the ultimate insiders' game.

This can and should change. President Obama could be changing the rules of the game by opening up the process, seeking public input and scoring high political points in the process.

Instead, we are being treated to business-as-usual: Endless guessing about a prescreened short-list and speculation about how crazy the GOP will go in opposing the nominee.

This is business as usual. And opening up the process would be so easy and reap so many benefits that one feels like grabbing the collective administration and saying, "Guys, get your heads out and get creative!"

It's not too late, but like last Summer's appointment of Justice Sonia Maria Sotomayor, President Obama is blowing this opportunity for high innovation and democracy during a political spectacle whomever he eventually chooses.

Nothing new, no changes. Too bad.

Makes one believe that too many insiders and not enough innovative thinkers are running the show in the West Wing.

Sotomayor and Maher Arar

Adam Liptak and Jo Becker have a piece in the New York Times today about Judge Sonia Sotomayor and the case of Maher Arar—an innocent Canadian man abducted by US authorities, "held in solitary confinement and subjected to harsh questioning before being sent to Syria ... where (he) was tortured ... and imprisoned for nearly a year in an underground cell the size of a grave until the Syrians finally let him go. (NYT. Feb. 17, 2009)"

Seems Sotomayor didn't approve of rendition and the innocent Arar being tortured. But some believe this case demonstrates a "blunt and even testy side (that) was on display in December during an argument before the federal appeals court in New York."

I hope that should President Obama continue this repulsive practice that all decent men and women display their blunt and testy sides.

Write Liptak and Becker:

'So the minute the executive raises the specter of foreign policy, national security,' Judge Sotomayor asked the lawyer, Jonathan F. Cohn, 'it is the government’s position that that is a license to torture anyone?'

Mr. Cohn managed to get out two and a half words: 'No, your hon—— .'

Judge Sotomayor cut him off, then hit him with two more questions and a flat declaration of what she said was his position. The lawyer managed to say she was wrong, but could not clarify the point until the chief judge, Dennis G. Jacobs, stepped in, asking, 'Why don’t we just get the position?'

Good for Sotomayor. The United States can afford to be just and humane and when we lose our capacity for outrage, we're through.