USA Today: A Look at Garland's Record

[democrattotheend]

There is actually more to be excited about than I thought:

In 2013, he wrote the court's decision ordering the CIA to release information about drone strikes to a federal judge, in a challenge brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.

In 2008, he ruled that suspects could not be held as enemy combatants without verifiable evidence.

In 2004, he wrote the court's decision against the Environmental Protection Agency under President George W. Bush, which had tried to delay enforcement of ozone standards in the District of Columbia

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/03/16/merrick-garland-supreme-court-opinions-appeals-court/81764988/

He still would not be my first choice, but I don't think anyone can deny that he would be a noticeable improvement over the justice he was nominated to replace.

[Bucky]

1. a rule-of-law extremist

[Tommy_Carcetti]

2. Sounds reasoned, rational and highly principled.

In other words, he's Satan's Spawn and the Republicans will do all they can to ensure he doesn't get a vote.

[Crepuscular]

3. Republicans

will block him over the gun control issue and will suffer little push back from the electorate for doing so. Sri Srinivasan would have been a better strategic choice, much harder for Senate Republicans to block his nomination with a much greater political cost if they did.

[democrattotheend]

4. That's what my boss said

However, someone on Kos pointed out that if he had picked Srinivasan, Srinivasan would have had to recuse himself from 2 important cases currently pending before the DC Circuit, one on net neutrality and one on the president's environmental regulations. So POTUS probably decided it wasn't worth it for someone who is unlikely to be confirmed.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. "Less awful than Scalia, not as bad as Trump, we are the Democrats please vote for us."

What happened to high standards?