SCOTUS Brief 4/6/2016
Washington Post: Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) “not yet sold on Merrick Garland” – Washington Free Beacon: Garland Received Student Deferments to Avoid Vietnam War Draft As He Was Working on Referendum to Keep ROTC Off-Campus – Liberal Law Professor Erwin Chemerinsky Dreams of What a Liberal Court with Merrick Garland Would Do
To keep up with conservative & legal experts on Twitter follow:
- With Democrats’ claims of momentum in the confirmation battle falling flat, the Washington Post’s Mike DeBonis writes that Senator Joe Manchin “is not yet sold on Merrick Garland” citing the Second Amendment and environmental regulations as two areas of concern.
Washington Post: Joe Manchin is one Democrat who is not yet sold on Merrick Garland
“Senate Democrats have presented a united front when it comes to advancing the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominee Merrick B. Garland. But should Garland eventually receive an up-or-down vote, that Democratic unity may not endure. That was highlighted by Garland’s meeting Tuesday with Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), who has frequently broken with his party over matters of environmental regulation and gun rights. Those happen to be two issues on which the Supreme Court has significant influence through its constitutional interpretations, and Manchin, in an interview Wednesday…Manchin, a gun-rights supporter, said he asked Garland about two cases he was involved in as an U.S. Circuit Court judge — one where he sided with the federal government over the National Rifle Association in a dispute about the retention of background check records, and another where he voted for additional review of a decision that overturned the longstanding Washington, D.C., handgun ban…‘You’re concerned about it, because there are some things [to be concerned about].’”
Coal Association VP thinks Manchin should not support Garland nomination
- The Washington Free Beacon’s Brent Scher writes that as a student at Harvard University, Merrick Garland took two deferments to avoid the Vietnam War draft even as he was working on a referendum to keep the ROTC off campus.
Washington Free Beacon: Merrick Garland Received Student Deferments to Avoid Vietnam War Draft
“Merrick Garland was not eligible to be drafted into military service while he was a student at Harvard University as he took two student deferments during the Vietnam War, according to a copy of Garland’s Selective Service record obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. Garland, President Obama’s pick to be put on the U.S. Supreme Court, was granted two student deferments while he was at Harvard, one on Aug. 19, 1971, and another on Dec. 10, 1971. Both were categorized as 2-S deferments which indicate that the ‘registrant deferred because of activity in study,’ according to the record. He received a third deferment in February 1973 noting that the he was ‘not currently subject to processing for induction,’ as the military had transitioned into an all-volunteer force that no longer drafted men through the Selective Service. Garland was a member of Harvard’s class of 1974, which was the last class that was eligible to receive the 2-S student deferment, according to a 1971 report in the Harvard Crimson. Freshmen in the class below Garland were designated “available for service” despite their enrollment at the university. Though there is nothing out of the ordinary about Garland’s deferments, other students at Harvard took action to serve their country even as they pursued an education. The Harvard Crimson reported that some students took a semester off to enroll in the National Guard which would commit them to a short four-to-six-month tour of duty and continued service during summer vacations. Other students commuted to nearby Worcester Polytechnic Institute to enroll in its Reserve Officer Training Corps program, which allowed students to stay in school until they graduated and receive military training throughout. They were forced to commute because ROTC had been banned from Harvard’s campus in 1969. The ban was instituted the year before Garland arrived on campus, but he became heavily involved in it as a student government leader in 1973 when he initiated formal debate on a campus referendum on the ROTC ban, according to an in-depth report from the Boston Globe. Garland was pushed to initiate debate by a radical anti-war campus group called the New American Movement and said at the time that he was confident he could get a referendum to occur. With the tide of anti-Vietnam War activism at Harvard, the campus referendum would have led to a continuation of the ROTC ban.”
- In a piece for The Atlantic, liberal law professor Erwin Chemerinsky dreams of the liberal policy goals a Supreme Court with Merrick Garland would impose: gut the Second Amendment, end religious freedom, strike down state restrictions on abortion and overturn First Amendment victories like Citizens United.
Erwin Chemerinsky in The Atlantic: What if the Supreme Court Were Liberal?
“Thinking of a Court where there are five or even six justices appointed by Democratic presidents is tantalizing for those on the left…So, where might it most make a difference? Abortion rights. Most obviously, Roe v. Wade and the right to abortion would be secure. State laws imposing restrictions on abortions would be far less likely to be upheld. Since 2010, states have adopted about 290 laws limiting access to abortion…These laws likely would not survive review in a Court dominated by Democratic appointees…A Court controlled by Democratic appointees would likely overrule Citizens United…A Court with a majority appointed by Democratic presidents is far more likely to strike down religious prayers at government functions, religious symbols on government property, and government support for religious schools…in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court, by a 5-4 margin, declared unconstitutional a 35-year-old District of Columbia ordinance that prohibited private ownership or possession of handguns. Scalia wrote the opinion for the Court. A Supreme Court bench with five Democratic appointees will not extend this protection for gun rights and likely would overrule it”
