Supreme Court nominee

Samantha Page over at Thinkprogress has a piece on Merric Garland’s record on the environment and on listening to scientists. There’s nothing dramatically good or bad about him there, but one thing that is a nice change of pace:

In a 2012 case Garland again sided with an agency, that time the DEA. Although medical marijuana advocates decried the final decision, during the argument, Garland said something that might cheer environmentalists.
“Don’t we have to defer to their judgment?” Garland asked about the agency. “We’re not scientists. They are.”
After years of ridiculing the conservative talking point that it’s reasonable to reject the scientific consensus around climate change because “I am not a scientist,” it’s refreshing to hear someone say, I am not a scientist, and therefore we have to listen to scientists.

Yep. When I have time, I’ll see if I can dig up more on him, and if anybody has something relevant, feel free to share it in the comments. Some folks think this guy was nominated because the Republicans’ inevitable obstruction will look worse when they block a center-right nominee, but there has also been plenty of talk indicating that the Republicans might cave on that, in which case this is who we’re likely to get. Time will tell.


  1. StevoR says

    From what I’ve heard Garland is an excellent choice and a very by the book fair and thoughtful Judge.

    All things that are the pretty much exact opposites of the current Republican Congress which seems unlikely to do its job and appoint anyone Obama suggests probably without even giving them a hearing.

    Aussie outsider typing but I’d love to see the US political system reformed so that a Congress that fails to actually do its job is sacked just as a person who fails to do their job usually is. Sadly, the chances of that are exceptionally slim to none from what I gather despite the evident need for such change. Exhibit A, well, this current failure to appoint Scalia’s successor.

  2. says

    Yeah, I honestly can’t see a way for dramatic change, barring some kind of armed conflict (which could happen, depending on this coming election), as our system is pretty much designed to prevent that kind of upheaval at this point.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *