How I answered a survey from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee about the Merrick Garland nomination
I received an email this morning from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, boldprogressives.org, asking that I complete a survey on the Garland nomination. The email began with this question: What do you think about Merrick Garland and the Supreme Court vacancy now? It continued:
The president nominated Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court.
After a day of media reporting on his record, and Senate Democrats calling for the process to move forward, we want to know how you feel about this fight.
Your answers below will help shape the PCCC’s activism on this.
Here are the survey questions and my answers:
QUESTION: Overall, how do you feel about President Obama’s decision to nominate Merrick Garland?
1) Very Enthusiastic Somewhat Enthusiastic 2) Pretty underwhelmed 3) I do not like this decision 4) I don’t know
ANSWER: I do not like this decision
QUESTION: How enthusiastic are you to keep taking action against Senate Republicans to allow a hearing and fair process to move forward for Merrick Garland?
1) Very psyched. Ready to fight those Republicans! 2) Somewhat enthused. But we all need to take some action. 3) I still need to learn more before taking any action. 4) I’m not feeling it at all.
ANSWER: I still need to learn more before taking any action.
QUESTION: Wednesday, the PCCC launched a new petition saying this:
Petition: Now that the President followed the Constitution and nominated a Supreme Court Justice, Senate Republicans should do their job and allow a fair hearing and process to move forward. The Court needs someone who understands the real world impact of the Court’s decisions on hardworking Americans.
Should we add your name to this petition?
1) Yes, add me as a signer. 2) No, do not add me as a signer.
ANSWER: No, do not add me as a signer.
QUESTION: What do you like most about Merrick Garland being the nominee?
ANSWER: That he once dissented in a case in which his two panel colleagues (one of them John Roberts) ruled against a whistleblower and the federal government (who were on the same side in the case). Although the narrow issue was whether or not the False Claims Act applies to Amtrak contractors, Garland’s dissent did indicate strong support for the role of whistleblowers. He dissented similarly in a free-press case involving disclosure of the names of whistleblowers (in a case in which the criminal defendant requesting the disclosure was actually a sympathetic figure and was innocent).
QUESTION: What do you like least about Merrick Garland being the nominee?
That his near-religious belief in the sanctity of precedent may mean that the precedents set by the Conservative Legal Movement justices, including those that overturned earlier precedents will remain law until one of the four conservative justices is replaced by a Dem president. In other words, that the panoply of dramatic changes in the law amounting to a Conservative Legal Movement checklist with, by now, lots of checks indicating completion—Sherman’s-march-through-Georgia- style—will remain law for at least the next several years. Citizens United and the Voting Rights Act opinions are just two examples.
QUESTION: What do you most still want to learn about Merrick Garland?
ANSWER: Because he is a judge on the D.C. Circuit rather than on one of the other regional circuit courts, he has never ruled in a habeas-petition case challenging the constitutionality of a state-court criminal conviction, and therefore on the threshold issue of federal-court jurisdiction in such cases. In other words: on the right of state courts to violate the constitutional rights of individuals. I also would like to know how broadly he views the Supreme Court-fabricated “qualified immunity” of police officers and prosecutors who are sued for, say, withholding exculpatory evidence or just plain fabricating evidence.