http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/03/daniel-zimmerman/breaking-president-obama-nominates-merrick-garland-supreme-court/

No surprise here, just have to wait and see if the Rinos screw us again.

Perhaps people would like to contact our senators and let them know we oppose this person, or even the process happening at this point. Not that it could possibly have any actual impact with our backbench go-along-to-get-along "progressive" clones. I've contacted Senator Schatz several times (only heard back once thus far) about my preference that the Senate not hold any hearings nor a vote on any nominee Obama might nominate. Here is part of what Schatz wrote back to me:

The Supreme Court deals with some of the most important issues facing our country.     President Obama has the constitutional obligation to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, allowing the Court to continue to effectively function as the third branch of government.    In addition, the Senate has a constitutional obligation to offer its advice and consent on nominees offered by the President in a timely manner. [emphasis mine]

Here is part of my response to him:

Why do you have to lie in your generic response to my request that you do not participate in any Senate review of a Supreme Court nominee?

The president does not have a Constitutional "obligation" to fill a SCOTUS vacancy. The president has the Constitutional authority to put forth a candidate. Tell me where the word "obligation" appears in the Constitution in this regard. Why do you have to lie about it? There is no "obligation" that the president nominate a candidate in any particular time frame, or ever. The president "may" nominate a candidate whenever, or not, he so chooses, under his Constitutional authority.

You then claim that a nomination must occur in order that ”the Court to continue to effectively function as the third branch of government.“ So are you claiming that for the many years when the Supreme Court functioned, as legally defined, with eight justices, that it was “ineffective”? Why do you have to lie about this? Or are you assuming that your constituents are too stupid to know you are lying?

You then continue with your one lie per sentence “response” by claiming that “the Senate has a constitutional obligation to offer its advice and consent on nominees offered by the President in a timely manner.“ Really? Please quote for me the exact sentence in the Constitution where it says “timely manner” and then defines what “timely manner” is, exactly. Why do you have to lie about this?

I find your continual lying and deceit about the Constitution to be violations of your oath of office and that as such you should be removed from office and tried for treason.

* * * *
As for the Republicans caving again to Obama, who knows? I wouldn't be in the least surprised, though I'd be pissed again. Here's what Utah Senator Mike Lee said this morning:

Sen. Mike Lee, Utah Republican and a member of the Judiciary Committee, reiterated Wednesday that the GOP won’t consider the nominee.

“In light of the contentious presidential election already well underway, my colleagues and I on the Judiciary Committee have already given our advice and consent on this issue: we will not have any hearings or votes on President Obama’s pick,” Mr. Lee said. “Any meeting with any nominee put forward by President Obama would only be a waste of the Senate’s time. The Court has very ably dealt with temporary absences in the past and will do so again now.”

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/03/daniel-zimmerman/breaking-president-obama-nominates-merrick-garland-supreme-court/

No surprise here, just have to wait and see if the Rinos screw us again.

Precisely why I have been warning against the GUN BUY BACK.

Not everyone is listening.

I just forwarded today's column by "Fact Checker" Glenn Kessler of the extremely liberal Washington Post to Senator Schatz, with this preface:

As further evidence to substantiate my claim that you are a liar (or ignorant of the Constitution) in your email to me about the Senate "obligation" to hold hearings and a vote on a nominee for the Supreme Court, and in a "timely manner", here is a piece from the extremely liberal Washington Post by their "Fact Checker" Glenn Kessler on precisely those claims. Even he rates ("Three Pinocchios") your claims as "Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions. This gets into the realm of “mostly false.”"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/16/does-the-senate-have-a-constitutional-responsibility-to-consider-a-supreme-court-nomination/

Does the Senate have a constitutional responsibility to consider a Supreme Court nomination?

Excerpt:

Nearly 200 years ago, the Senate made it clear that it was not required to act on a Supreme Court nomination. In periods of divided government, especially with elections looming, the Senate has chosen not to act — or to create circumstances under which the president’s nominee either withdrew or was not considered.

I just forwarded today's column by "Fact Checker" Glenn Kessler of the extremely liberal Washington Post to Senator Schatz, with this preface:

As further evidence to substantiate my claim that you are a liar (or ignorant of the Constitution) in your email to me about the Senate "obligation" to hold hearings and a vote on a nominee for the Supreme Court, and in a "timely manner", here is a piece from the extremely liberal Washington Post by their "Fact Checker" Glenn Kessler on precisely those claims. Even he rates ("Three Pinocchios") your claims as "Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions. This gets into the realm of “mostly false.”"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/16/does-the-senate-have-a-constitutional-responsibility-to-consider-a-supreme-court-nomination/

Does the Senate have a constitutional responsibility to consider a Supreme Court nomination?

Excerpt:

Nearly 200 years ago, the Senate made it clear that it was not required to act on a Supreme Court nomination. In periods of divided government, especially with elections looming, the Senate has chosen not to act — or to create circumstances under which the president’s nominee either withdrew or was not considered.

It is not their responsibility per say but it is their job! No one else gets to do it. Nothing says they have to do it but not doing it just makes government slower and more useless. That is such a chicken poop attitude. How would you like your DMV clerk, your local police officer, teacher, etc etc have the same attitude? Just not doing their job because they aren't specifically required to do that particular task?

Hold the damn hearing. Refusing to do so will just be used as ammunition against republicans. Mitch Mcconnell like like a whiny baby up there, making up crap about "the Biden rule" which isn't even a thing.

They are being such pussies trying to skate around the issue by saying it isn't their responsibility. So what? Do your fricken job because no one else has the ability to do it and because the alternative is just shutting down government for your tempter tantrum.

From a purely risk assessment based decision I think republicans might be wise to vote on this guy. We could vote for this guy and get a moderate judge, but if we wait until after the election and a democrat gets elected, you can be the nominee will not be as moderate. Refusing to hold hearings for this guy also could cost republicans votes which would make it more likely a democrat will win and more likely we will get a more liberal judge.

It is not their responsibility per say but it is their job! No one else gets to do it.

Did you read the article by Kessler? What is their "job"? Theoretically at least, it's to make decisions that result in the best outcome for the constituents who elected them. Their "job" in this case is to "advise and consent", whatever form that may take (and historically has included "not acting"), not to hold hearings or vote or approve a nominee. You may be of the opinion that they "should" hold hearings, but their "job" is to deal with the nominee in any legal manner available to them depending on their determination of the suitability of the nominee. And that includes "doing nothing".

Nothing says they have to do it but not doing it just makes government slower and more useless.

Whether there or 8 or 9 justices at SCOTUS doesn't make anything at all "slower or more useless" in any way. Give me one example. Kagan and Sotomayor recused themselves in, as I recall, over 50 cases in the first couple years of their appointments. Were you complaining then that "government [was] slower and more useless"? How is approving a nominee that clearly believes Heller was "wrong" and that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms "useful"? You mean you want the Hawaii legislature to speedily and usefully pass all these absurd infringing anti-rights bills? At this point I'd prefer a government that was slower and useless.

That is such a chicken poop attitude. How would you like your DMV clerk, your local police officer, teacher, etc etc have the same attitude? Just not doing their job because they aren't specifically required to do that particular task?

Give me five examples of those government employees you listed doing things on the job that "they aren't specifically required to do", that you want them to keep doing. They aren't required to take extra-long breaks or plant evidence or coverup misconduct, but they do. Is that the sort of thing you have in mind?

Hold the damn hearing. Refusing to do so will just be used as ammunition against republicans. Mitch Mcconnell like like a whiny baby up there, making up crap about "the Biden rule" which isn't even a thing.

Talk about a whiny baby! So you want them to just hold the committee hearing? Or do you want the committee to have a vote? Or do you want them to have a vote and approve the nominee? And you want the Senate to approve the nominee? And you want the Senate to approve the nominee unanimously? Because anything short of unanimous approval by the committee and the full Senate will be used as "ammunition". Anything one side does that the other side disapproves of is "ammunition". You really think anyone who wasn't going to vote, or was going to vote Republican is going to decide to vote for the Democrat because the Senate Judiciary committee didn't hold a hearing? Maybe .00000001% of the voter pool. At most.

They are being such pussies trying to skate around the issue by saying it isn't their responsibility. So what? Do your fricken job because no one else has the ability to do it and because the alternative is just shutting down government for your tempter tantrum.

You're repeating yourself. See my first answer above: 1. it's not their "job" to even hold a hearing, and 2. how in the world is refusing to hold a hearing on a SCOTUS nominee "shutting down the government"? And even if it was "shutting down the government" why would that necessarily be a bad thing? It'd probably be similar to when the National Health Service in Great Britain goes on strike and the death rate diminishes. "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

From a purely risk assessment based decision I think republicans might be wise to vote on this guy. We could vote for this guy and get a moderate judge, but if we wait until after the election and a democrat gets elected, you can be the nominee will not be as moderate. Refusing to hold hearings for this guy also could cost republicans votes which would make it more likely a democrat will win and more likely we will get a more liberal judge.

Allahpundit laid out several possible scenarios in this article:

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/16/prediction-garland-will-be-confirmed-eventually/

Prediction: Garland will be confirmed — eventually

Garland maybe considered a moderate, but if you look at his past record, he is very anti-gun.  Obama is trying his best to take away our guns, or at the very least lay the ground work for Hillary to finish the job.  I believe if the American people are denied the right to keep and bear arms and the government tries to take  them by force, hundreds, if not thousands of LEO, military and civilians will be killed in the process. 

"...although Congress had said the records must be destroyed, it did not say “immediately.”"
Even the nominee agrees that his appointment doesn't have to be immediate.