This time, he’s headed west to fill his campaign account with donations from high-powered Hollywood liberals.
- “Hollywood’s Democrats are ramping up their fundraising efforts for key Senate races in hopes of regaining control of the chamber…Since the beginning of the 2016 election season, Spahn—long considered Hollywood’s key political fundraiser—has met with a steady stream of senatorial candidates at his offices in the Universal Studios compound…Others making the journey west include New York Sen. Chuck Shumer, Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, Washington Sen. Patty Murray, Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold and Missouri’s Secretary of State Jason Kander, who is hoping for a chance to challenge Blunt.” (Tina Daunt, “Hollywood Doles Out Dollars For Senate Dems,” The Hill, 3/18/16)
Kander seems to have plenty of time to rub elbows with the Hollywood crowd, but he’s been silent on President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Given Garland’s record of opposing the Second Amendment, favoring radical environmental regulations, and clearing a path for the release of Guantanamo prisoners, surely Missouri families would like to hear Kander’s thoughts on the nominee who would reshape the Supreme Court for a generation.
So far? Kander has delivered nothing of substance. That might not be a surprise if you’re still waiting for Kander to follow up on his October 2015 promise to eventually take a position on sanctuary cities. Maybe Kander can take some time to come up with a position on Garland’s nomination on his flight back from Hollywood.
BACKGROUND
Merrick Garland Has Compiled A Record Of Anti-Second Amendment Activism
-
In 2007, Garland Voted In Favor Of A Review Of The D.C. Circuit’s Decision Invalidating The D.C. Handgun Ban, Which The Supreme Court Affirmed. “Garland also notably voted in favor of en banc review of the D.C. Circuit’s decision invalidating the D.C. handgun ban, which the Supreme Court subsequently affirmed.” (Tom Goldstein, “The Potential Nomination Of Merrick Garland,” SCOTUSBlog, 4/26/10)
-
“Among The Judges Who Voted In Favor Of Granting The Petition For Rehearing Were David S. Tatel And Merrick B. Garland, Both Clinton Appointees.” “After losing before the three judge D.C. Circuit panel, the D.C. government petitioned for a rehearing en banc. In other words, the D.C. government asked that the appeal be re-heard by a panel consisting of all the judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 8, the D.C. Circuit announced that it had voted 6-4 against granting the petition for rehearing en banc. Among the judges who voted in favor of granting the petition for rehearing were David S. Tatel and Merrick B. Garland, both Clinton appointees.” (Dave Kopel, “D.C.’s Gun Ban: Round 2,” America’s 1st Freedom, July 2007)
- The Federal Appeals Court “Let Stand A Ruling That Struck Down A Restrictive D.C. Ban On Gun Ownership,” But Garland Voted To Reconsider The Decision. “A federal appeals court in Washington yesterday let stand a ruling that struck down a restrictive D.C. ban on gun ownership, setting the stage for a potentially major constitutional battle over the Second Amendment in the Supreme Court. … [DC Mayor Adrian] Fenty and other officials had asked the full appeals court to review a ruling issued by a three-judge panel that struck down a part of the D.C. law that bars people from keeping handguns in homes. With its 6 to 4 vote to reject a hearing by the full court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit sped up the timetable for a showdown. … Those voting to reconsider were Merrick B. Garland, Judith W. Rogers, David S. Tatel and A. Raymond Randolph.” (Carol D. Leonnig, “Full Court Will Not Review Ruling,” The Washington Post, 5/9/07)
-
-
In 2000, Garland Ruled In Favor Of Federal Government Plan To Retain Americans’ Personal Information From Background Checks For Firearm Purchases. “A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that the FBI can hold on to gun purchase records for six months to ensure that a federal computer system that conducts millions of instant criminal background checks is working properly. The 2 to 1 ruling was a defeat for the National Rifle Association, which argued that the practice amounted to an ‘illegal national registration of gun owners.’ The NRA contended that the law requires the FBI to destroy records of approved purchases immediately. … Gun dealers are required to submit information about prospective buyers to the computer system in an effort to prevent sales to convicted felons, fugitives and other disqualified buyers. The information includes the customer’s name, sex, race, date of birth and state of residence. The computer is supposed to immediately generate a response for gun dealers that approves, rejects or postpones the sale for further investigation. … U.S. District Judge James Robertson dismissed the NRA’s lawsuit last year, concluding that the Justice Department acted reasonably in establishing auditing standards. The NRA asked the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Robertson’s ruling. Appellate Judges David S. Tatel and Merrick B. Garland, both Clinton appointees, rejected the NRA’s argument. David B. Sentelle, a Reagan appointee, dissented.” (Bill Miller, “Appeals Court Rules FBI Can Keep Gun Records,” The Washington Post, 7/12/00)
- “In A 2000 Case, Judge Garland Ruled As Part Of A 2-1 Majority Against The National Rifle Association (NRA) In Its Challenge Of A Justice Department Regulation To Temporarily Retain Information Gathered During Background Checks For Firearms Purchases.” (Ben Conery and Kara Rowland, “Battle Lines Already Forming Over Shortlist To Fill Stevens’ Seat On The Supreme Court,” The Washington Times, 4/22/10)
- America’s 1st Freedom Magazine: 2000 Case Signaled Garland’s “Strong Hostility To Gun Owner Rights.” “The Tatel and Garland votes were no surprise, since they had earlier signaled their strong hostility to gun owner rights in a 2000 case that had challenged the policy of Janet Reno’s Department of Justice of retaining for six months the records of lawful gun buyers from the National Instant Check System. At that time, the Tatel-Garland ruling flouted the 1968 federal law prohibiting federal gun registration, and also flouted the 1994 law that created the National Instant Check System and had ordered that instant check records of law-abiding gun purchasers be destroyed. (Attorney General John Ashcroft later ended Reno’s registration scheme.)” (Dave Kopel, “D.C.’s Gun Ban: Round 2,” America’s 1st Freedom, July 2007)
Garland Paved The Way For The Release Of Dozens Of Guantanamo Detainees
-
In 2008, Garland Ruled In Favor Of “The First Successful Appeal Of A Detainee’s Designation As An Enemy Combatant” In Case Of Guantanamo Detainee, Ordered Them Freed, Transferred Or Retried. “In reversing a military tribunal’s determination that a Chinese detainee was an ‘enemy combatant,’ a federal appeals court criticized the government’s evidence and compared its legal theories to a nonsensical 19th-century poem. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit wrote in a 39-page opinion released yesterday that tribunals and courts must be able to assess whether evidence is reliable before determining the fate of detainees. That did not happen in the case of Huzaifa Parhat, a Chinese Uighur determined to be an enemy combatant by a tribunal that relied heavily on questionable evidence in classified documents, the appeals court found. The ruling, the first successful appeal of a detainee’s designation as an enemy combatant, ordered the government to release, transfer or hold a new hearing for Parhat. The opinion was issued on June 20 and was declassified and released yesterday.” (Del Quentin Wilber and Josh White, “Judges Cite Need For Reliable Evidence To Hold Detainees,” The Washington Post, 7/1/08)
- Garland’s Opinion Had “Broad Implications For Scores Of Other Detainees” At Guantanamo. “The opinion could have broad implications for scores of other detainees classified as enemy combatants by Combatant Status Review Tribunals. The opinion is also likely to guide federal judges weighing evidence in up-coming hearings.” (Del Quentin Wilber and Josh White, “Judges Cite Need For Reliable Evidence To Hold Detainees,” The Washington Post, 7/1/08)
Garland Backed Job-Killing Environmental Regulations
• Garland Was The Lone Dissenter In 2002 Ruling That Struck Down EPA Regulations. “The Environmental Protection Agency must rework part of its regulation to cut pollution in national parks and wilderness areas, a federal appeals court said Friday. The EPA rule issued in 1999 requires states to take action to reduce air pollution from power plants and other sources whose emissions drift often hundreds of miles, causing haze and visibility problems in remote areas such as national parks and wilderness. … In a 2-1 decision Friday, a three-judge panel upheld the program’s fundamental goal of the states implementing pollution controls that would return parks and wilderness areas to ‘natural visibility’ over 60 years. But the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said an EPA directive that states must require certain groups of polluters to use the ‘best available technology’ to cut pollution undermines states’ ability to decide how best to address the problem and is against the law. … Judge Merrick Garland filed a dissent, maintaining that the federal Clean Air Act expressly delegates authority to the EPA to make judgments on what steps should be required to reduce pollution. Judges Raymond Randolph and Harry Edwards disagreed.” (F. Josef Hebert, “Court: EPA Must Rework Plan To Cut Pollution In National Parks,” The Associated Press, 5/24/02)