Obama’s possible appointment to the supreme court. Wouldn’t you know it, a JEW.

Merrick Brian Garland (born November 13, 1952) is the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He has served on that court since 1997.

A native of the Chicago area, Garland graduated summa cum laude as valedictorian from Harvard College and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. After serving as a law clerk to Judge Henry J. Friendly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. of the Supreme Court of the United States, he practiced corporate litigation at Arnold & Porter and worked as a federal prosecutor in the U.S. Department of Justice, where he played a leading role in the investigation and prosecution of the Oklahoma City bombers.  

On March 16, 2016, President Barack Obama nominated Garland to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, to fill the vacancy created by the death of Antonin Scalia. The Senate refused to hold a hearing or vote on this nomination made during the last year of Obama’s presidency; insisting that the newly elected president should fill the vacancy. The refusal of Senate Republicans to consider the nomination has been a source of controversy among Senate Democrats.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland

9 thoughts on “Obama’s possible appointment to the supreme court. Wouldn’t you know it, a JEW.

  1. “played a leading role in the investigation and prosecution of the Oklahoma City bombers.”

    Nope, no skeletons in his closet.

  2. The “Supreme” Court is worthless by any standard. It serves little purpose but to lend false legitimacy to blatant violations of the Bill of Rights. It performs this dirty work by using Talmudic sophistry to subvert the plain meanings of English words, and by deliberately misinterpreting the Founders’ intent by ignoring their extraconstitutional writings and associated historical context.

    The SC found in favor of *civil asset forfeiture*, for God’s sake. Could a practice by law enforcement possibly be MORE blatantly unconstitutional?

    Once in a while the SC throws a bone to liberty advocates, which the police state quietly ignores. So again, what good are those nine bozos?

  3. A lot of idiots are still in the Trump trance, and it’ll be a while before they realize he’s just the latest Zionist tool.

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published.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


*