Cenk Uygur rips Merrick Garland: If he were nominated by a Repub ‘I’d want to filibuster him’

[BeyondGeography]

45. In truth, no one can credibly say they know how he would vote on CU

From the NYT article posted above:

Throughout, Judge Garland’s opinions were models of judicial craftsmanship — unflashy, methodically reasoned, attentive to precedent and tightly rooted in the language of the governing statutes and regulations. He appears to apply Supreme Court precedents with punctilious fidelity even if there is reason to think he would have preferred a different outcome and even where other judges might have found room to maneuver.

“He’s been a lower-court judge and acted like one for these past 19 years,” said Neal K. Katyal, a former acting United States solicitor general.

And:

In campaign finance cases, too, Judge Garland followed Supreme Court precedent in ways that sometimes frustrated liberals and sometimes cheered them.

He joined a unanimous opinion in SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, a 2010 ruling from a nine-judge panel that allowed unlimited contributions to “super PACs,” nominally independent groups that support political candidates. The logic of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United required the move, the appeals court’s opinion said, transforming the political landscape.Citizens United concerned only independent spending by corporations and unions, not rich people. But it said that there was only one justification for restricting political spending: quid pro quo corruption akin to bribery. It added that independent spending could never satisfy that standard.

While Judge Garland unhesitatingly extended Citizens United when he believed its logic compelled him to do so, he was unwilling to push further than it required. In July, writing for a unanimous 11-member panel in Wagner v. Federal Election Commission, Judge Garland upheld a ban on campaign contributions from federal contractors, saying the interest in preventing corruption that survived Citizens United warranted the move.

That both cases were unanimous suggests that the D.C. Circuit works hard to achieve consensus and confirms findings by political scientists that ideological voting is less common on federal appeals courts than on the Supreme Court.

There's also this, fwiw:

Political scientists say the answer is clear. Judge Garland is well to the left of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the member of the court at its ideological center and the one who often holds the controlling vote. A Supreme Court including Judge Garland would contain a five-member liberal bloc and put either him or perhaps Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the most conservative liberal, in what had been Justice Kennedy’s pivotal spot.