Commentator Christopher J. Wright, a Washington lawyer, recently argued that Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the D.C. Court of Appeals should be a member of the Supreme Court ("A worthy Supreme Court nominee," March 21).

Mr. Wright suggests that no one could reasonably object to Judge Garland. I guess that means that anyone who disagrees with his past rulings — particularly his Second Amendment decisions — is unreasonable.

Advertisement

Now there is an erudite statement — that unless you agree with me, you are unreasonable. If Mr. Wright considers this to be logical, I suspect he lost the four cases he argued before Mr. Garland.

Mr. Wright then explains that Mr. Garland is the "best-prepared" nominee for the Supreme Court since 1980, apparently because Mr. Garland has sat on the D.C Circuit Court for nearly 20 years and went to Harvard.

His biased judgment become even more apparent when he confesses that, in his opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia was "deeply flawed" as a jurist. But this is, of course, just his opinion.

Lastly, Mr. Wright brags that he proclaimed to anyone who listened that President Barack Obama should appoint Mr. Garland to the Supreme Court. While I may not have argued before the D.C. Circuit Court as Mr. Wright has, even I know that the president only nominates candidates for the Supreme Court, not appoints them as Mr. Wright maintains. I am surprised that The Sun found such a biased article to be worthy of publication.

John W. Egan, Hunt Valley

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement