The pick of Merrick Garland has reportedly split some Progressives, who wanted someone more hardcore Progressive and/or a woman/minority (why? Because. That’s pretty much their rationale). Senator McConnell is reportedly holding strong on the “no hearing till we have the next president” thought. So is Senator Grassley
“When they structured our nation, the founders placed trust in three separate but equal branches of government. Co-equal authorities are throughout the Constitution, including Article II, Section 2, where the power to nominate an individual to the Supreme Court is granted to the President and authority is given to the Senate to provide advice and consent. Nowhere in the Constitution does it describe how the Senate should either provide its consent or withhold its consent.
“Today the President has exercised his constitutional authority. A majority of the Senate has decided to fulfill its constitutional role of advice and consent by withholding support for the nomination during a presidential election year, with millions of votes having been cast in highly charged contests. As Vice President Biden previously said, it’s a political cauldron to avoid. Judge Bork learned even after being unanimously confirmed for a circuit court judgeship, the confirmation process for the Supreme Court is unlike any other.
“It’s also important to remember the type of nominee President Obama said he’s seeking. He says his nominee will arrive at ‘just decisions and fair outcomes’ based on the application of ‘life experience’ to the ‘rapidly changing times.’ The so-called empathy standard is not an appropriate basis for selecting a Supreme Court nominee.
“A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice. Do we want a court that interprets the law, or do we want a court that acts as an unelected super legislature? This year is a tremendous opportunity for our country to have a sincere and honest debate about the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system of government.â€
Breitbart is having a bit of a tizzy over a few more Republican Senators being willing to meet with Garland. Who is Merrick Garland? Is he really a “moderate”? Well, considering how far left Democrats have moved, yes. The head of Planned Parenthood has praised Garland, but, let’s not forget, Donald Trump has also been praised by PP and said very nice things about PP, as well.
He’s also very much anti-2nd Amendment. On social issues, his record is unclear. On most other issues, though, his record shows him as a moderate Republican. Heck, Fox News’ Judge Andrew Napolitano just said that as I write.
Should he get a hearing? Should he be confirmed? The NY Times has its usual pro-Obama/anti-GOP hissy fit, demanding hearings and a vote, and end with
Mr. Obama has picked a strong nominee, who won bipartisan support in his confirmation to the appeals court. If the Republicans refuse to accept him, they will face one of two scenarios: a nominee selected by Hillary Clinton, who may well be more liberal, or one chosen by President Donald Trump — a racist, vulgar demagogue who many Republicans have said is unfit to run the country.
They have a point: if Hillary wins, she will certainly nominate someone very much to the left, and there is no way the Senate can hold off for a minimum of 4 years. And, moving beyond the Times’ smear of Trump, there’s no guarantee he wouldn’t pick someone exactly like Garland, or even more to the Left.
Ben Shapiro at the Daily Wire notes the GOP has 3 options: stall the nominee, confirm the nominee, or
Stall The Nominee Based on Philosophy. This is what Republicans should do, of course. But Republicans rarely stand for anything. They should reject any nominee who doesn’t mirror Scalia’s philosophy; they won’t. They should make this about principle rather than personalities of those who do the nominating; they won’t.
This is why they lose. And this is why Republicans get so fed up in the first place that they turn to big promise-making snake oil salesmen like Trump.
The pick of Garland is about as safe as we could expect from Obama. He could have done much, much worse. It matters little whether this is a bit of Obama jujitsu, where he wants to the GOP to decline so he can nominate someone more hardcore. It matters little that Obama does almost everything with the intention of creating a brawl. It might be worth it, in my opinion, for the Senate to slow walk the process, with Senators interviewing him personally, than having committee hearings that are drawn out, before having debate in the full Senate. By that point, we should have the two general election candidates. If the Republican is Trump, and the polls say he will lose to Hillary (provided she hasn’t been indicted at that point), then they should vote to confirm. Because better Garland than someone hardcore from Hillary.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
