We have a long list of occasions when the Democrats including Harry Reid, John Kerry, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton voiced that the Constitution DOES NOT REQUIRE the Senate to give consideration to a president’s nominee for the Supreme Court they are now claiming that was different. Of course, it was different because they were seeking to block an appointment and now they are wanting one. That makes IT DIFFERENT, at least in their minds. We all know how that little game is played. Hillary and Harry Reid both strongly stated that the Constitution authorized the Senate to give “advice and consent” or withhold “advice and consent” but nowhere in that document does it require the Senate to give a hearing of vote on the nominee. But, alas, now the Republicans are accused of playing politics with the Supreme Court. If you believe that I have a pair of unicorns I’d be happy to sell you.
Many who have analyzed this nomination by President Obama, of Merrick B. Garland believe he would most closely align himself with Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, but he is being called a centrist and a moderate. What would they consider liberal? If we consider some of Judge Garland’s judicial history we find some interesting things and causes of concern, at least to those of us who support the Constitution including the 2nd Amendment, but there is more to cause pause in our thinking and reasons to encourage the Senate to hold firm in not giving consideration to this nominee.
Judge Garland, in 2007 voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. He demonstrated a willingness and ideological stance that individuals DO NOT have a constitutional right to “keep and bear arms”. That is enough to break the deal for me, but there is more. He has favored increasing environmental regulations all which hurt our industry, jobs, and the economy. He has supported the president’s leftist agenda to destroy coal and fossil fuels in support of alternate energy and would be a decisive vote on the court to keep us moving down the path of total government control. He, in my view, is not an originalist nor a moderate but another liberal that Obama is pushing forth because of the bi-partisan support he received being nominated to the DC. Court of Appeals that is being called the 2nd highest court in the land. That in itself is not justification to place him on the Supreme Court.
There are many reasons for the Republicans in the Senate to block this nomination. One has been used by the left, that it is not required the Senate do so. Another is the validity of the claim that WE THE PEOPLE should have a say in who the nominee is. If the Democrats win the Presidential election they can run him back out or pick someone even more liberal and attempt to have them confirmed. God help us if Hillary Clinton wins and appoints Barack Obama but we must give the voters the opportunity to decide on who makes the SCOTUS nominations. If the Republicans win the people will have spoken they want a more conservative nominee or one who is assuredly an originalist and strict constructionist. Therefore, it is right, in my opinion, for them to give no quarter in this battle, which is assuredly an attempt of Barack Obama to sway the election claiming the Republicans are obstructionist and ignoring his and the left’s history of being exactly that.
The Senate has a constitutional obligation to the American people and the document itself to consider the will of the people. The media, of course always thinks the nominees are too conservative. Remember when Elena Kagan was nominated, CBS’s Maggie Rodriguez lamented that Kagan, “might actually shift the court to the right,” and MSNBC’s Peter Alexander sighed, “…she may not be liberal enough.” What do they want? How much more liberal can you get? Then in Sotomayor, ABC’s Claire Shipman declared that Sotomayor was not a liberal judicial philosopher,” and NPR’s Nina Totenberg claimed that Sotomayor was “more conservative that some members of the court including, Justice Scalia.” What were they drinking?
We are talking about the Constitution being viewed as originally written or becoming an ever evolving document interpreted at the whim of those in power. If we value our Constitutional and God-given rights we MUST NOT allow anyone confirmed to the court who does not consider and value the Constitution in its original intent. God help us if we the Senate caves on this matter. Remember “advice and consent” is, not a mandate that the Senate “rubber stamp” the President’s nominees but affords them the right and obligation to “protect and defend” the constitution.
God bless you and God bless America!