Here’s Why the GOP Shouldn’t Confirm Garland … Even If Hillary Wins

Judge Merrick Garland (photo credit: Senate Democrats via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 2.0)

Increasingly, Republican politicos in Washington, D.C. are considering confirming President Obama’s proposed replacement for Antonin Scalia, Merrick Garland.

In an interview with Business Insider, Senator Jeff Flake, R-Ariz said that Republicans should confirm Garland if they lose the presidential election this upcoming November.

“Obviously if we lose the election and lose the White House, then we ought to move quickly to confirm [Garland],” Flake said. “And I think if it becomes apparent that we aren’t going to win the White House — if we know in October that it’s not good — then we’ve got to move forward at that point.”

Other Republicans have quietly embraced this strategy, too, including senators Mark Kirk, R-Ill and Susan Collins, R-Maine.

“It’s hard to imagine getting a nominee out of Clinton who’s less liberal than Garland,” a senior GOP aide told Philip Wegmann at The Daily Signal. “If you’re concerned about the balance of the court, you’re concerned about that possibility and it provides an incentive to take a serious second look at his nomination.”

Flake, Collins, Kirk, and any other Republican senator considering pushing for approving Garland have clearly forgotten the true purpose of their office. To vote to appoint Garland is to vote to betray the American Founding and the conservative principles for which they claim to stand.

[…]

Read the full article at Conservative Review.

Michael Lucchese works for the American Principles Project.

Obama’s Supremely Bad Nominee

President Barack Obama (photo credit: Marc Nozell via Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

At the White House this morning, President Obama announced his nominee for the Supreme Court — Judge Merrick Garland of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

The media are dutifully attempting to spin Garland as a “centrist” or a “consensus choice.” Consider this headline from the Los Angeles Times: “It’s Going To Be Hard For Conservatives To Oppose The Careful, Moderate Merrick Garland.”

Don’t be fooled, my friends. Barack Obama was never going to nominate a moderate to the Supreme Court. It won’t be hard at all to oppose Merrick Garland.

There was considerable concern in recent days among far-left activists that Obama might nominate Garland. After all, they kept hearing about how moderate he was, and they really want a dedicated liberal.

With that in mind, consider these soothing words from the radical blog Think Progress: “To be clear, Garland’s record does not suggest that he would join the Court’s right flank if confirmed to the Supreme Court. He would likely vote much more often than not with the Supreme Court’s liberals.”

I agree completely. Here’s what we know about Judge Garland that big media won’t tell you:

  • Garland clerked for Justice William Brennan, described by the New York Times as “a towering figure in modern law who embodied the liberal vision of the Constitution as an engine of social and political change.” Brennan was a leading advocate of abortion and affirmative action. He was a fierce opponent of the death penalty and bitterly resisted efforts of the Reagan Administration to bolster the conservative legal philosophy of originalism.
Continue Reading