Opinion

NARAL says senators should “do their job” regarding the Supreme Court. I agree.

supreme-court-672

At NARAL Pro-Choice America, they believe in staying busy. When the group isn’t defending unsafe abortion mills or fighting laws to protect women from violence, NARAL has another pastime: giving job advice. They gave some to Senate Republicans last month.

Justice Antonin Scalia passed away this year, and President Obama is hoping to name a replacement. After considering Nevada’s pro-abortion governor, Brian Sandoval, the President settled on Judge Merrick Garland. Garland is chief of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and NARAL praised Obama for doing “his constitutional duty” in nominating Garland. Their remarks to Senate Republicans haven’t been as nice.

According to NARAL, Republicans are being “childish,” “irresponsible,” and “ludicrous” for refusing to hold hearings or schedule a vote on Garland’s confirmation. Simply put, GOP senators need to “do their job” because “our Constitution doesn’t change.”

I have to admit, I agree with NARAL on their last two points: no, the Constitution doesn’t change, and yes, senators should do their job… which is what they’re already doing.

levatino-ad-LAN

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution says the President can make judicial appointments with the Senate’s consent. Now, the Senate is under no obligation to give it, of course — “obligatory consent” being a bit of an oxymoron. In fact, it’s just as much their job to block the wrong candidates as it is to approve the right ones. So will the Senate block Garland? They should.

Justice Scalia knew that Roe v. Wade’s legal reasoning was about on par with the Chewbacca Defense (which essentially claims “that an unseen right is hidden away within another right”). After his passing, there are now only three justices who understand that. If his spot is filled by a pro-abortion candidate, then not only would overturning Roe get harder, but even modest victories like the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act would be at risk.

partialbirthabortion

Judge Garland hasn’t presided over any abortion-related cases, so we don’t have a track record to go by. Would he side with the abortion industry? I don’t know, but the abortion industry is definitely siding with him.

The president of Planned Parenthood (America’s largest abortion chain) called Garland “an intelligent, highly accomplished judge who has secured bipartisan support in his previous appointments,” and asked that “the Senate to do their job and give Judge Garland a fair hearing and up or down vote.”

That Garland was originally appointed by the avowedly pro-abortion President Bill Clinton raises red flags as well.

Pro-lifers should tell their senators that confirming Judge Merrick Garland would be a mistake. Further, they should also remind the presidential candidates that judicial appointments are an issue we take seriously. Despite what NARAL and Planned Parenthood say, it’s not the Senate’s job to put Garland on the Supreme Court. However, it’s our job to keep pro-abortion justices off it.

READ NEXT
Comments
To Top