Saturday, May 7, 2016

No Premature Surrender in the Battle for the Supreme Court

On cue, this Tuesday’s primary results in Indiana (which were disappointing to many in the movement) were met with a new call to surrender on the battle over the Supreme Court. Leon Wolf, the managing editor of RedState called for Republicans to immediately bring up a vote on Judge Merrick Garland. Wolf looked into his crystal ball and declared the November election over and said that nominees by President Clinton with a Democrat Senate will be worse than Garland and younger, so they will influence the Court longer. He doubled down on the argument in a CNN appearance as the media tried to give more oxygen to his arguments.

The argument is even more concerning since RedState has long been one of the leading voices for conservatives to stand firm on our principles and not surrender at the first sign of danger. In fact, Erick Erickson, the former editor of RedState, took issue with this argument and said even if you assume the Presidential race is lost this takes away a key argument for Republican Senators who can make the case that they will hold the line on dangerous judicial appointments. “Republicans rushing now to confirm Merrick Garland would just confirm that they think everything is doomed, anger voters who might help them keep the Senate, and further depress Republican turnout in November.
They should resist the temptation.”

Echoing these sentiments is Weekly Standard executive editor Terry Eastland, who served as director of communications under Attorney General Ed Meese in the Reagan administration. Commenting on Wolf’s suggestion Eastland wrote: “Acting on that advice would aggravate the party’s conservative base and surely cost the Republicans the Senate.”

The idea that we should declare the war over and let President Obama cement a liberal court right now is lunacy. The New York Times even said recently that the confirmation of Judge Garland would lead to the most liberal court in 50 years. On business issues, he has sided with government agencies over small businesses almost every single time, according to the National Federation of Independent Business, which took a stance against a Supreme Court nomination for the first time in its 70 plus year history. On the Second Amendment and issues of importance to the family, Garland has been a solid liberal vote and will solidify the liberal bloc on the court from day one.

It’s hard to see how we can take the chance of getting a worse nominee. Garland will no doubt have a profound influence on the Court and its interpretation of the Constitution for years, notwithstanding the argument that he is older than other potential nominees.

While the mainstream media has tried to play up one blog post as evidence that conservatives are ready to surrender on the nomination, nothing could be further from the truth. In addition to Erickson’s argument, leading conservative voices, including the Tea Party Patriots, Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network and Ed Whelan, a former Scalia clerk have rejected this silly argument, as have Sen. McConnell, Grassley and many others. In his column, Whelan wrote, “[y]es, things look bad on the presidential front. But that’s no reason to go wobbly on keeping the Scalia seat open through the election.”

The bottom line is that we do not yet know what will happen in November –if we’ve learned nothing else this election season it’s that we have no idea what will happen. Therefore we cannot prematurely surrender today on President Obama’s choice to provide a steady and reliable vote to join Ginsberg, Kagan, Breyer and Sotomayor. Conservatives trying to defend our courts and our Constitution need to stand firm and battle this nomination with everything we have and prepare for whatever may – or may not – come in the months ahead.

2 comments:

  1. Red State punked out as they succumbed to keeping silent about the fraudulent use of documents by Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Hussein Obama). Sheriff Joe Arpaio has had enough criminal evidence to sink a damn battleship and has put it on display with TWO press conferences. Red State ignored it as did most punk Conservative web pages. Shameful!! What the hell are they afraid of, the 505 White, 43.25% Arab 6.75% African/Negro in the White House. How about you Diane, why haven't you been covering the Arpaio criminal investigation? Arpaio has been in law enforcement for more than 50 years, he has other law enforcement officers and document experts working on the investigation and they have determined that the April 22nd, 2011 birth document is a multi layered computer generated forgery and you remain silent. I stumbled onto this site a little late in the game and I apologize if you did cover the event before the time I noticed your site.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Diane,
    I feel so bad for you. All of your little sheeple have put on their "Make America Great" trucker hats and headed off to the Trump rally, leaving you all alone here. Well not all alone, you've got this one bigot Tony and his tinfoil hat still screaming about Obama's birth certificate.

    Sad, sad sad....

    ReplyDelete