On the presidential campaign trail, Hillary Clinton is making it abundantly clear. She will not name any nominees to the Supreme Court who do not support abortion on demand.
Asked about President Barack Obama’s nominee to replace pro-life Justice Antonin Scalia, Clinton said she would not second guess Obama’s nomination and added that any nomination she would make if elected would be a hardcore abortion activists who supports Roe v. Wade, which has ushered in an era of 58 million abortions.
Clinton said she wouldn’t second-guess Mr. Obama’s decision to pick Judge Garland to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, but added that if she were in the Oval Office she would search for nominees in the mold of Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Mrs. Clinton said Justice Sotomayor’s Hispanic heritage and underprivileged upbringing brought needed perspectives to the high court.
Clinton also said she would impose litmus tests on abortion and campaign finance. Her nominees, she said, would have to prove that they would uphold the Roe v. Wade decision establishing a national right to abortion and would have to show that they would overturn the Citizens United decision that established free speech campaign rights for interest groups.
“I would not appoint someone who didn’t think Roe v. Wade is settled law,” Mrs. Clinton said while campaigning in Madison, Wisconsin, where the next primary is slated for next week.
After Merrick’s nomination, Clinton immediately came out in favor of his nomination and demanded the Senate vote on him. In a post on Clinton’s web site, a Hillary campaign staffer expanded on the reasons for her supporting Garland — saying “legal abortion is at take.”
President Obama has nominated Judge Merrick Garland to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
Within minutes of the president’s announcement, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell pledged to deny this qualified, widely respected jurist a hearing or a vote.
It’s yet another reminder of what’s at stake in this election. As we wait to see whether Republicans in the U.S. Senate will do their jobs and fulfill their constitutional responsibility, keep one thing in mind:
The next president will likely have the opportunity to nominate several justices to the Supreme Court. And in doing so, she or he could have the power to transform the court—and American law—for generations to come.
Here’s what is at stake:
1. Safe and legal abortion
The Supreme Court recently held oral arguments from an abortion case from Texas—and the state’s access to safe and legal abortion hangs in the balance. Every leading Republican presidential candidate opposes abortion, and some even oppose exceptions for rape, incest, or to protect a woman’s health. And many would overturn Roe v. Wade to make that happen.
Clinton’s support for Garland’s nomination based on abortion coincides with Planned Parenthood’s support. After Obama nominated Garland, the CEO of the Planned Parenthood abortion business was spotted entering the White House.
The abortion corporation praised Garland and demanded the Senate hold a vote on is nomination.
On Facebook, Planned Parenthood praise Garland, saying, “Here’s what you need to know about President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick Garland: He’s an intelligent, highly accomplished judge with a record of bipartisan support. There is no reason for the Senate GOP leadership to obstruct justice and refuse to give Judge Garland a fair hearing.”
Top pro-life groups told LifeNews.com that nothing has changed since Scalia’s passing in terms of their opposition to a vote on any Obama Supreme Court nominee. They say anyone Obama nominates for the Supreme Court will vote to uphold abortion on demand, ergo they will oppose a vote on Garland’s nomination.
Leading pro-life advocates agree the Senate should not vote on Scalia’s replacement until after a new president has been selected.
Garland has praised the author of Roe v. Wade and said his court paper are “the greatest gift to the country.” New information has surfaced showing showing that his former clerks have gone on to serve liberal judges by a 3-1 margin.