Leading pro-life groups today thanked Senate Republicans for not allowing a vote on pro-abortion President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. Thought some pro-life voters think Senate Republicans don’t always show a firm resolve, in this case the Republican leadership has stood firm and not backed down on its promise to refuse a hearing and vote.
As the SBA List informed LifeNews.com today:
This morning representatives from Concerned Women for America, Iowa Right to Life, and Susan B. Anthony List delivered nearly 4,000 petitions from Iowa pro-life activists to Senator Chuck Grassley’s Des Moines office, urging him to maintain his strong resolve to let the people have a say in the Supreme Court vacancy following Justice Scalia’s death.
The groups released the following joint statement ahead of delivering the petitions to Sen. Grassley’s office:
“Despite sustained and organized campaigns by the abortion lobby, Senator Grassley has been unwavering in his commitment to ensure the American people have a say in who fills this court vacancy. President Obama should not have the chance to stack the court with another pro-abortion Justice. We commend Senator Grassley for his courageous stand. Our members in Iowa and across the country stand by him and are proud to support him.”
Pro-life groups have mobilized their grassroots at www.ProtectTheCourt.com where activists can send an immediate message to their U.S. Senators.
Truth is we wouldn’t be in this position if we didn’t have a Supreme Court continually going beyond the law to force its policy preferences on us through judicial fiat and a Chief Executive who insists on ignoring constitutional limits through his abuse of executive power. Sen. Grassley and the Senate are wise to push back on this clear violation of the fundamental principles of the separation of powers.That structure – that separation- is what guards our liberties. It was the Founder’s mechanism to fight the tyrannous rule from which they sought independence. That is the essence of the fight Sen. Grassley is engaged in today. And the thousands of members of Concerned Women for America are proud to stand with him.
Other leading pro-life groups are also on board with the idea of not allowing a confirmation hearing or vote on Garland’s nomination.
The head of National Right to Life said that her organization’s members will strongly support Republican senators’ decision to preserve the current U.S. Supreme Court vacancy for the next president to fill.
“This is not primarily about the professional credentials of a particular nominee – it is about who picks the justice who will decide whether unborn children will be protected, whether religious liberty will be protected, and whether the free-speech rights of groups out of favor with the liberal elites will be protected,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. “President Obama hopes to decisively shift the Court’s balance on abortion, political free-speech rights, and a host of other issues. Yet, while President Obama has the authority to nominate, he appoints only with the consent of the Senate. The Republican senators have decided that, with an upcoming election in November, the voters should decide what kind of justice they want on the Court by the election of a presidential candidate.”
For Tony Perkins, the president of the pro-life Family Research Council, Garland is too liberal for the Senate to vote on.
“Political theater. That’s the only way to describe yesterday’s nomination by President Obama of D.C. Circuit Court’s Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court,” he said.
Perkins continues: “Like Elana Kagan, this nomination was carefully orchestrated — perhaps more so. Despite spending his career on the bench and in the Justice Department, Garland doesn’t have much of an ideological paper trail. As many have pointed out, the D.C. Circuit Court deals primarily with regulatory issues, meaning that Judge Garland’s record is virtually free of cases on abortion, marriage, or religious liberty. And that’s no accident. If President Obama wants to keep up this façade of centrism, he needs someone free of social baggage. But, make no mistake. Garland was carefully vetted. This president is too worried about his activist legacy to put it in the hands of a man who values the very Constitution it defies.”
Perkins applauds Senate Republicans for standing their ground: “The reality is, President Obama has the right to nominate a replacement for Justice Scalia, just as the Senate has a right to ignore it. This is exactly what the Americans people wanted when it elected a GOP majority: a Senate that would rein in the president’s unchecked powers. Now they have it. And on the biggest decision in a generation, we can all be grateful its leaders are doing their part.”
After President Barack Obama’s nomination of liberal appeals court judge Merrick Garland to replace pro-life Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, 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.” And information has surfaced showing that his former clerks have gone on to serve liberal judges by a 3-1 margin.
