Obama Threatens Senate: Vote On Merrick Garland Because Americans “Elected Me President”

National   |   Steven Ertelt   |   Mar 18, 2016   |   9:48AM   |   Washington, DC

President Barack Obama is today threatening the U.S. Senate — saying that if it fails to hold a vote on liberal Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland the American people will lose faith in politics.

“At that point the judiciary becomes a pure extension of politics. And that damages people’s faith in the judiciary,” Obama told NPR’s Nina Totenberg.

SIGN THE PETITION: Do Not Allow a Vote on Merrick Garland

Here’s more on Obama’s temper tantrum:

Obama sounded off with his frustration over Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s refusal to consider Garland’s nomination on the basis that the American people should decide in a presidential election year. “In fact, the American people did decide, back in 2012 when they elected me president of the United States,” he noted.

“They didn’t say, we’re gonna decide you’re in charge for three years and then in the last year, you all take a break,” Obama said of the intended role for the president over the course of his second term in office. “They said, no, you’re the president for four years, and Mr. McConnell, you’re gonna be the leader because we’ve given you a majority in the Senate.”

“This is just raw politics,” the president told Totenberg, according to NPR’s report, speculating upon the Republican basis for refusing to even hold a confirmation hearing for his nominee: “We don’t want somebody who’s been nominated by a Democrat.”

National Right to Life Legislative Director Douglas Johnson called such concerns “laughable, coming from Obama, who filibustered Samuel Alito’s nomination, and whose administration has repeatedly urged the Supreme Court to strike down state laws that violate no constitutional text. In reality the president wants not an independent judiciary, but a Supreme Court majority that will vote in lock step to strike down protections for unborn children, to tolerate escalating governmental attacks on religious liberty, to permit severe limits on the rights of independent groups to criticize those who hold or seek public office, and to nullify other laws that conflict with current liberal dogmas and policy preferences.”

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.