Merrick Garland's Abortion Stance Is A Big Question Mark

[riversedge]

Source: huff post




Merrick Garland's Abortion Stance Is A Big Question Mark
Obama's Supreme Court nominee has not weighed in on Roe v. Wade.


03/16/2016 03:46 pm ET | Updated 12 hours ago


Laura Bassett


ASSOCIATED PRESS


..............Garland's low profile and bipartisan appeal make him a strategic pick for Obama. The president is trying to get the Republican-controlled Senate to confirm his nominee, even though party leaders have made it clear that they will not give due process to anyone Obama nominates.

Reproductive rights advocates are insisting that the Senate have a hearing for Garland -- if only so that they can learn more about his position on legal abortion.

"This year, monumental cases will be decided by the Court on abortion access specifically and reproductive rights generally," Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said in a statement. "Judge Garland does not have a public record on reproductive rights and Senate Republicans’ obstruction denies all of us our right to know where this nominee stands on core constitutional questions of women's privacy, dignity, and equality."

Earlier this month, the eight current Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments in Whole Woman's Health vs. Hellerstedt -- a case that will determine the extent to which states can chip away at abortion access by regulating clinics out of existence. The high court is likely to take up more cases pertaining to reproductive rights in the coming years, as conservative states continue to pass unprecedented amounts of restrictions that challenge Roe v. Wade................

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/merrick-garland-abortion-rights_us_56e9a58be4b065e2e3d8378d

---

#StandwithPP

[whistler162]

1. Not according to the "RTLers"

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/abortion-foes-finally-find-reason-hate-merrick-garland

"Finally, one of those groups appears to have hit the opposition-research jackpot. Americans United for Life, which refers to itself as "the nation's premier pro-life legal team," today sent out a press release reiterating its opposition to the Senate holding confirmation hearings on any of Obama's Supreme Court nominees this year. Garland is "Obama's pro-abortion pick," the group asserted."

[Fast Walker 52]

2. those people are hysterical, desperate nutjobs

but we knew that anyway...

Anyway, they are clinging to the skimpiest of evidence it seems, to oppose Garland.

[meow2u3]

10. The RTL absolutists want no less than El Salvador-like laws

that not only criminalize abortion, but also put women in prison for murder for miscarriage--something they can't control!

No exceptions for rape, incest, or even to save the life of the mother. RTL extremists are nothing but cruel, abusive misogynist assholes who use women as baby mills, just like the animal abusers who use cats and dogs in their kitten and puppy mills the same way.

I guess his views on abortion are largely the pre-TRAP law status quo.

[nxylas]

3. Stupid question

Please indulge me, I'm not American, so I never took the civics classes that most of you took in grade school. Does the president need the Senate to confirm his pick? Can he just appoint the judge anyway? Most news reports don't address this question, as they assume readers will already know the answer.

[Ms. Yertle]

6. Senate confirmation is required

by the Constitution, and for good reason. SC justices are appointed for their lifetime. Imagine Trump appointing people who could serve for 30 or 40 years.

[ColesCountyDem]

8. Yes, the Senate must confirm or reject the President's nominee

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of our Constitution provides that "... (The President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments...." .

I won't get into the subject of 'recess appointment', which is related, but not applicable in the current situation.

[houston16revival]

4. The final irony to Senate GOP strategy

would be if, in November, Democrats took the Senate majority

but lost the White House

They would have license to reject just about any nominee

or a series of nominees

IF they would use it

[Cobalt Violet]

5. You never know what you're going to get with a centrist.

[Danmel]

7. True

You could get a David Souter.

[iandhr]

9. A Souter would be fantastic

A major improvement. Well then again Attila the Hun would be an improvement of Scalia

[bigbrother05]

11. Right after Scalia's death, saw a review of past appointments

Generally the Dem appointments tended to stay on the liberal side of most arguments, but moderate Rep appointees often moved to the left, i.e. Warren.

Guess that illustrates the old saying that facts have a liberal bias. If a Justice is fair minded and follows an honest reading of the Constitution, individual and equal rights tend to come out on top.

Judge Garland is most likely to end up in the swing position and is noted as being a supporter of settled law and precedent. Anyone willing to keep what has been hard earned will be head and shoulders above the Robert/Thomas/Alito crowd.

Edit for spelling

[Johnyawl]

13. Right bigbrother...

..."facts have a liberal bias". Just thinking back over the last 50 years (my lifetime of paying attention to politics), pretty much all justices appointed as moderates have drifted to the left. And some who were known for being conservative have moved to more libertarian positions and became swing voters. The right wing ideologues hated Souter and despise O'Conner and Kennedy, and they're starting to worry about Roberts.

[bigbrother05]

16. Noted on another thread that Roberts and Garland were on the DC court together

Garland is a couple of years older and was an old hand during Roberts tenure. There is a distinct possibility he would moderate Roberts' RW tendencies if appointed. That alone would sink him with the Reps in the Senate.

[Sunlei]

12. A good question for the Senate to ask him, next week.

[jparke1599]

14. Good question

Good

[KamaAina]

15. Wow! Great choice, Barack!

[Lizzie Poppet]

19. Oh, it gets "better."

Garland is strongly anti-gun, and seems to favor reconsidering Heller. Regardless of one's position on that ruling, this basically means that even if the Senate were going to consider the nomination, it probably wouldn't even make it out of committee.

[geek tragedy]

17. just because the Huffington Post doesn't know doesn't mean Obama doesn't know.

There's this whole vetting process.

But this is perfect example of why there should be hearings.

[Nitram]

18. My take on Garland is that he will take precedent seriously.

He is neither an originalist nor a textualist. That's all we need to know about his abortion stance. If the phony rules designed to close clinics make it to the Supreme Court, he would slap them down. Based on an excellent discussion on NPR by a conservative and a liberal who know him well.

[riversedge]

20. REC