Sunday, April 3, 2016

Scalia’s replacement could mean an equal tug of war

            Last week the President came out to announce his nomination for the recently opened seat on the Supreme Court, due to Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing. The nominee, Merrick Garland is the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Based on what is being said, it seems that Garland would be an excellent choice as the next justice on the Supreme Court. However, it seems that the GOP does not believe so and there are many strongly worded opinions as to whom we should be seeing in that seat.
            As a more moderate candidate, Republicans fear that they will lose the “upper hand” when it comes to the conservative v. liberal decisions made in the Supreme Court. They may be on to something though, as it seems that Garland’s record leans towards the more liberal/moderate side. With negative numbers reflecting a more liberal stance and positive ones representing the more conservative, The Washington Post puts Garland at about a – 0.5. The Washington Post describes Garland’s ideology to lie between Justice Breyer, who is almost at -1, and Justice Roberts, who is past 1 but not quite at 2[1].
   published an article, “7 Reasons Merrick Garland's Women's Rights Record — Or Lack Thereof — Should Worry You” which shed some light on some of the issues around Garland’s nomination[2]. More importantly, the article gives us 7 reasons why he might not be the proper candidate for the job. The article is a bit misleading to some as it only lists issues that have not been addressed by Garland. Ever. Can we really say we can’t confide in someone because of this, if he has yet to confront these issues?
            These assumptions are of course, just assumptions as one could find it incredibly difficult to both assess an individuals actions, to determine where there political views lie, and make claims on situations that have yet to happen. What I believe should be taken into consideration is the fact that President Obama, a just man, confides enough in Mr. Garland to nominate him for a seat in the SCOTUS. Yes, ideally we do want to see more female Justices, but can we not settle for a moderate-liberal candidate? Personally, I don’t feel that the gender of the candidate matters as long as the views and positions embrace the female population in order to better serve us.

Luisa Ibner, MWPC Intern