The debate is still raging around President Barack Obama's decision to nominate Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, and the Senate won't give him a hearing.
March 24, 2016
"Despite Democratic organizing efforts, right-leaning activists care more about the Supreme Court vacancy right now than liberals do," The Washington Post writes on Thursday, March 24.
When President Obama announced Garland's nomination on March 16, he hoped this white man whom "by all accounts is more of a technocrat than an ideologue" would not pose any problem for Republicans. Yet the Senate won't give him a hearing.
On the other hand, Liberals "privately complain that Obama has thrown away a golden opportunity." The newspaper explains: "If he had picked an African American, a Latino or even an Asian candidate – and especially a woman – he could have helped energize the coalition that got him reelected in 2012 and arguably pushed his nominee onto the court."
So why such a rebuttal on the Republican side? Judge Garland, at the Court of Appeal since 1997, has taken numerous decisions against the NRA. Chris Cox, the Association's political strategist, deems that Garland "does not support the Second Amendment," and that “the future of gun ownership hangs in the balance.”
This is the argument taken up by Republican politicians and their electoral base: to give Merrick Garland a chance at the Supreme Court would be a threat to their right to bear arms. Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson goes even further by saying it would threaten “their right to free speech” and their “freedom of religion.”
Read this article (in French) at Courrier International.