Editorial: No hearings on SCOTUS judge

President Obama’s nomination of U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Chief Judge Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court should not go forward under any circumstances for several reasons.

First, Obama though not technically a lame duck, should not get to appoint a judge this late in his term. Obama has tried to name someone who the media claims is “moderate” but you can bet that Garland will render liberal decisions right in line with Obama’s plans to change America into a socialist state.

Here’s another reason this is a bad choice. There are no Evangelicals on the court. Imagine the outcry if there were no women, no blacks, no Catholics and no Jews (Garland is Jewish) on the Supreme Court. Being a Protestant Christian should not be a prerequisite for a nominee but it is odd that in a country founded by Evangelicals and heavily populated with Evangelicals, they can’t get even one on the Supreme Court.

Here’s another reason to reject Garland. He was nominated to his current position by former President Bill Clinton in 1997. That should cement his liberal credentials. Clinton nominated Garland shortly after winning his second term, when he could freely appoint activist judges who would promote his liberal Democrat agenda.

Oddly enough, Garland won in the Senate with the majority of Republican senators voting to confirm, including Senators John McCain, Orrin Hatch, Susan Collins and Oklahoma’s own Jim Inhofe.  Senators Mitch McConnell, Chuck Grassley and Jeff Sessions were among those who voted against Garland.

Obama has done enough damage to America. Putting another liberal, activist judge on the Supreme Court would be just one more mess to untangle after he’s gone.