The fireworks over Justice Antonin Scalia’s replacement have already started, but for the hundreds of people lined up at the Supreme Court, [Friday] was about one thing: honoring a man who can never be replaced. Under a flag-draped casket, a veteran of a different war now lays — a hero in the struggle to protect the world’s longest-surviving Constitution, a fight to which Scalia gave 30 brave years. Through unimaginable changes to our culture, this legal warrior stood his ground, sometimes alone, for the charter he swore to defend.

In a 50/50 country, Peggy Noonan reflected, “one that suffers deep ideological divisions and is constantly at its own throat, Justice Scalia stood, for that half of the country that is more or less conservative, for wisdom, permanence, enduring structures and understandings.” Conservatives, whose worlds have been rocked by the courts’ brazen desertion of the law, took comfort from Scalia, whose positions were as black and white as the faded text he based them on. “With his fierce dissents Scalia helped people accept decisions with which they disagreed,” Noonan wrote. “At least our view was spoken. At least it’s respected by someone!”

And while his views may not have been respected by all, his contributions were. Most liberals, who had more in common with the man in the moon than Justice Scalia, still admired his humor, candor, and deep commitment to his country. Perhaps that’s why so many were stunned — and offended — by President Obama’s decision to skip the justice’s funeral. From MSNBC to the University of Chicago, the president’s usual cheerleaders joined the American people in shock over his pattern of disrespect toward great leaders with whom he disagrees. (Remember, he refused to pay his respects to Margaret Thatcher in 2013 too.)

The White House tried to explain away the controversy, insisting that Obama’s presence would only politicize the memorial. But MSNBC’s Chris Hayes and scores of other “progressives” aren’t buying it. “By attending the funeral Obama would have underscored the importance of nonpartisanship when it comes to the Court. That could only have helped him make the case that the Republican-controlled Senate has a duty to give fair consideration to the person he nominates to succeed Scalia,” he wrote. It’s a “dumb political move,” Los Angeles Times reporter Michael McGough blasted. The backlash was particularly strong from Professor Charles Lipson, who pointed out, “Refusing to attend the funeral does more than insult the memory of a life-long public servant. It is a failure to perform a basic presidential duty. Obama has shirked his responsibility to all of us.” While the president and Mrs. Obama made the two-mile trek to the Court today to pay their respects in the great hall, Press Secretary Josh Earnest couldn’t say whether his boss would be busy golfing during Saturday’s funeral or not.

One thing the president refuses to miss is the debate over the next Supreme Court justice, which he sparked by vowing to nominate someone in the coming weeks. Senate Republicans wasted no time explaining where that confirmation would go: nowhere. With an almost united front, the GOP has warned that it’s well within the president’s authority to offer a replacement — just as it’s within the Senate’s rights to reject it. In a must-read joint op-ed [Friday], two men in the center of that clash — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) — explained again that Republicans would be looking to the American people in November — not the White House in February — for guidance on the next Supreme Court nominee.

“Even if some Democrats may be having amnesic experiences today,” (including the president himself), the pair write, “it’s clear that concern over confirming Supreme Court nominations made near the end of a presidential term is not new… Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. It is today the American people, rather than a lame-duck president whose priorities and policies they just rejected in the most-recent national election, who should be afforded the opportunity to replace Justice Scalia.”

No man — not even the president itself — may hold as much sway over the future of our nation than the next Supreme Court justice. The far-Left is already salivating over the prospect of an extreme Supreme Court justice to finish the work the Court started when it redefined marriage. In a sobering Washington Post article, reporters explain that the LGBT movement is on the march for more — including the right to punish anyone with contradicting views through a sweeping nationwide ruling for special same-sex and transgender protections in the workplace.

Activist groups already have their eyes on the Court as the vehicle for forcing an even broader agenda on the American people that they couldn’t pass in Congress. Think: Aaron and Melissa Klein, Kelvin Cochran, Eric Moutsos, Blaine Adamson, Kim Davis, Craig James, or Master Sergeant Phillip Monk on a national scale. “…[P]rogressives now accept no limits,” Noonan warned. “We can’t just have court-ordered legalized abortion across the land, we have to have it up to the point of birth, and taxpayers have to pay for it. It’s not enough to win same-sex marriage, you’ve got to personally approve of it and if you publicly resist you’ll be ruined. It’s not enough that we have publicly funded contraceptives, the nuns have to provide them. This unappeasable spirit always turns to the courts to have its way…”

Republicans cannot let liberals do through the gavel what they could not do through the ballots. “Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law,” Justice Scalia once said. “That’s what democracy is all about.” And it is that same democracy that gives the people the right to choose, through their next president, who should take Scalia’s chair.

Originally published here.

Bevin Forbid! KY Gov Puts the Brakes on Planned Parenthood

New Governor Matt Bevin (R-Ky.) didn’t just campaign on social values — he’s governing from them. Weeks after offering a common sense accommodation to Rowan County Clerk of Court Kim Davis, the governor is strengthening his pro-life hand with a lawsuit against Planned Parenthood. After January, when Bevin suspended the license of a clinic for performing abortions without a license, the governor is now suing Cecile Richards’s group for trying to rush its application through Bevin’s liberal predecessor but continued doing at least 23 abortions in the meantime — a crime punishable by $500 to $10,000 per day.

“It’s that brazen disregard for the law that is going to be hammered down,” Bevin said at the time. “There is no tolerance whatsoever for people in the Commonwealth of Kentucky disregarding the law. They are unlicensed. They are doing it knowingly, and they are going to be brought to justice on this front.” As part of the licensing process, the clinics are required to put plans in place with a local hospital for transfer in case of an emergency. By failing to do so while it performed abortions, Bevin argues that almost two dozen women’s lives were at risk. “Planned Parenthood should be required to pay fines in the maximum amount allowed by law in order to punish it for its callous and knowing violations of law and to deter it and others from such violations in the future,” the governor argued in a statement.

Up north, Governor Scott Walker (R-Wisc.) built on his pro-life legacy by slashing millions of dollars from the state’s budget for Planned Parenthood and redirecting it to community health centers that aren’t under investigation for trafficking in baby body parts. For Governor Walker, who had already signed a 20-week abortion ban into law, this was another significant step for the pro-life movement in Wisconsin. While Americans wait for a president who takes the same stand, our hats go off to the many pro-life leaders — including this Congress’s — for doing what taxpayers have demanded for some time: provide care that respects life and the women carrying it.

Originally published here.