At the White House [Wednesday] morning, President Obama announced his nominee for the Supreme Court — Judge Merrick Garland of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

The media are dutifully attempting to spin Garland as a “centrist” or a “consensus choice.” Consider this headline from the Los Angeles Times: “It’s Going To Be Hard For Conservatives To Oppose The Careful, Moderate Merrick Garland.”

Don’t be fooled, my friends. Barack Obama was never going to nominate a moderate to the Supreme Court. It won’t be hard at all to oppose Merrick Garland.

There was considerable concern in recent days among far-left activists that Obama might nominate Garland. After all, they kept hearing about how moderate he was, and they really want a dedicated liberal.

With that in mind, consider these soothing words from the radical blog Think Progress: “To be clear, Garland’s record does not suggest that he would join the Court’s right flank if confirmed to the Supreme Court. He would likely vote much more often than not with the Supreme Court’s liberals.”

I agree completely. Here’s what we know about Judge Garland that big media won’t tell you:

• Garland clerked for Justice William Brennan, described by the New York Times as “a towering figure in modern law who embodied the liberal vision of the Constitution as an engine of social and political change.”

Brennan was a leading advocate of abortion and affirmative action. He was a fierce opponent of the death penalty and bitterly resisted efforts of the Reagan administration to bolster the conservative legal philosophy of originalism. In other words, Garland’s mentor at the Supreme Court was the exact opposite of Justice Antonin Scalia, whom Obama is attempting to replace.

• Garland spoke at an event in 2005 honoring the legacy of Justice Harry Blackmun, author of the notorious Roe v. Wade decision that forced every state in the union to allow abortion on demand.

• Garland was on the wrong side of Supreme Court’s Heller decision. The 5-to-4 decision, authored by Justice Scalia, upheld an individual’s right under the Second Amendment to own a firearm for self-defense.

But as a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Garland voted for the District of Columbia’s outrageous anti-Second Amendment gun ban. Thankfully, Justice Scalia struck down Garland’s distorted view of our constitutional rights.

So, once again, it is absolutely clear that Obama has nominated a liberal judge who would undo Justice Scalia’s legacy and further erode our constitutional rights.

McConnell Responds



Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell delivered the following statement [yesterday] on the Senate floor in response to Obama’s nomination:


“The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country, so of course the American people should have a say in the court’s direction.

"The Senate will continue to observe the ‘Biden Rule’ so the American people have a voice in this momentous decision. The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration. The next president may also nominate somebody very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice in filling this vacancy.”


When Senator McConnell insists he wants the voters to decide this November who should fill Scalia’s vacancy, it means that this election will decide the future of our Second Amendment rights and so much more.



My friends, the future of the Republic and the values we cherish are at stake. Please make sure all your friends and family members are registered to vote.




The Results: Democrats



Hillary Clinton went five for five [Tuesday] night. Clinton carried Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio by an average vote of 57%. She picked up another 435 delegates to Senator Sanders’ 268, giving her two-thirds of the delegates needed to secure the Democrat nomination.




The Results: Republicans



Donald Trump had a good night, too, claiming victory in four of five states. Trump trounced the field in Florida, winning by 19 points. As a result, Senator Marco Rubio suspended his campaign. Trump also carried Illinois, North Carolina and, by a razor-thin margin, Missouri.



Trump picked up 177 delegates, boosting his total to 646 or 52% of the total needed to claim the GOP nomination.



John Kasich won his home state of Ohio, his first win of the primary campaign. But with an approval rating of 62%, it is surprising that Kasich was held to just 47% in [Tuesday’s] primary. Nevertheless, it was good enough to claim the state’s 66 delegates.



Senator Ted Cruz did not walk away empty-handed. Thanks to strong showings in Missouri and North Carolina, he picked up 41 delegates. With 397 delegates, Senator Cruz is the closest to Trump and the only remaining candidate in the GOP primary with a chance of winning the nomination outright.



Kasich, even after winning all of Ohio’s 66 delegates, has only 142 delegates. Even if Kasich won every single delegate up for grabs in the remaining primary contests — 946 — he would still be 149 delegates short of winning the nomination.



He Said What?!



As if the Republican primary couldn’t get any crazier, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan suggested [Tuesday] that he might be open to becoming the 2016 Republican nominee.



CNBC’s John Harwood asked Ryan about the possibility of a contested convention and whether he would accept the nomination. Ryan answered::

“You know, I haven’t given any thought to this stuff. People say, ‘What about the contested convention?’ I say, well, there are a lot of people running for president. We’ll see. Who knows?”


[Wednesday] morning, Speaker Ryan picked up the endorsement of his predecessor, former House Speaker John Boehner. Shortly afterwards, however, a spokesman for Ryan shut down the speculation, telling reporters, “[Speaker Ryan] will not accept a nomination and believes our nominee should be someone who ran this year.”