If anyone’s relieved to be back in session, it’s Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kans.). The Kansas Republican got an earful back home when he unexpectedly broke ranks with his fellow Republicans and called for action on President Obama’s Supreme Court pick. “I think we have a responsibility to have a hearing [on Merrick Gardland],” he said, to the astonishment of both voters and his party. Within hours, the Tea Party, state activists, and even national groups like FreedomWorks sprang into action, calling the suggestion “outrageous” and vowing to primary Moran. By last Friday, the senator’s office was flooded by more than 28,000 emails blasting the conservative for stepping out of line.

Kansas Republicans were determined to make an example of Moran — but they never got the chance. After a potential challenger accused him of “folding like a lawn chair,” Moran thought better of it. Sheepishly, he retreated back into the fold, more evidence of the Republicans’ steely resolve on the Scalia’s replacement. If other conservative senators were weighing similar moves, they’ve almost certainly reconsidered. While liberals spend wads of cash on attack ads railing against Republicans for a position they held just one administration ago, their pressure is no match for voters’. Even the Washington Post called the Left’s efforts doomed: “Right-leaning activists care more about the Supreme Court vacancy right now than liberals do. In the current climate, most conservatives — even in blue states — have no appetite for compromise.”

Unlike the Left, which seems intent on ramming a nominee through the process in the twilight of Obama’s term, most people would prefer to take their time filling the seat. Based on the GOP’s internal polling, 54 percent of people “were more concerned about a liberal justice being chosen to replace Scalia, compared to the nearly 41 percent of respondents who were more worried about the seat being open for a year or more.” That’s a big gap — big enough to give Republicans the confidence they need to hold their ground. Obviously, the American people share their concerns that Obama’s only interest in filling the seat is finding a lifetime surrogate on the Court. No wonder stalwarts like Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) are reiterating that they have “no plans” to meet with the president’s nominee.

That hasn’t stopped the Court itself from weighing in. Chief Justice John Roberts stuck his nose in the Senate’s business before Scalia died, arguing that “the [confirmation] process is not functioning very well.” That’s interesting, fired back Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), since his Court’s decision is partially to blame. “Many of my constituents believe, with all due respect, that the chief justice is part of the problem,” Grassley said [Wednesday] on the Senate floor. “They believe that [a] number of his votes have reflected political considerations, not legal ones.” “The chief justice has it exactly backwards,” Grassley also said. “The confirmation process doesn’t make the justices appear political. The confirmation process has gotten political precisely because the court itself has drifted from the constitutional text and rendered decisions based instead on policy preferences.”

It was the perfect response — one, ironically, that echoed the sentiments of the very man they’re replacing. Justice Scalia talked about this very thing in his dissent of Casey v. Planned Parenthood 24 years ago! “If nominees are now treated in a crude and political manner,” he wrote, “it’s because the Supreme Court itself has asked for it… Value judgments, after all, should be voted on, not dictated; and if our Constitution has somehow accidently committed them to the Supreme Court, at least we can have a sort of plebiscite each time a new nominee to that body is put forward.”

Look, for example, at the Court’s opinions in King v. Burwell, which twisted the statute to mean something it didn’t, or NFIB v. Sebelius (which contorted the Constitution) — both decision designed to “save” Obamacare (which isn’t the Court’s job!). Roberts played a key role in both these decisions. And while he isn’t the only villain in a judicial system that has by and large politicized itself, his Court has certainly ventured into social activist territory. As a result, people on both sides of the aisle are realizing the over-importance of the Court. In the last primary, Wisconsin’s, 52 percent of all voters said they feel betrayed by the GOP. Thanks to the leadership of Majority Mitch McConnell, Chairman Grassley, and others, the Senate is doing its best to change that.

If you haven’t read FRC’s Travis Weber’s take on the SCOTUS debate, check out his piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer, “Voters Right to Worry about Court Vacancy” here.

Originally published here.

Singer Shows Sign of Stage Fight

The GOP’s nominating process was already shaping up to be a fiery one — but in Cleveland, there are plenty of fireworks to go around. While Ted Cruz and Donald Trump duke it out, delegates will be brokering something else at the Republican convention: the GOP platform. The challenge to core principles gets fiercer by the year, thanks to a well-funded effort to strip the party’s guiding document of its most fundamental principles.

That’s not going to be any easier in July, when a wealthy backer of Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is gearing up for the biggest platform ambush yet. For years, there’s been a behind-the-scenes push to weaken the language on life — and now, in the first convention since the Supreme Court’s radical redefinition of marriage, the social liberals are more determined than ever to change the platform on both fundamental values. In 2012, before even President Obama had “evolved,” FRC did more than hold the line on the party’s language on marriage and religious liberty — we strengthened it. That will be a major challenge again this July, when billionaire Paul Singer and friends come to undermine the position of a majority of GOP voters. Singer, who’s donated millions to pro-gay marriage groups, is helping to bankroll the American Unity Fund, whose sole purpose is setting fire to the Republican marriage plank.

Fortunately, as one of Louisiana’s two representatives on the platform committee, I’ll be there to help counter the politically correct forces like AUF, who argue that watering down the GOP’s position on marriage “is necessary if the party is to remain viable in the years to come.” Obviously, the group is mistaking the opinion of five unelected justices for the majority of states’. The Republican Party is viable because of its values — not in spite of them. By Reuters’ own admission, two thirds of GOP voters think the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage was wrong. Not many people will have the stomach to change the language when conservatives are solidly behind it. Still, a spokeswoman insists her organization is “very pro-family” (despite the organization’s push to destabilize the very family it supposedly supports).

In the meantime, FRC and our allies are taking the threat very seriously and will be in Cleveland prepared to bolster the GOP’s stand on these key issues. Marriage isn’t just fundamental to the Republican Party but to all of society. To abandon it now would mean undermining every GOP priority — from stronger economies to individual freedom. Surely, the GOP has better things to do at this year’s convention than drive a deeper wedge into an already fractured party.

Originally published here.

‘We Are in World War III’

“Had we taken religious freedom seriously earlier, after the war, under Bush, then this [ISIS persecution] would not have happened. And we can’t afford to not take it seriously now.” That was just one of the sobering statements at [Wednesday’s] policy lecture on the religious persecution around the world.

Former Congressman Frank Wolf joined FRC to talk about his recent trip to Nigeria, highlighting areas of concern and violence by radical Islamists that far too few seem willing to talk about and stand up to. Not only do we need to stop radical Islamist killing of Christians, he pointed out, but we need to care for the girls who have been kidnapped and are traumatized from being raped by their captors. They need proper care and attention; this component is as much a human trafficking problem as it is a religious freedom problem.

Pervez Rafique, a Pakistani activist and politician, gave insight into the unique problems in Pakistan, such as a culture whipped into a frenzy by radical Islamist teachers. While that government has its own problems, when it does want to bring people to justice for murder of those accused of apostasy, radical Islamist mobs often intercept and murder the accused, while praising the killers! Such are the problems we face from failing to encourage and foster reform from within Islam. Right now the largest number of victims of radical Islamists are other Muslims. If more Muslim communities are going to promote religious freedom, representatives of that faith community must be encouraged (and protected) as they speak out. They need all the help they can get.

Yet we do them no favors by failing to call out radical Islam for what it is, and failing to address it as the root of many religious freedom problems in the world today. We need our government and all governments to properly name the problem before addressing it, as panelist Tom Farr noted. Dr. Farr also commented on possible solutions in the Middle East now that the United States recognized the genocide occurring there. One solution would be a protected zone, strictly monitored to ensure that different religious communities are living in peace with one another. This could serve as a model for other trouble spots around the world.

Panelist Tina Ramirez also spoke about what her organization Hardwired Global is doing to promote religious freedom in the Middle East: bringing together key activists from diverse religious communities and having them work together in interactive training sessions designed to help them understand their need for religious freedom. Many of these individuals have never interacted with those of other faith communities. Yet as they engage personally, perspectives shift and they see the need for each other’s need for the same protection. This is an important component of the effort to ensure that the freedom to believe and live out one’s beliefs is protected for all faiths everywhere around the world.

Travis Weber, moderating the panel, reminded us all of the importance of the personal connection. When Christians here in the United States see persecution of believers overseas as a personal attack against them, they will feel their pain, which will translate into action. One story that is particularly heartwarming is that of Damaris Atsen, a Nigerian widow whose husband was killed by Boko Haram but who extended forgiveness and grew closer to God through the experience.

Originally published here.