(PresidentialWire.com)- When a reporter questioned the Attorney General about how the DOJ would circumvent the Supreme Court on the abortion issue, Merrick Garland reacted angrily.
President Joe Biden signed executive orders to defend abortion rights after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization 5-4 decision effectively overturned Roe v. Wade. As a result, the Department of Health and Human Services released guidelines on abortions and emergency care.
In a news conference on reproductive rights held on Tuesday afternoon, Garland announced their legal action against an Idaho abortion law that violates the presidential order and federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act, which served as the foundation for the HHS advice.
The attorney general disagreed with a journalist who said that the DoJ was “running around” the court by doing these and other things:
The reporter noted that Garland has a lot of admiration for the Supreme Court, but if the DOJ is going to act in this manner, what purpose does the Supreme Court serve?
Garland responded by saying, defensively, that he wasn’t sure what he meant when he asked, “What is the purpose of the Supreme Court?”
He continued by saying that this in no way constitutes an attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court and that while individual states have the right to choose their policies on abortion, the federal government also possesses this authority. Garland maintains that nothing mentioned by the Supreme Court suggested in any way that the laws that Congress had approved, such as EMTALA, are unconstitutional. On the contrary, this is the case. It was left up to the people’s representatives by the Supreme Court. The United States Congress concluded that EMTALA should be passed. The choice to include the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution of the United States was made many years ago. When state laws directly contradict federal law, the federal law renders the state law null and void. Garland concluded by stating that, in all honesty, this has nothing to do with anything that the Supreme Court decided, and it has nothing to do with trying to sidestep the Supreme Court in any way.
But it does.
.
