The White House has yet another heated election at hand. Below the drama and importance of the current presidential race, President Obama has nominated Harvard law graduate Merrick Garland for a seat in the Supreme Court. While Garland is more than qualified for the position, his views on certain controversial laws have sparked debate between the Republican Senators on if Garland would be a benefit or a setback to the Court.

Merrick Garland was born on November 13^th, 1952. His education consists of Harvard Law, obtaining many honors from the University. Garland began his career as a special assistant to the U.S attorney general for the U.S. Department of Justice, and continued in the legal profession as a current judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Some of the controversy surrounding Garland’s nomination is focused on his view on gun control. Garland is outspokenly in favor of a nation-wide hand-gun ban, something many Republicans strongly disagree with.

“He has a high position with the Department of Justice and, by all accounts, does a good job there. There will be a number of judgeship vacancies in the D.C. trial judges. He has been a trial lawyer. He would be a good person to fill one of those. I would feel comfortable supporting him for another judgeship.” Senator Jeff Sessions told http://thinkprogress.org/ on his opinion of Garland.

“I think the pick of Merrick Garland was an attempt by President Obama to try and bridge the gap between liberals and conservatives…Garland is a moderate that was supported by Republicans (Orrin Hatch) prior to Obama’s nomination. Politically speaking, it seems it would be a safe choice and that Congress should certainly grant Garland a hearing (it’s been 100 years since Congress had refused to give a hearing for a Supreme Court nominee). Additionally, the argument that a lame duck President should not have the ability to select a justice is bogus. It’s the President and Congress’s Constitutional duty to fill vacancy.” Said Mr. Kane, a Current Events teacher at Coronado on Garland.

As the controversy continues, Garland preservers his path to the Supreme Court by setting up various campaigns across America, promoting his liability and ethos in the law. Voters will decided if Garland deserves the prestigious position or not.