After being disappointed by a handful of rulings at the end of the Supreme Court term, conservatives are debating anew how to ensure that Republican judicial nominees are as dependably conservative as Democratic picks are liberal.
Even after Republican appointees, most of them selected through a painstaking review process by top legal conservatives, achieved a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court, the liberal bloc prevailed on key cases concerning abortion, LGBT rights, religious liberty, and immigration as the most recent term came to a close. President Trump has made his success with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell at confirming conservative judges a major part of his case for reelection.
One of these opinions, the Bostock decision interpreting the 1964 Civil Rights Act as banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, was authored by Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch, who succeeded conservative legend Antonin Scalia on the court. In most cases, however, Chief Justice John Roberts, a George W. Bush nominee, was the defector. Conservatives have even begun to debate whether it is better to have nominees committed to a judicial philosophy known as originalism or rather those who wish to deliver specific outcomes, as the Right says Democratic-appointed judges always do.
 |
Sen. Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican who declared the “conservative legal project” had come to an “end” with Bostock, has laid down a new marker: He wants Supreme Court nominees to go explicitly “on the record” as saying the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion was wrongly decided.
"If there is no indication in their record that at any time they have acknowledged that Roe was wrong at the time it was decided, then I’m not going to vote for them — and I don't care who nominates them,” Hawley told the Washington Post.Read the rest from W. James Antle III HERE.
If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook either here or here. Please follow us on Twitter here.
No comments:
Post a Comment