(Liberty Bell) – In 2016, many Americans found themselves faced with one of the most important elections of their lifetime, if not US history as a whole.
Before them was a political outsider who vowed to defend the right to life, the right to free speech and religion, and the right to bear arms, and the queen of establishment swamp monsters who vowed to put in place radical and unconstitutional restrictions on these fundamental American rights than our nation has ever seen.
For millions of Americans, this made the choice abundantly obvious.
They took their chances on Trump, and he’s turned out to be one of the most pro-life, pro-God, and pro-gun presidents our nation has had.
But it is his judicial legacy that has the potential to not only make our nation great again, but make it just again.
So far, he’s had two chances to leave this legacy on the highest court in the land: the Supreme Court of the United States.
There is a very good chance he’ll secure one more nominee, should he be re-elected, possibly even before, judging by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s’ ongoing health battles.
For Senator Josh Hawley, who would take part in the confirmation hearings for said Trump nominee, whether he will vote to confirm will be as simple a choice as the one Americans were faced with in 2016.
Life or death.
Hawley told the Washington Post that he will only vote to confirm a nominee who has a record of opposing Roe v. Wade, the landmark SCOTUS ruling that effectively legalized abortion in the United States.
A nominee will only be eligible to secure his approval if they disagree with the high court’s 1973 abortion decision.
“I will vote only for those Supreme Court nominees who have explicitly acknowledged that Roe v. Wade is wrongly decided,” Hawley told WaPo. “By explicitly acknowledged, I mean on the record and before they were nominated.”
“I don’t want private assurances from candidates,” he said “I don’t want to hear about their personal views, one way or another. I’m not looking for forecasts about how they may vote in the future or predications. I don’t want any of that. I want to see on the record, as part of their record, that they have acknowledged in some forum that Roe v. Wade, as a legal matter, is wrongly decided.”
“Roe is central to judicial philosophy. Roe is and was an unbridled act of judicial imperialism. It marks the point the modern Supreme Court said, ‘You know, we don’t have to follow the Constitution. We won’t even pretend to try.’ ” he also stated.
“This standard, for me, applies to Supreme Court nominees, whether they’re a sitting judge or whatever,” he said. “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.”
Before I vote for any future Supreme Court nominee I want to see record evidence that they acknowledge Roe v Wade was wrongly decided as a matter of law https://t.co/QpHXB3fotb
— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) July 26, 2020