The two flip sides of pushing for conservative jurists. (For the full version of each column, follow the link embedded in the headlines.)
Conservatives win when they fight for judges (Sept. 22) Do you believe that government should have the right to seize somebody’s house to give to for-profit corporations? Liberal judges do, but a Republican-appointed judge probably won’t.
Do you believe free speech is a human right to be protected from government, or do you believe government can “dole out” free speech only as it chooses? Conservative judges support free speech, but liberals support the government.
Do you believe that generic prayers by public school football coaches or representations of the Ten Commandments in public courthouses as part of the history of legal codes somehow infringe on private rights? Liberal judges do, but a Republican-appointed judge probably won’t…. Judges should not be deciding all those issues, or any of them, based on their personal policy preferences. All those above examples are a form of practical shorthand….
Sen. Josh Hawley is too pro-life for the pro-life cause (Sept. 22)
en. Josh Hawley of Missouri, a conservative Republican ideologue, foolishly continues to push a litmus test for Supreme Court justices that would have ruled out Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito but not, on its own, requiring a vote against Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Indeed, Hawley’s stated standard would compel him to oppose almost every possible nominee on President Trump’s public list. The litmus test is entirely counterproductive. Hawley should abandon it.
Four times since Ginsburg’s death last Friday, Hawley’s press office has tweeted or retweeted a reaffirmation of the test he first laid out in July. The terms of his pledge were quite explicit.
“I will vote only for those Supreme Court nominees who have explicitly acknowledged that Roe v. Wade is wrongly decided,” Hawley told the Washington Post in an interview. “By explicitly acknowledged, I mean on the record and before they were nominated.”….
