I'll admit that I wasn't too happy when Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley announced his candidacy for the US Senate. After all, Hawley had only been AG for two years. But so far, Hawley's been really impressive.
This week I’ve drawn fire from various quarters of the Washington establishment for daring to ask a simple question: whether a judicial nominee will follow what the Constitution says, not what they want it to say. You wouldn’t think that would be controversial but, well, it’s Washington. And I’ve got some news for Washington: I’m going to keep asking.
President Trump was elected thanks to his pledge to put judges on the bench who respect life and won’t make stuff up in the Constitution. He has kept his word. I made the same commitment to the people of Missouri, and I’m going to keep my word too. That means vetting judicial nominees carefully to ensure they are qualified and ready to sit on the most important courts of our country.
I’ve been a judicial clerk at the U.S. Supreme Court, litigated there and in many other courts, and proudly served as Missouri’s attorney general. I know what a strong constitutional judge should do and say, and I’m not going to let other people, and certainly not the Washington establishment, do my thinking for me.
So I will be asking every appellate court nominee where he or she stands on the Constitution, and especially on the doctrine called “substantive due process.” That strange phrase stands for a dangerous doctrine in constitutional law that has allowed power-hungry judges to invent new “implied rights” out of thin air and usurp the will of We the People. It’s the doctrine used to justify Roe v. Wade and all manner of other judicial adventurism.
I want to know where nominees stand on this made-up doctrine. And I’m not going to vote for any nominee who would expand it. Lower-court judges are of course bound by Supreme Court precedents, including the bad ones. They don’t have any choice. But anybody willing to expand substantive due process won’t have my support for the federal bench.
As someone who believes deeply in the right to life and the equal dignity of every person, including the unborn, confirming judges who will resist the siren song of judicial lawmaking is especially important. All too often, lower courts have used substantive due process to stop states and local governments from protecting the unborn, even when Supreme Court case law would allow it.
Hawley's not up for reelection until 2022. But keep an eye on this kid. I've got a feeling that you're going to hear from him a lot.
3 comments:
I have read he's taking a close look at Neomi Rao for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. I have no problem with his taking a close look at any and all nominees. More power to him. From what I read, Rao is strongly in favor of reining in the administrative state, so I kind of hope he'll approve of her.
I agree. Hopefully, all this will be cleared up when the two of them meet. But I like the fact that Hawley's asking questions and not taking anyone else's word for what the answers to those questions might be.
He voted for her in committee today, so evidently in their second meeting she answered his questions satisfactorily.
Post a Comment