John Cornyn, the senior US Senator from Texas had an article, dare I say a hit piece, written about him on Empower Texans about the upcoming Supreme Court pick by President Donald Trump. In the article he was quoted as saying,..."Cornyn cautioned Trump against selecting any nominee with a publicly stated position on overturning court precedents such as Roe v. Wade.” He goes on to further explain his opinion, “I think that would be a terrible mistake, for the president to nominate somebody who had that sort of agenda,” he said adding that “we don’t need judges who have either personal or political or ideological agendas, in my view. And I think that ought to comfort all of us.”
Alright, now let's think about this objectively before we get emotional. I know, it's hard to do in politics, but it's necessary. Would you want someone with a preconceived agenda, even if you agreed with it? My answer, NO. Judges are supposed to be impartial. They aren't supposed to announce ahead of time on how they would rule on any case. We as conservatives always cry out about 'legislating from the bench' or that we're concerned that whomever is nominated has an agenda. That's where our hypocrisy rears its ugly head. Oh, I'm sorry, I'm not supposed to point out the hypocrisy on the 'right' side of things.
The thing about Empower Texans and, well, ALL of us is that we're writing articles that simply confirm our own bias. Like in the video Keynes vs. Hayek Rap Battle Round Two, when Hayek says, "Are they doing real science or confirming their bias?" I think that's something that we could apply to this situation here. Read the article that Empower Texans wrote here and decide for yourself.
A Facebook friend says it even better than I could, so I've included his comment here, " Cornyn’s conservative credentials or the lack thereof aside, the headline is misleading. Cornyn did not tell Trump not to nominate a pro-life justice, he “cautioned Trump against selecting any nominee with a publicly stated position on overturning court precedents such as Roe v. Wade.”
Justice Willet has made this same statement time and time again, judges should not declare how they will rule on any case until they hear the case in front of them, just as Scalia did before him. Cornyn was saying that there is a difference between a pro-life judge and one who declares ahead of time that they are actively seeking to overturn any specific precedent, regardless of which one it is."
What happened to objectivity? I guess that's gone by the wayside along with manners and civil discourse. Honestly, I'm writing this as someone who cares deeply for the health of the Republican party and for our unification efforts going forward into November. Empower Texans seems that they are only capable of attacking Republicans, not ever attempting to bolster the Republican ticket in order to help defeat Democrats. I guess that's what happens when your group has only a single financial backer and they have an agenda. Ironic, isn't it?
I agree with him on this....now let me wash the hands that just typed those words. At the risk of being accused of being more of a cynic that I know I am, I am very concerned that Cornyn will use this position as a wedge to justify turning to approving of a liberal judge appointment as proof of his "fairness". I don't trust him, but I cannot disagree with his point. As someone we love once said "trust but verify".
ReplyDeleteJust give me someone who knows how the constitution and logic works, and I'll be happy.
With all due respect, Senator Cornyn has NO position to tell ANYONE ANYTHING. While giving his speech at the Texas State Convention, he(Cornyn) could not give a single example of ANY thing he has done, other than the silly John Wayne Cornyn song done to the tune of Big John. He bragged on all the thing President Trump has done. I know you mean well, but, Please don't defend him on anything!
ReplyDelete^^^ Way to pay attention to the post's point there >.<
ReplyDeleteI can understand the concept, but let me make something clear: I'm a Republican because of the pro-life issue. In the 45 years since Roe v. Wade, Democrat presidents have appointed a grand total of 4 justices to the Supreme Court (two by Slick Willie, two by Obama). Republican presidents have appointed all the rest. We've been stuck with turkeys like Souter and Kennedy. Republicans have the White House and the Senate. We've already gone nuclear once this term. There is no reason we shouldn't be able to put a pro-lifer on the court.
ReplyDeleteThe democrats are unapologetically pro-abort (or their word pro choice).
The nominee has three options:
Say what their position is, and let the votes go as they may
Refuse to answer.
Lie about their position, like Kagan did about same sex marriage.
In the meantime, I'm still feeling like Charlie Brown, being told to kick a football.
I'm Tom Zakes, and I approve this message.