A Supremely Important Election

10/27/2016 10:26

by Tony Perkins


The most significant policy issue of this presidential election is the question of which candidate will get to nominate one or more justices to the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia’s seat currently stands open, and more may follow. Our two options stand in stark contrast, and the candidates’ wildly differing visions were on full display in the second presidential debate:
Hillary Clinton: 

“I want a Supreme Court that will stick with Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose, and I want a Supreme Court that will stick with marriage equality… Now, Donald has put forth the names of some people that he would consider. And among the ones that he has suggested are people who would reverse Roe v. Wade and reverse marriage equality. I think that would be a terrible mistake and would take us backwards.”
Donald Trump: 

“Justice Scalia, great judge, died recently. And we have a vacancy. I am looking to appoint judges very much in the mold of Justice Scalia. I’m looking for judges — and I’ve actually picked 20 of them so that people would see, highly respected, highly thought of, and actually very beautifully reviewed by just about everybody. But people that will respect the Constitution of the United States. And I think that this is so important. Also, the Second Amendment, which is totally under siege by people like Hillary Clinton. They’ll respect the Second Amendment and what it stands for, what it represents. So important to me.”
Hillary Clinton has clearly taken the position that she will appoint a pro-abortion justice who will make sure Roe v. Wade stays the law of the land, and unborn babies will continue to be killed in the womb. She also will make sure her nominees uphold the lawless same-sex marriage ruling which took power out of the hands of people in the states.

In contrast, Donald Trump expressly stated he will “appoint judges very much in the mold of Justice Scalia.” That alone should end the discussion. Justice Scalia was a committed constitutionalist who upheld the rule of law and respected the separation of powers. He applied a jurisprudence Americans could trust, and could feel comfortable submitting to. Regardless of Justice Scalia’s personal views, he never “read them into” any constitutional provisions. This is the type of justice we need now, and it’s saying something that Donald Trump has proposed a list of 20 potential nominees who come pretty close to the mold of Justice Scalia.

Even Hillary Clinton recognized this when she noted that Donald Trump’s nominees “would reverse Roe v. Wade and reverse marriage equality.” What she means is not that they would be seated on the Court and immediately unilaterally enacting their policy preferences (they can’t -- even though the Left’s nominees strive toward such an aim in their jurisprudence), but rather that they would judge in a restrained manner, leaving power to the people in the states, and respect the separation of powers. What’s more, Trump highlighted the need for a nominee to respect the Second Amendment -- an important reminder that individual rights must be protected in this age of ever-encroaching government.

So, let’s summarize our decision. On one hand, we can choose with near-certainty from an identified list of potential nominees someone who will absolutely respect the Constitution and its vision of how to properly distribute governmental power -- this will include banishing the notion that abortion is somehow a constitutional “right.” On the other hand, we can choose a candidate who has expressly declared her intention to put forward nominees keeping a “right” to kill unborn children on the books, who claim they follow a “living constitution” and contort the document into something that it’s not. Let us be clear: this is a harmful philosophy that will result in an erosion of liberty across the board as the justices she nominates grab ever more power.

If Secretary Clinton wants her nominees to play so fast and loose with the text on the abortion issue, what else will they do to our liberties? Will other rights like religious freedom or the Second Amendment be safe in their hands? Her presidency will certainly mean an era of encroaching and suffocating government power accomplished in the name of “evolving rights” which are imposed unlawfully on a majority of American citizens -- to the diminishment of rights clearly expressed in the Constitution! On the other hand, the type of nominees that Donald Trump has said he will advance will protect our constitutional rights and restore a proper understanding of how the Constitution allocates power. This is the choice before us.
DISCLAIMER: Tony Perkins is supporting a candidate in his individual and personal capacity only, and it should not be construed or interpreted in any way as the endorsement of FRC, FRC Action, or any affiliated entity.