CNN reports that the ultra-liberal Andrew Hurwitz, the self-proclaimed “intellect” behind Roe vs. Wade, will be sent on to Obama for appointment following today’s Senate cloture vote:
“The Senate Monday voted narrowly to end a filibuster of President Barack Obama’s pick for the California-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after a key Republican argued the judge was too sympathetic to criminal defendants and, based on his writings about Roe v. Wade, might be a judicial activist. By a vote of 60 to 31, the Senate got the minimum number of votes needed to move forward on the nomination of Andrew Hurwitz, a justice currently serving on the Supreme Court of Arizona.”
Senate.gov shows that the minimum number of votes to move Hurtwitz on to his certain confirmation was supplied by several RINO’s including Alaska’s very own Lisa Murkowski.
Hurwitz’s elevation to the U.S. Court Appeals with Murkowski’s vote will move the Ninth Circuit even further to the left. Hurwitz is so far outside the mainstream that the House Republican Study Committee (RSC) took the unusual approach of sending a letter to the Senate, urging his rejection. The RSC letter stated that –
“Roe stands almost undisputed as an unprecedented judicial usurpation of legislative authority in its fabrication of a “right” to abortion—a “right” that had never before existed in the Constitution. Yet Mr. Hurwitz continues to distinguish himself among legal scholars of all stripes by standing almost entirely alone in his continued defense of what he calls “careful and meticulous analysis of the competing constitutional issues.” Despite ample time and experience as both a lawyer and a judge, Mr. Hurwitz continues to hold firmly to these erroneous views.
Additionally, Mr. Hurwitz repeated this trend in his arguments to the Supreme Court in Ring v. Arizona. Acting as a pro-bono attorney, Mr. Hurwitz suggested that the Supreme Court change the wording of the Constitution in order to arrive at a ruling based on his beliefs, not on the rule of law. These two examples illustrate significant divergence from the standard we believe life-tenured federal judges should follow in deciding questions of law and fact.
Seldom does the Senate have the opportunity to review a nominee whose views on Roe v. Wade are so clearly known. Far more rarely, do you as Senators have the opportunity to consider a judge who proudly claims their significant contributions to the creation of that opinion, and the invention of “Constitutional” protection for abortion. A nominee like Mr. Hurwitz who played so notable a role in one of the most significant exercises of judicial activism in our nation’s history must not be confirmed.”