with overwhelming bipartisan support in 1993 and was signed into law by bill clinton and two decades later, the party determined that the freedom is inconvenient for policy and political objectives and want justices that will further that assault on religious liberty. let s take the second amendment. the presidential debates, hillary clinton promised to nominate justice to overturn helder versus district of columbia. helder is the landmark decision issued by justice scalia, lakely the most significant decision of his tenure on the bench and it upheld the individual right to keep and bear arms. hillary clinton was quite explicit. she wanted judges to overturn helder and a number of colleagues, that s what they want as well. overturning helder would be a radical proposition. you have to understand what they inside helder. they said that the second
that seat. the late justice antonin ka scalia. the supreme court seat was directly on the ballot. both candidates knew the experience of the vacant seat and it was a major issue of contention in the presidential election. donald trump and hillary clinton were both clear about what kind of justices and judges they would appoint. during all three debates, both were asked what qualities were important to them when selecting a justice. secretary clinton s answer was clear. she wanted a justice who would be a liberal progressive willing to rewrite the constitution and impose liberal policy agendas that she could not get through the democratic process and the congress of the united states would not adopt. that she hoped five unelected lawyers would force on the
american people. that s what hillary clinton promised for her nominees. candidate trump said he was looking to appoint judges in the mold of justice scalia and judges to interpret the constitution based on the original public meeting for the statutes according to the text and uphold the rule of law and treat parties fairly regardless of who they are and where they come from. then candidate donald trump also did something that no candidate has done before. he published a list of nominees he would choose from when filling the seat, providing unprecedented transparency to the american people. all of this was laid before the american people as they went to the polls on november 8th, 2016. and the american people made a choice that night. my democratic colleagues are not happy with the choice of american people made, but as
reach if confirmed to the supreme court. history shows over the better part of a century the committee created something of a new norm. a norm in which members demand that nominees speak about specific cases in return for favorable treatment from the committee as the jurists are going through the process. nominees for the most part, have gracefully resisted confirmation in exchange for promises about how they will vote in particular cases. to give two famous examples, justice scalia refused to say whether mar bury versus madison was settled law on the ground it could come before him and sure enough in ortiz visit united states, they implicated the scope of mar bury. likewise, justice ruth bader beginsburg had no previews, no