During last night’s Republican presidential debate, pro-life Florida Sen. Marco Rubio laid out his agenda for the kind of nation he wants to see and one he will try to lead the country to if elected president. And Rubio clearly wants a pro-life nation.
Our culture’s in trouble. Wrong is considered right and right is considered wrong.
All the things that once held our families together are now under constant assault. And around the world, America’s reputation is in decline. Our allies don’t trust us, our adversaries don’t fear us, Iran captures our sailors and parades them before the world on video.
These are difficult times but 2016 can be a turning point. That’s why I’m running for president and that’s why I’m here today to ask you for your vote. If you elect me president, we are going to re- embrace free enterprise so that everyone can go as far as their talent and their work will take them.
We are going to be a country that says that, “life begins at conception and life is worthy of the protection of our laws.” We are going to be a country that says, “the constitution and the rights that it talks about do not come from our president, they come from our creator.”
During the debate, Rubio also talked about the passing of pro-life Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Rubio pointed out the importance of the Supreme Court in light of the passing of pro-life Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. His death underscores the importance for electing a pro-life president — as the next president will appoint at least one and likely multiple judges to the nation’s highest court — judges who will set the future for abortion in the Untied States.
Well, let me first talk about Justice Scalia. His loss is tremendous and obviously our hearts and prayers go out to his family. He will go down as one of the great justices in the history of this republic.
You talk about someone who defended consistently the original meaning of the Constitution, who understood that the Constitution was not there to be interpreted based on the fads of the moment, but it was there to be interpreted according to its original meaning.
Justice Scalia understood that better than anyone in the history of this republic. His dissent, for example, on the independent counsel case is a brilliant piece of jurist work. And, of course, his dissent on Obergefell as well.
Number two, I do not believe the president should appoint someone. And it’s not unprecedented. In fact, it has been over 80 years since a lame duck president has appointed a Supreme Court justice.
And it remind us of this, how important this election is. Someone on this stage will get to choose the balance of the Supreme Court, and it will begin by filling this vacancy that’s there now.
And we need to put people on the bench that understand that the Constitution is not a living and breathing document. It is to be interpreted as originally meant.