In November the commander-in-chief nominated pro-abortion radical Andrew Hurwitz to fill a vacancy on the San-Francisco-based appellate court. In late January Hurwitz appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee and his nomination was reported to the full Senate in March. He must be confirmed by the full Senate, which gives lawmakers a great opportunity to keep another liberal activist away from the federal bench.

Hurwitz currently sits on the Arizona Supreme Court. He got that job in 2003 thanks to then Governor Janet Napolitano, now Obama’s Secretary of Homeland Security. In a letter asking senators to vote against Hurwitz, a Texas congressman (the House doesn’t participate in the process) points out the following; Hurwitz played a key role authoring two 1972 decisions which are clearly reflected and expanded upon in the Supreme Court’s infamous abortion ruling on Roe. v. Wade.

The landmark decision stands almost undisputed as an unprecedented judicial usurpation of legislative authority in its fabrication of a right to abortion that had never before existed in the Constitution, the congressman writes. He further points out that, as an attorney, Hurwitz suggested that the Supreme Court change the Constitution’s language to arrive at a ruling based on his beliefs rather than the rule of law. “These two examples illustrate significant divergences from the standard we believe life-tenured federal judges should follow in deciding questions of law and fact.”

Hurwitz’s nomination is scheduled for debate and a vote this afternoon. The Senate Judiciary Committee’s ranking Republican, Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, tells a legal publication that it’s impossible to read Judge Hurwitz’s article and not conclude that he wholeheartedly embraces Roe, and importantly, the constitutional arguments supporting it. Grassley further points out that Hurwitz wasn’t a young college student when he wrote the pro Roe article, but rather a well-established and seasoned attorney 30 years out of law school.