“I would be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things. It should be a state's rights issue. That's the way it should have been ruled, not the way they did.”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Free — it takes a minute. New here? Create an account and complete the Contributor Agreement once.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
Both cited sources were fetched and verify the outcome. (1) The Cornell LII page for Dobbs v. Jackson (PRIMARY) is reachable and contains the exact holding quoted: the Constitution "does not confer a right to abortion," Roe and Casey are "overruled," and "the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives," with the Alito majority joined by Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett — the three Trump appointees among the five. (2) The Pew Research page (REPUTABLE_SECONDARY) is reachable and confirms Trump appointed "more than 200 judges to the federal bench," names the three Supreme Court justices (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett), and states he "appointed 54 federal appellate judges in four years." Both quotes appear verbatim; neither is fabricated. The outcome rests on two documented facts — Trump made the appointments, and those appointees joined a decision returning a major social issue to the states — both of which the sources support. CHAMPIONED (active driving of the judge-appointment mechanism, beyond a passive minimum) is not overstated: the rationale is candid that the 2016 quote's original context was same-sex marriage/Obergefell, which was NOT overturned, and it appropriately downgrades from FULL to CHAMPIONED because the states'-rights realization came instead via abortion in Dobbs. Rating upheld.
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.