Right-wing judicial activists have eagerly lauded Hawley, fallaciously believing that his assessment of Rao’s jurisprudence was teleological and not based on legal principle. Even worse, they’ve attacked the very idea that Rao could be “a Cato Institute-style libertarian who is pro-abortion, pro-redefining marriage, and pro-open borders who understands that none of those objectives are in the Constitution.” Not only is this not the case in reality, but it wouldn’t even matter if it were given Rao’s demonstrative jurisprudence.

Just as Booker was downright tyrannical for insinuating that Rao doesn’t belong on the bench if she personally opposes same-sex relations, it would be equally egregious for a so-called limited-government conservative to oppose Rao if she happened to personally be pro-choice — which, again, there is zero evidence she is — so long as she might be able to distinguish between that political view on abortion and the idea that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey are constitutional monstrosities that need to be overturned. This is not about results, it’s about constitutional principles, as opposed to the Left’s results-based judicial activism.