Fact Check: "Trump's judicial picks openly held anti-LGBTQ views."
What We Know
During Donald Trump's presidency, several judicial nominees were scrutinized for their views on LGBTQ rights. One prominent example is Jeff Mateer, who was nominated for a federal judgeship in Texas. Before his nomination, Mateer publicly opposed a local ordinance that aimed to extend equal protections to the LGBTQ community. He has made numerous controversial statements, including claiming that transgender children are evidence of “Satan’s plan” and that same-sex marriage could lead to other “disgusting” practices, such as polygamy and bestiality. In a 2015 speech, he stated, “Guess what, I attend a conservative Baptist church. We discriminate, right? On the basis of sexual orientation, we discriminate” (Washington Post).
Mateer's views have drawn significant criticism from LGBTQ rights organizations, which argue that his beliefs indicate a bias that would affect his ability to serve impartially as a judge. Following the surfacing of his past statements, 36 LGBTQ groups urged the Senate to withdraw his nomination (Washington Post).
Analysis
The claim that Trump's judicial picks openly held anti-LGBTQ views is supported by the evidence surrounding nominees like Jeff Mateer. His statements reflect a clear bias against LGBTQ individuals, particularly in his discussions about transgender rights and same-sex marriage. The reliability of the sources discussing Mateer's views is high, as they include reputable outlets like the Washington Post and CNN, which have documented his speeches and public statements extensively (Washington Post).
Moreover, a report from Lambda Legal indicates that a significant portion of Trump's confirmed judicial nominees have a history of anti-LGBTQ bias, with nearly 40% of his appeals court judges falling into this category (NBC News). This data corroborates the claims regarding the overall trend of judicial appointments during Trump's administration, suggesting a systematic pattern of selecting individuals with anti-LGBTQ views.
While some may argue that judicial nominees should be evaluated solely on their legal qualifications, the documented statements and actions of nominees like Mateer raise serious concerns about their ability to uphold the rights of all citizens, particularly marginalized groups.
Conclusion
The claim that "Trump's judicial picks openly held anti-LGBTQ views" is True. The evidence presented, particularly regarding Jeff Mateer's statements and the broader context of Trump's judicial appointments, supports this assertion. The documented history of bias among several nominees indicates a clear trend that aligns with the claim.
