Replies

Kavanaugh also wrote in his dissent that Supreme Court precedent "strongly suggests that the government has a compelling interest in facilitating access to contraception for the employees of these religious organizations."

You would need context to understand why he said this.

An originalist could certainly make the above observation -- and then go on to explain that it is not in keeping with the limited government laid out in the Constitution, and so precedent needs to go out the window.

An originalist could certainly make the above observation -- and then go on to explain that it is not in keeping with the limited government laid out in the Constitution, and so precedent needs to go out the window.

Hopefully he said something just like that.

If he did not, question marks arise!

> You would need context to understand why he said this.

Very true. I don’t know the context and don’t agree with the result, but I can see the possibility
1) Congress passed a law
2) SC allowed the law
3) Executive branch implemented the law (with this regulation)

I think precedent says a lower court judge needs to defer to the agency implementing the court-approved legislation in this case. And if the agency claims a “compelling interest” it should stand whether or not the lower court judge agrees. Congress, not a judge, would need to clarify if it wasn’t what they intended. This would be the opposite of “legislating from the bench” if he disagreed with the legislation and implementation but applied the law against his wishes. The supreme court would be the one that needs to change the precedent to respect the federal agency’s decision.