Posted on 10/14/2018 11:21:46 AM PDT by Kaslin
Many conservative friends could not contain their excitement when the final vote for Judge Kavanaugh was announced. Many rushed to their Twitter account to predict that Roe v. Wade would soon be consigned to the ash heap of history.
The histrionics of the looney left mirrored the excitement on the right. We smiled at the scenes of unhinged demonstrators pounding on the metal doors of the Supreme Court. Those scenes will be remembered for a long time.
We will also remember the anticipation, waiting for the 3:00 announcement of Maines Senator Susan Collins. When she finally delivered her speech on the floor of the Senate, neither side could wait for her conclusion. It was high drama. Her remarks were both reasoned and principled. Whatever you may think about Senator Collins, she is her own person. She did what a Senator is expected to do. She asked tough questions and listened carefully to the answers. She was not intimidated by the hate-filled, angry mob. She came to her own conclusions and announced them in calm and measured tones.
It was branded as one of the greatest Senate speeches in recent memory. That may say something about the quality of the oratory of her contemporaries. But, it was a good speech. She used a razor to slice through the disgusting muck that Democrats had thrown at this good man.
The Left predictably and immediately unleashed fire, furry and vitriol. They pledged millions to defeat her in her next election. Traitor! She would be forever banished from the feminist plantation. How could she turn her back on her gender?
The Right just as predictably heaped high praise on her. She had become a genuine statesman (stateswoman?) in their eyes. Carving a special place in history.
What both sides seemed to have missed is what she actually had said leading up to her historic announcement. She recounted the nearly three hours, both in her office and on the phone, that she had spent with the Judge. Senator Collins reviewed the questions she had asked and how he had answered them. Those answers should give pause to the celebrants and comfort to his detractors.
We have been repeatedly assured that Brett Kavanaugh is a solid constitutional conservative. That he will be a critical ally in the drive to restore sanity to the court. This is a court that from campaign finance to gay marriage to ObamaCare has been an embarrassing disappointment. All of those decisions were decided by Republican appointees. Justices that we had been assured would be solid. To say that they have tried to steer clear of matters that should have been decided by accountable elected officials is laughable.
Review for yourself and listen carefully to what the Senior Senator from Maine told us at https://youtu.be/LJRdMh1XhAY
She repeatedly called Judge Kavanaugh a centrist. She reinforced that point with several examples. On over 93% of the cases jointly decided, he and Judge Merrick Garland concurred. Was it a Garland fellow traveler that we had in mind? Lisa Black, who clerked for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg and has argued more cases in front of the Supreme Court than any other woman, offered high praise for Kavanaugh. Black is a self-professed staunch defender of Roe and said that he fits within the mainstream of legal thought.
Kavanaugh called Marbury v. Madison one of the four greatest Supreme Court rulings. This is the bedrock ruling upon which all judicial activism is built.
Hmmm?
Senator Collins reminded us that Kavanaugh had tried to find middle ground on the matter of forcing religious orders to offer contraceptives to employees. Fine. But, he went further. He offered that this was settled law citing Griswold v. Connecticut and that the government had a compelling interest in facilitating access to birth control.
Compelling interest? Access? Really?
But, it was his reverence to precedents that was most troubling. Collins clearly probed deeply on the 45 year old Roe decision. He told her that past decisions become part of our legal framework. He added that precedents are not merely judicial policy, not a goal, but a constitutional tenant. That they were not to be trimmed, narrowed or overlooked. When she asked about Planned Parenthood v. Casey, (a decision co-authored by Justice David Souter) he told her that it was precedent on precedent.
Somehow legendary philosopher Yogi Berra comes to mind. Is this deja vu all over again?
We can all celebrate that Justice Kavanaugh survived the ruthless assault on his character. But, exactly what kind of a Justice he will become remains an open question.
It perfectly demonstrated the heart of the Demon party where any dissent must be attacked with hysterical force.
Now that they have done this with even a questionable nomination any others will just show this even more. They should remember The Bow Who Cried Wolf.
For a Circuit Court judge, a Supreme Court ruling that has been reiterated more than once is a binding precedent, the “settled law.”
It would be judicial activism for a Circuit Court to try to overturn, out of whole cloth, such a precedent.
But the reach of justices on the Supreme Court is greater. Nonetheless, justices who are judicial activists try not to overturn precedent willy-nilly. Neither do they rule on issues not before them.
It will take a well-crafted case that strikes at the heart of Roe’s holding for someone like Kavanaugh (or Roberts) to overturn it. And I think both would be hesitant to overturn it with only five votes. It may take until Barrett is on the Court.
From my reading of Kavenaugh's separate opinions, I'd say he's going to be one that will put more faith in precedent than I probably would. I would also bet that he's going to be one of the alleged 'law and order' types that leans over backward for the government when the government is pushing the limits of its power. Don't expect him to do anything that might reign in things like asset forfeiture. I also don't expect him to do much, if anything to support overturning Roe v Wade. I expect he'll be good on the 2nd amendment, but probably more wishy-washy on the 4th and 5th amendments, especially when they might possibly encroach upon the perceived 'needs of the state'.
From our perspective, I think he'll be an overall plus for getting some cases on the docket that might otherwise have not made it due to liberal opposition.
We'll see. The term's only starting, and there will likely be lots of stuff that can be looked at in greater detail as things get moving on it.
Justice John Roberts buckled under the Obama pressure to move his fraudulent medical care forward...I have more faith in Kavanaugh, however, we'll just wait and see.
That is too horrifying to contemplate.
Well, if hes a moderate, hes one that has been mugged. Remember the maxim?
“Im pretty sure his attitude has changed since he saw the democrats accuse him of gang rape. Payback is a bitch.”
Karma may wear a black robe.
Hell yes.
precedentist.
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above."precentist"
Well, we’ll see, I guess. Souter was a total joke, but I suspect Kavanaugh will consider liberal precedents with a jaundiced eye, considering the hateful beating that he took from the Dems. Hopefully, that will be the case.
Originalist is not a word either according to my spell check and yet is in common usage here.
I’m expecting he’ll be better than Souter, better than O’Connor, better than Kennedy, but that’s about it.
Clarence Thomas’ thousand watt grin during the Kavanaugh swearing in, as well as RBG’s grim glower, spoke volumes about the new Justice.
And Thomas gets the time to do extensive judicial review of hundreds of cases from where?
IMHO, overturning Roe v. Wade is a generational battle on par with abolishing slavery in the 19th Century and getting rid of Jim Crow in the 20th. If getting Barrett on the court does that and nothing else, I’m good.
Well, Hillary could have picked a Eric Holder as a nominee!
GOP would have confirmed him...too...
........................................
True.
The GOP rubberstamps whoever the Democrat appoints.
They never return the favor, though.
His written decisions on 2nd Amendment cases sealed the deal for me. No, he is not going to overturn Roe v. Wade. No one will. Right or wrong, it has been in place too long to simply reverse. However, I do believe that he will chip around the base of it just like the left continually chips around the base of the 2nd Amendment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.