Posted on 12/11/2018 1:01:49 PM PST by Liberty7732
New U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has been exactly what many of us who preferred other potential high court nominees, such as Amy Coney Barrett, thought he would be — avoiding controversy and hewing too closely to stare decisis, making legal decisions based on previous legal rulings rather than the wording of the law.
And it’s possible that the dirtiest, meanest, most reprehensible of all confirmation hearings may have made him even more hesitant to take on the most controversial issues of our time — particularly the kingpin of them all: abortion.
This was revealed again Monday when the Supreme Court declined to accept two lower-court rulings that blocked states from cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood — what seems like an eminently states’ rights issue. In that decision, Kavanaugh joined one moderate justice and all of the Court’s liberal justices in letting the lower court ruling stand.
It kind of makes a farce of all the shrill hysteria about how Kavanaugh was going to return women to back-alley, coat-hanger abortions. Of course, the whole hearing and surrounding leftist circus was a sham from beginning to bitter end — including threats to try to impeach Kavanaugh.
The Washington Post reported:
New Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not join the court’s three most conservative members in calling to accept the cases. Justice Clarence Thomas rebuked his colleagues for what he said was a dodge, attributing it to their aversion to taking up the issue of abortion that lurked in the case.
“Some tenuous connection to a politically fraught issue does not justify abdicating our judicial duty,” Thomas wrote. “If anything, neutrally applying the law is all the more important when political issues are in the background.”
Thomas’s dissent from the court’s decision to pass on the case revealed a split among the court’s five conservatives: Justices Samuel Alito Jr. and Neil Gorsuch signed on to the statement. Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. did not.
Four justices are required to vote in favor of accepting a case. So essentially, Kavanaugh was the deciding vote, and he went with moderate Roberts and the liberals on the court.
So much hysteria in September. So little need.
Louisiana and Kansas announced plans to end funding for Planned Parenthood through Medicaid after an anti-abortion group released videos in 2015 that revealed Planned Parenthood executives laughingly discussing the sale of baby parts. Both were challenged in Gee v. Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast and Andersen v. Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri.
The two cases raise the issue of whether individuals receiving Medicaid — which is dispensed through each state — have a right to challenge a state’s decision to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood. Five lower courts said the recipients of Medicaid do, while one said they do not.
Typically when there is a split at the appeals court level, the Supreme Court will take the case to make the final ruling. Justice Clarence Thomas was clearly frustrated when he wrote his dissent on the decision.
“What explains the court’s refusal to do its job here? I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named ‘Planned Parenthood,” he wrote. “It is true that these particular cases arose after several states alleged that Planned Parenthood affiliates had, among other things, engaged in ‘the illegal sale of fetal organs’ and ‘fraudulent billing practices,’ and thus removed Planned Parenthood as a state Medicaid provider.”
But Thomas went on to explain this was not an abortion issue. At stake are the rights of individuals under a major federal law.
“…these cases are not about abortion rights. They are about private rights of action under the Medicaid Act. Resolving the question presented here would not even affect Planned Parenthood’s ability to challenge the states’ decisions.”
Still, Roberts and Kavanaugh ducked it. There will be more opportunities. But the trendline is not good.
If the Democrats takeaway is that even when they cannot stop a nominee they can scar the person into less conservative action, nominations will become even worse — if possible.
This is what you get when you put a strictly interpreting Justice on the Court. The case was argued very narrowly and does not apply beyond this decision, and it was judged strictly on the merits. The failure of the legislature was what was in question, not the subject of their misplaced judgment.
Re: R.B. Ginsberg and Clarence Thomas voted together more often in 2017-2018 than any other pair of Justices.
Do you have a link to that report?
Thanks.
Or it was a please don’t throw me in the briar patch thing.
This was part of his deal with Susan Collins. He honored it...
Lol — Entirely too much PREMATURE WEEPING, WAILING AND GNASHING OF TEETH in this thread.
Folks, wait and see.
What a deal. Now we are looking at the usual chuck n nancy spending with no wall funding and no repeal of obamacare.. and not a veto in sight. We have been had, as usual.
I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but this website is filled with ‘effing morons
Count me as a moron proud to stand with Justice Thomas. He basically told Kavanaugh that he’s got nothing between his legs and didn’t have the backbone to stand up to Planned Parenthood. As far as I’m concerned you can go eff yourself if you think agreeing with that opinion makes someone an effing moron.
Another Manchurian Justice in SCOTUS?
Thanks, that’s my interpretation too
It really didn’t matter, because Roberts would have just made it a 5-4 decision anyway.
I am now even more certain this man did not sexually assault women....clearly this man has no balls.
Nor do I think he was capable of fathering his wife’s children
“Roberts went from “conservative” to “moderate” in record time. Bush’s last turdgift to the American people.”
When they start as a moderate, they go hard left quickly. Example: David Souter a George W. Bush appointee.
Kavanaugh is a friend of Elena Kagan and the Bush family. Pure GOP establishment with leftist friends. For Washington insiders being part of the club is what the game is about.
Had nothing to do with abortion - dealt more with States rights to control federal money.
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.