Posted on 07/06/2018 9:08:23 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
My take too!
French is as vile a Never Trumper as there is.
But he is actually pathetic in this article. Kavanaugh has a lengthy judicial record. Many of the others don’t. He may have erred in those two cases, but how many errors would the others have made? And, what other best options among the similarly experienced are there?
Hard to make a case that Kavanaugh isn’t the best choice based on these two presumed flaws—when French either can’t or doesn’t bother to present the specifics of whom he thinks a better alternative.
I agree, but the name that stands out to me continues to be Thomas Hardiman.
I think a lot of emotion is being ginned up over the other candidates, and I would love to hear that Barrett is the choice. But what might be happening is tremendous energy is being spent by the liberals and the outcome would be to know they would resist any highly qualified nominee.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/judge-brett-kavanaugh-religious-liberty-warrior/
Whether you agree with him or not — and many liberals do not — Judge Kavanaugh has been a steadfast and fearless supporter of religious liberty for decades. When he was in private practice in the 1990s, he chaired the Federalist Society’s Religious Liberty practice group and worked pro bono on cases defending religious freedom. He wrote pro bono amicus briefs defending religious believers in high-profile Supreme Court cases. He represented a synagogue pro bono in a local zoning dispute. He advocated for the selection of judges who protect religious liberty. And as a judge himself, his record of defending religious liberty is unparalleled. His dissenting opinion in Priests for Life v. HHS, where he concluded that the Obama administration’s contraceptive mandate violated the rights of religious organizations, was called “pure perfection” by one of the lawyers challenging the mandate.
The allegations of the Federalist poster are baseless. They include an objection to Judge Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion in Newdow v. Roberts, which concluded that presidential inaugural prayers don’t violate the establishment clause. After grudgingly admitting that Judge Kavanaugh’s “analysis on the merits . . . seems fine,” the poster complains that he should have found that the plaintiffs, who had plans to attend the inauguration, lacked standing. But as Judge Kavanaugh pointed out, the Supreme Court had addressed countless similar establishment-clause cases on the merits, and not a single justice — not even Justices Scalia and Thomas — had “ever contended that the plaintiffs [in those cases] lacked standing.” To conclude otherwise, Judge Kavanaugh would have had to assume that every justice had “repeatedly overlooked a major standing problem and decided a plethora of highly controversial and divisive Establishment Clause cases unnecessarily and inappropriately.” That he was unwilling to do so shows only that he understood his role as a lower-court judge bound to follow Supreme Court precedent.
Next, the poster critiques Judge Kavanaugh’s Priests for Life dissent. The poster can’t deny that his dissent is a powerful defense of religious liberty, including the principle that courts can’t “second-guess[] the correctness or the reasonableness” of a plaintiff’s sincere religious beliefs. The poster’s only complaint is that Judge Kavanaugh acknowledged that a majority of the Supreme Court (Justice Kennedy plus the four dissenters in Hobby Lobby v. Burwell) had “strongly suggested” that the government had a compelling interest in facilitating women’s access to contraception. Judge Kavanaugh was right: In his concurring opinion in Hobby Lobby, Justice Kennedy went out of his way to signal that he thought the government had a “legitimate and compelling interest.” By affording appropriate respect to Justice Kennedy’s view on that issue and explaining why the Obama administration’s policy still violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Judge Kavanaugh likely helped win Justice Kennedy’s vote to overturn the decision of the D.C. Circuit Court.
_________
Remember, Kavanaugh helped Clintons by intimidating Vince Foster witness
Brett Kavanaugh --
http://www.dcdave.com/article5/070909.htm ---
Intimidation of Patrick Knowlton (The inconvenient Witness at Fort Marcy Park)
(snip) -- “ As a last resort, Knowlton prepared a "Report of Witness Tampering" and took it personally to the Office of the Independent Counsel. "It was their responsibility, at the very least, to find out who leaked word of his subpoena," notes Evans-Pritchard. According to Evans-Pritchard, John Bates responded by calling security and having Knowlton removed from the building.
Perhaps the most telling indication of Starr's attitude toward Knowlton is the humiliating cross-examination to which this brave man was subjected before the grand jury. Knowlton says that he was "treated like a suspect."
PROSECUTOR BRETT KAVANAUGH appeared to be trying to imply that Knowlton was a homosexual who was cruising Fort Marcy Park for sex. Regarding the suspicious Hispanic-looking man he had seen guarding the park entrance, Kavanaugh asked, Did he "pass you a note?" Did he "touch your genitals?"
Knowlton flew into a rage at Kavanaugh's insinuations. Evans-Pritchard writes that several African American jurors burst into laughter at the spectacle, rocking "back and forth as if they were at a Baptist revival meeting.
Kavanaugh was unable to reassert his authority. The grand jury was laughing at him. The proceedings were out of control."
It was at that point, reports Evans-Pritchard, that Patrick Knowlton was finally compelled to confront the obvious: "the Office of the Independent Counsel was itself corrupt." (pp. 106-107)”
******************************
This is Brett KAVANAUGH.
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.