Go back and read his second opinion on it. Heres a new one from
The Federalist.
The Federalist just came out against Kavansugh on a decision where he ruled an atheist had standing to sue because he was offended by the ‘So help me GOD’ portion of the presidential oath. In other words if a snowflake is offended by anything we say they can sue us into bankruptcy. This whack job is toast.
https://thefederalist.com/2...
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 Societys 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 administrations 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 Kavanaughs concurring opinion in Newdow v. Roberts, which concluded that presidential inaugural prayers dont violate the establishment clause. After grudgingly admitting that Judge Kavanaughs 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 Kavanaughs Priests for Life dissent. The poster cant deny that his dissent is a powerful defense of religious liberty, including the principle that courts cant second-guess[] the correctness or the reasonableness of a plaintiffs sincere religious beliefs. The posters 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 womens 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 Kennedys view on that issue and explaining why the Obama administrations policy still violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Judge Kavanaugh likely helped win Justice Kennedys vote to overturn the decision of the D.C. Circuit Court.