In spite of the left’s phony hysteria, Justice Brett Kavanaugh was molded in the image of Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy and voted nearly in lockstep with Judge Merrick Garland, who was nominated to the Supreme Court by former President Barack Obama, in the District Court.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, gave a very detailed defense of why Kavanaugh was liberal enough for her to vote to confirm him, citing Kavanaugh’s judicial record:
- He is pro-Obamacare.
- He is in favor of the expansion of federal power over the Fourth Amendment restrictions.
- His attachment to precedent makes him very unlikely to overturn Roe v. Wade or any other opinion he feels is settled precedent.
A reasoned view of all the issues that have been highlighted by the political narrative proves that his opinions will very likely be no different than Kennedy’s.
I therefore don’t see a tremendous change for the Supreme Court. Neil Gorsuch is the justice who probably moved the court more toward the Constitution, as he holds the Constitution as the ultimate standard, where Kavanaugh holds court precedent higher than the Constitution.
Kavanaugh’s appointment does not so much move the court as it does stabilize the court as it has existed for many decades — or at least until Ginsberg retires and Trump nominates another justice.
It is unfortunate that Kavanaugh’s confirmation was turned into a political tool for votes. We know this is the truth because his presence on the Supreme Court is absolutely no threat to any of the Democrats’ judicial idols.
And both sides will now benefit in November from the unnecessary turmoil created by this political theater.
After Justice Elena Kagan made a statement regarding the code of civility practiced by Supreme Court justices, the left has been asserting that Kavanaugh will somehow disrupt that tradition.
Let’s be clear: The justices are not going to start brawling with one another. That’s just not how the court operates. They hear the arguments, ask their questions and issue their opinions.
They are not constantly in the spotlight having to make speeches and triangulate public opinion like elected politicians, so I don’t see some kind of partisan infighting erupting in the Supreme Court.
We know from the relationships of past justices that justices are capable of holding very disparate ideologies but behaving in a professional and civil manner. Kavanaugh’s behavior in the Senate hearings, where he was being personally attacked, cannot reasonably be considered a predictor of his behavior in a court hearing where a panel of judges are deciding the legal outcome of cases.
Even former Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who could not have been more different ideologically, were reported to be very good friends.
Additionally, pick up any Supreme Court decision written by Kagan, Ginsberg or even Kennedy, and you will see that partisanship already manifests itself in their published opinions, if not in their personal interactions. So claims that Kavanaugh will somehow insert a foreign element of “partisan bias” into the Supreme Court are laughable.
The entire experience of the Senate hearings may have a lasting effect upon Kavanaugh, but not in the way the left is trying to propose.
What we may find is a Justice Kavanaugh with a stronger affinity for the constitutional standards of privacy and property. Through this horrific personal experience, Kavanaugh may have become more empathetic toward those whose rights have been violated by out-of-control, nearly unlimited government power.
He may therefore in the future have a new found appreciation for the principles that limit and define government authority to the protection of the rights of the people.
That would not be a bad thing.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.