The Conservative Case Against Brett Kavanaugh’s Nomination to the Supreme Court

Printed from: https://newbostonpost.com/2018/10/03/the-conservative-case-against-brett-kavanaughs-nomination-to-the-supreme-court/

I did not support the nomination of Neil Gorsuch by President Donald Trump to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court in order to fill the vacancy caused by the death of former associate justice Antonin Scalia. What prevented me from supporting Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court was when Gorsuch himself said “A Fetus is Not a Person” and that he accepted Roe v. Wade as the law of the land at his confirmation hearing. Donald Trump and the GOP-controlled Senate made a mistake by nominating and confirming Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Now that Trump has nominated Brett Kavanaugh to succeed former associate justice Anthony Kennedy, I believe the GOP will be like the fool that repeats its folly if the Senate confirms Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

The left-wing Democrats predictably opposed Kavanaugh’s nomination. The Left is so opposed to anything Trump proposes, some of the Democratic senators could not even wait until the president’s announcement before launching attacks on his nominee. I believe South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham was onto something when he said that Trump “could nominate George Washington and the Left would go crazy.”

While there has been plenty of ink and pixels spilled highlighting the Left’s opposition to Kavanaugh (particularly because of the recent allegations of sexual misconduct), I will make the case against Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination from the worldview of a moral values constitutionalist conservative, particularly because I opposed Kavanaugh’s nomination before the recent disclosure of alleged sexual misconduct. When I saw that Kavanaugh told Maine Senator Susan Collins that Roe v. Wade is settled law in his recent meeting with her, I concluded that pro-life moral values voters could not count him as an ally towards ridding these united states of the abortion scourge.

At best, we might be able to count on him to support some fig leaf regulation against abortion, based on his ruling in Garza v. Hargan. Someone should tell Judge Kavanaugh and Senator Collins that G-d already settled the abortion issue for us thousands of years ago in Genesis 9:6:  “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of G-d made He man.” The Supreme Court did not have the authority to countermand G-d’s law by permitting women to kill their unborn babies.

Other issues of concern regarding where Kavanaugh stands on the issues include his support for the National Security Agency’s warrantless bulk data collection program and his belief that it is appropriate for Congress to enact a statute providing that any personal civil suits against presidents be deferred while the president is in office. Constitutionalist moral values conservatives got burned by Anthony Kennedy, a soft-left Trojan horse judge whose passions included using foreign law in U.S. court cases and who served as the majority vote that imposed homosexual marriage throughout these united states. We should not double down on our folly by appointing another one of his former law clerks.

I oppose Kavanaugh’s nomination because of his soft-left stance on key policy issues, not because of any personal animus towards him or because President Trump nominated him. In years past, we had difficulty finding out where judges stood on the right to life and moral values issues until the Senate confirmed them to the bench and they issued their rulings on legal cases brought before the court. Now that technology has enabled to see where judges stand on our issues, we do not have to make a self-inflicted mistake by nominating a soft-left judge like Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O’Connor, David Souter, John Paul Stevens, Lewis Powell, Warren Burger, William Brennan, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, or Harry Blackmun (Roe v. Wade’s author) to the Supreme Court. (All appointed by Republican presidents.)

I am glad to see that I am not the only conservative opposed to Kavanaugh’s nomination. Michigan U.S. Representative Justin Amash said that Kavanaugh was a disappointing pick, particularly with respect to his Fourth Amendment record. When I consider that Amash has a strong Liberty Score of 90% as measured by Conservative Review, Trump and the GOP Senate should seriously consider the concerns he raised. Other conservative individuals and organizations that share my opposition to Kavanaugh’s nomination include Judge Andrew Napolitano, Georgia Right to Life, Colorado Right to Life, the Judicial Action Group, Freedom Watch, America’s Survival, and Milton RTC Secretary Steve Fruzzetti.

Instead of Trump nominating another soft-left judge like Brett Kavanaugh, I would have preferred him to nominate a moral values constitutionalist who would be willing to stand up against abortion and homosexual marriage. Moral values constitutionalist conservatives should recall when they successfully opposed former President George W. Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court in 2005 and forced Bush to nominate Samuel Alito (who was clearly more qualified and more conservative than Miers) instead. Furthermore, I agree with conservative media personality Daniel Horowitz’s judicial reform proposal in which he argues the need for Congress to reduce the scope of the court system’s jurisdiction. (The mechanism for it is right in the federal constitution:  see Article III, Section 2.) This would prevent it from serving as a national super-legislature dictating social policy throughout these united states by giving itself the power to override any law it does not like enacted by elected representatives in Congress, the elected legislatures of the states, or the voters themselves.

 

Joshua Norman is a resident of Auburndale, Massachusetts. He serves as Ward 4 chairman of the Newton Republican City Committee.

Comments

comments