Kavanaugh, Staunch Catholic, Trump's Supreme Court Nominee: Roe v Wade Spotlight

Brett Kavanaugh, a staunch Catholic, is Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court. Roe vs Wade is in the spotlight.

In his remarks, the Supreme Court nominee said he would rigorously interpret the Constitution as written. "A judge must interpret the law, not make the law," Kavanaugh said.

The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, 53, a federal appeals court judge, former aide to President George W. Bush and onetime investigator of President Bill Clinton, was not a huge surprise, given his conservative record, elite credentials and deep ties among the Republican legal groups that have advanced conservatives for the federal bench.

But it will galvanize Democrats and Republicans in the months before the midterm elections. Justice Kennedy, who is retiring, held the swing vote in many closely divided cases on issues like abortion, affirmative action, gay rights and the death penalty. Replacing him with a committed conservative, who could potentially serve for decades, will fundamentally alter the balance of the court and put dozens of precedents at risk.

Strong Disagreement

As a staunch Catholic, it is easy to understand his personal views on abortion rights.

I am not in favor of reversing Roe and I strongly disagree with this choice.

I do not consider a few dividing cells as "personhood". Nor does the US public.

Gallup Poll

A Gallup Poll on Abortion shows a mere 18% of the population supports a total ban.

In a rebuke to Catholic conservatism, Ireland Voted to End Abortion Ban, and correctly so, on May 26. The vote was a 66% landslide!

The US may foolishly be headed the other way.

It's possible that I am wrong in my assessment of Kavanaugh. He may set his personal, religious views aside.

But I doubt it.

This appointment is likely to be a disaster unless Neil M. Gorsuch, unexpectedly decides the other way.

Such is the guessing game, but this is not a good setup.

Please spare me that sap on your religious views. I don't want to hear them any more than you want to listen to Hindus or atheists.

And I especially do not want to hear from the vast majority of the religious right hypocrites who support war, drones, and millions of people dying because of US policy in Yemen, Syria, and elsewhere.

Listen to Ireland.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Comments
No. 1-25
SleemoG
SleemoG

Yep, we're at the "agree to disagree" portion of this exercise in talking past each other. Good luck Morris.

MorrisWR
MorrisWR
SleemoG
SleemoG said: @MorrisWR "You seem to jump to conclusions or I am misreading your comment." You're misreading. I don't jump to conclusions, I work forward from first principles. The first principle in this case is individual liberty and its relationship to a government of enumerated powers, as discovered through the Constitution and Constitutional law. It is settled law that the Constitution contains a right to privacy via the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. The State is forbidden from interfering with the right to privacy without strict scrutiny. "First, I am not a statist." You believe you possess the ultimate definition of human life. However, your definition is contradicted by the established law of the United States. Whatever your personal subjective feelings are, your feelings must be set aside when weighing the awesome responsibility of destroying individual liberty. There are no normative opinions. You have made a personal choice as to when you believe personhood begins. That does not make you correct or incorrect, but it does prove that you value your feelings above the preservation of individual liberty, which makes you a Statist. "You also responded to another person that the DNA being different from the mother is nonsense." Of course the offspring has different DNA than the parent. It was the original commenter's opinion that is nonsense. No court in the land has ever entertained that argument as a definition of personhood. "Once again, I am not making any religious or philosophical argument but strictly using medical science." Whatever man. It all comes down to opinions, which are never normative. Whose opinion matters? In this case, I applaud the courts for defending individual liberty. You condemn the courts for holding individual liberty higher than the value you attach to the fetus. Knock yourself out trying to change the status quo, it is your human right. You should possess the intellectual honesty to admit that you would send in State agents to threaten, fine, imprison and kill if necessary to achieve your goal. "I will never stop fighting to do what I believe is ethical." "I was not pro-life until this happened to me." OK, so you can please now cease accusing me of being possessed of feelings while you are not. You are clearly woke and borderline fanatical about this. Go ahead and fight, as I said above it is your human right to do so. Someday you may understand that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The world you seek is one with no individual liberty, where "humans" dance on the strings of their State masters. It is possible to be staunchly pro-life personally and still respect the privacy rights of others. Someday, you may actually value that privacy for yourself.

I am clearly fanatical? Because I believe killing babies and spreading false statements are wrong? The first priority of a person in the medical field should be preservation of life. If that makes me a fanatic than I embrace it. I use reason to show that both your statement about a woman’s body and Mish’s comment about a few dividing cells are scientifically incorrect and I get a long response about amendments, legal personhood, etc.

By definition (check Webster’s), a person is human and an individual. Medical technology has proven beyond any doubt that a fetus is both human and an individual. It is not the woman’s body as you stated but an individual human based on the distinct DNA of our species. If you wish to argue that we should stop a human, individual life than give us an argument for why that is ethical or moral. If you wish to say it is acceptable to do kill one human because privacy rights overshadow the right of life, I see where you stand. However, I disagree. I am not saying you are a bad person or that I am better than you. Hell, I know I am no saint. That happens to be my stance on this issue based on my medical background. I hold nothing against women who have abortions. I know women who have had them and it is a tough decision.

At this stage of our medical knowledge it is time we used our technology to set a scientifically based line on when a doctor can do the procedure. That should be determined by medical professionals working with Congress to pass actual legislation and not a few judges who are legally and not medically trained.

I wish you well.

tommyberg
tommyberg

Whatever the case may be if you look at the article on SCOTUS Demographics this pick would mean we have 6 Catholics and 3 Jews on the High Court. Does that not seem a little out of the mainstream? What about some WASPS? Or BASPS? The Court is already tilted. This seems unwise.

SleemoG
SleemoG

Point of note: the due process clause of the 14th Amendment is where the right to privacy is found, not the 9th Amendment. The 9th Amendment reasoning was rejected by the Court as it obviously limits the power of the federal judiciary. So, to sum up, State power to interfere with a person's privacy is forbidden by the 14th Amendment, unless such interference is subject to "strict scrutiny."

Stories