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.

CNBC reports Trump nominates Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

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 New York Times reports Trump’s Pick for Supreme Court Is Brett Kavanaugh

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 (45)
No. 1-45
tz1
tz1

You wish to murder babies in the womb. I disagree. Overturn oe and you can do so in hypertax Illinois while other states say no.R

tz1
tz1

Also amazing that Abortion is the single issue you care about. Not trade, commerce, whatever Obamacare covers, police, civil forfeiture, or a dozen other things.

If women aren't allowed to murder their babies in the womb nothing else matters?

Brian1
Brian1

Mish has never seen a 3d ultrasound.

SleemoG
SleemoG

Not a single woman will comment here. The comments are exclusively male.

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

I cannot imagine the fury of ALL women scorned.

Be careful what you ask for ultra-conservatives, you might just get it.

RonJ
RonJ

"I cannot imagine the fury of ALL women scorned."

All women do not think the same.

Mike Mish Shedlock
Mike Mish Shedlock

Editor

I fully expected idiotic comments - congrats for being the first

MntGoat
MntGoat

I personally don't think they will ever over turn Roe. Tens of millions of women would protest in the streets. It would be mayhem. I always see liberal fear mongering about a potential Roe overturn merely as politic tactic to use that issue to rally their base to try to prevent conservative judges.

SleemoG
SleemoG

Women may have differing opinions of abortion, but no women appreciate being told by men what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.

QED

FelixMish
FelixMish

Those 10's of millions protesters would be mostly male, if only because males like the kind of excitement a good protest brings. :) Oh, and young males are probably as strongly for RvW as females.

I agree with MntGoat's fear mongering assessment. RvW is a ship that sailed long ago. That ship ain't coming back on a national level and won't come back anywhere that matters locally. Americans have cars and next-day Internet delivery (thinking PlanB), so the point is moot.

Mish, it's your blog, but you should probably dial back the insults.

Aaaand. In FireFox the cursor zaps to the end of what's typed on each keystroke. Hard to edit.

hmk
hmk

Great you sound like the typical leftist crying about the potential overturning of abortion rights. Just because someones personal beliefs are anti abortion you think the first thing they are going to do is reverse roe v wade and spread hysteria about it. Put on your pink hat and hit the streets with the rest of the leftist fascists who hate Christians. It is funny how these people are ok with the termination of 700,000 babies per year in the US but want to disarm americans and repeal the second amendment. The hypocirsy is deafening.

thimk
thimk

it is a sad day in america when we have to worry if our supreme court justices enter decisions based on religious or political bias. ditto for the DOJ et al.

FelixMish
FelixMish

Well, since abortion brings out the comic in everyone, we should get serious for a moment and notice this appointment would redress the all-important Catholic-Jewish supreme court imbalance caused by Scalia's death.

TheRealist
TheRealist

Idiots are out in force stating Kavanaugh is a "2nd amendment extremist" or that he will "overturn Roe Vs Wade" confirming Trump picked the right guy... The reactions when Ginsburg finally crocks during Trump's second term will be priceless....

Tengen
Tengen

The pro-life argument would carry a lot more weight if so many of its adherents did not enthusiastically support Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, or any opportunity to enrich the MIC for nebulous reasons. Hypocrisy indeed.

SweetKenny
SweetKenny

All the reversal of Roe v Wade means it gets kick backed to the states. I like the idea of the states deciding more things based on their population (which elect it’s leaders) meaning laws better reflect different parts of the country. Federal government is too big - has its hands in every pie.

pi314
pi314

According to Irish census, 85% of Irish population are Christians. Yet 66% voted to end abortion ban. So what is the basis of your conclusion ("I am not in favor of reversing Roe and I strongly disagree with this choice") that Judge Kavanaugh will reverse RvW?

JonSellers
JonSellers

RvW is based on the ninth amendment which gives citizens all rights not specifically given to the Federal government, and the 14th amendment which denies States the right to overrule rights given by the federal constitution. The SC would have to change long-held views about one of those two amendments, which would be very dangerous to conservatives in particular.

If people really want to impose their views on their fellow citizens, it would be better to do a constitutional amendment.

Aaand Mish, as your alter-ego FelixMish notes above editing is impossible from anywhere but the end of the text. If I put the cursor in the middle of the document, it will immediately move to the end after hitting the first key. Somebody did some inadequate JavaScript testing.

MorrisWR
MorrisWR

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

  • Mish

You should stick to what you know and not go off on tangents. I am a Molecular Biologist and if you believe babies that are aborted after 8-10 weeks are "a few dividing cells" you really need to go to medical school or just study a little fetal development. I have worked in hospital laboratories for 30 years, have worked on premature babies, have seen aborted babies and I can say your flippant comment is totally ignorant of scientific medical facts. Please just stick to your economics and finance. I also find it hard to believe you know what everyone in the public is thinking.

MorrisWR
MorrisWR

I love arguments based on feeling and not medical facts. Mish is correct that this is not a religious issue, it is a medical issue. I can prove scientifically in my lab that a fetus is NOT the mothers body. That is a fallacious argument. The baby has it's own DNA that includes the mothers and fathers. It is a different person based on the DNA. It is only attached to the mother to get nutrients, remove waste, etc. If it is were just a part of the mothers body, there would be no reason to limit abortions to any period prior to birth. You could even make a good argument for post-birth abortions if it were just a part of the mother. However, nobody but a fool would argue that.

This entire issue should not be decided by a small numbers of judges but by medically based facts. Congress needs to take up the issue of just when medical professionals classify a baby as a living human since legally you cannot stop the life of a human.

Escierto
Escierto

Catholics and evangelicals are the Trump base and he is careful to keep them happy by giving them the red meat that gets them excited. I hope that Roe v Wade is overturned as a result and the 50% of the population that doesn't bother to vote will wake up and realize that their inactivity has consequences. It is going to have to get a LOT worse before it gets better.

Irondoor
Irondoor

Would Mish like to give us a specific definition of abortion other than “you can’t tell a woman what they can and cannot do with their body”?

As long as an unborn baby is not acknowledged as a creation of God and a viable human bein, then anything goes. The baby is innocent of any crime other than being inconvenient. But killing it is ok to eliminate that inconvenience. A murderer or serial rapist is not given a well-deserved death sentence due to the outcry by some of the same people who demand unlimited abortion. In fact, today abortion is being celebrated by some leftists.

Does anyone else see the rampant hypocrisy in the two diametrically opposed positions?

JonSellers
JonSellers

Nope. I want the 9th, not the tenth. Might want to work on your own clues. The 9th:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The 9th amendment is where the SC found the right to privacy, not the 10th. Look it up.

JonSellers
JonSellers

For your argument to work, you need to show why being created by God, and "innocence" are relevant to the taking of life. Obviously, "we the people" have little concern with killing innocent Arabs in the GWOT who were also created by God. And we have little concern with killing people who have been mistakenly judged guilty of certain crimes who were also created by God. When one begins making distinctions between which innocents are worthy of death, don't be surprised when others feel fine with altering those distinctions.

Hypocrisy runs the gamut on both the left and the right on this issue. Both sides have determined that causing the deaths of innocents is fine. We just haven't agreed on who is going to die and why. I personally would like to see an end to our wars, and end to the death sentence and an end to abortion. But I know absolutely no one would support me on those issues.

ILHawk
ILHawk

Mish, everyone's personal choice gets in the way of facts. Since Roe there have been 60 million abortions in the US. That is about 60 million that would have helped the demographic situation. Some of them would have had kids and those kids would have had kids. So we are probably 90 million short on people who might have lived and paid taxes, supporting the boomers and older. For those who are racist, less than 1/3 of abortions are Black. Roe has contributed to the financial situation.

Some would have occurred anyway, but the numbers are pretty compelling. My own in laws thought seriously about aborting their last 2 kids.

Blacklisted
Blacklisted

So, let me get this straight, you are making your choice for a Supreme Court Justice solely based on abortion rights, which should be the responsibility of state legislatures? A Justice's job is to interpret the law and Constitution, not make law. That belongs to Congress. Cavanaugh is more than qualified!

At what month do you believe a fetus becomes a person? Have you ever viewed an ultrasound? Have you ever seen the individual body parts of an aborted baby as they are extracted during an abortion? My ex-wife was a nurse who assisted in abortions, and I can tell you if you don't think these babies are people, you are not a person. Maybe, you have a career as a comedian, like Michelle Wolf.

Your callousness and indifference toward human life is indicative of the loss of humanity we see daily. Most woman with a soul who have had an abortion are haunted by the decision daily. The only way to cope is to pretend the baby is not a person. However, most have viewed ultrasounds and know they are only fooling themselves, so they must stick their head and humanity in the ground.

Brother
Brother

The Roe Wade decision will always be at risk because it is bad law. It puts at risk equal rights, morality, religious freedoms. It’s even bad for leftists. The justices can do fine by not creating new entitlements.

SleemoG
SleemoG

In deference to your exhaustive medical knowledge, you, as all Statists (read: anti-choice in this case), miss the point entirely. The point is that there are limits to what you can force your neighbor to do via State aggression and you need to accept that fact. Life is full of horror, you cannot possibly prevent all of it. In this case, individual human freedom has carried the day, and any day that happens is a GOOD day.. Mind your own business and keep your nose to the grindstone of what you can change. Good luck getting Congress to do anything.

Blacklisted
Blacklisted

The Supreme's that believe in the Constitution don't care about protesters. They are not elected. President Trump was VERY clear about who he would appoint and HE WON. I think we will see the same results in the mid-term election. The majority of the heartland is conservative, and the majority of Latino's coming into the country are Catholic. Roe will get thrown back to the states within 5 years.

Blacklisted
Blacklisted

Only an idiot would have expected a different result, especially after Trump published his list of potential appointments during his campaign. The voters spoke, and Trump Won. Voters were either one-issue voters or not, but either way the Collectivist lost, and that is good for America.

TCW
TCW

The things is, a baby has a different dna than the mother so it has to be recognized as an individual that is in the care of the mother, just like after it's born.

Cocoa
Cocoa

With all the problems in the world, abortion seems very far down the list of issues honestly-beliefs or not. For every abortion outrage, there's a kid who died from poverty of violence.

MorrisWR
MorrisWR

You seem to jump to conclusions or I am misreading your comment. First, I am not a statist. I am a descendent of Robert Morris and follow the Constitution and the Declaration. Life, Liberty, etc..Freedom does not include the right to stop a human life. You also responded to another person that the DNA being different from the mother is nonsense. Well, you obviously do not understand the scientific definition of life or how we classifying organisms. DNA is the proof for identifying a human from other organisms and if two humans have distinct DNA, they are by definition not the same person.

Once again, I am not making any religious or philosophical argument but strictly using medical science. Reason always is the best course based on science and not emotions or feelings. We need to determine when an unborn baby is 1) living and 2) a human. If both cases are true, and you stop that life then it is called murder. If we wish to justify it and continue the practice than so be it. Let us not dance around he facts just to make it more palatable. Blacks were once legally not considered people either but that did not make it a fact. I can test their DNA and prove they are human and negate the legal definition of personhood used in the past.

I will never stop fighting to do what I believe is ethical. Once you see actual babies that are aborted and work with premature babies that’ would be legally within the time frame where abortions can happen (and you see them alive), it changes your views. I was not pro-life until this happened to me. Just because something is hard is not a reason to do nothing. If everyone quit when things look daunting, we would be living in caves.

SleemoG
SleemoG
MorrisWR
MorrisWR said (edited): You seem to jump to conclusions or I am misreading your comment. First, I am not a statist. I am a descendent of Robert Morris and follow the Constitution and the Declaration. Life, Liberty, etc..Freedom does not include the right to stop a human life. You also responded to another person that the DNA being different from the mother is nonsense. Well, you obviously do not understand the scientific definition of life or how we classifying organisms. DNA is the proof for identifying a human from other organisms and if two humans have distinct DNA, they are by definition not the same person. Once again, I am not making any religious or philosophical argument but strictly using medical science. Reason always is the best course based on science and not emotions or feelings. We need to determine when an unborn baby is 1) living and 2) a human. If both cases are true, and you stop that life then it is called murder. If we wish to justify it and continue the practice than so be it. Let us not dance around he facts just to make it more palatable. Blacks were once legally not considered people either but that did not make it a fact. I can test their DNA and prove they are human and negate the legal definition of personhood used in the past. I will never stop fighting to do what I believe is ethical. Once you see actual babies that are aborted and work with premature babies that’ would be legally within the time frame where abortions can happen (and you see them alive), it changes your views. I was not pro-life until this happened to me. Just because something is hard is not a reason to do nothing. If everyone quit when things look daunting, we would be living in caves.

@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.

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."

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.

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.

SleemoG
SleemoG

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