Trump’s deplorable SCOTUS nomination

Nominating another right-wing extremist to the nation’s High Court surprised no one.

Will undemocratic Dems go all-out to block Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment, or will they pretend outrage, then cave in the end?

Key is getting two GOP senators to oppose Kavanaugh, along with 49 Dems. The ACLU’s national political director Faiz Shakir quoted Trump’s campaign pledge to put hard-right pro-life justices on the Supreme Court.

Shakir asked: “Will (Kavanaugh) uphold a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions?” Trump vowed to strip away this right.

The ACLU tweeted: “Everyone needs to make their voice heard on Kavanaugh’s record.”

The organization urged Americans to “message [their] senators . . . demand[ing] they get Kavanaugh’s clear position on Roe v. Wade on the record before the confirmation vote.”

Will he or won’t he uphold a woman’s reproductive and other healthcare rights? Rescinding Roe would be devastating for childbearing age women nationwide.

Trump doesn’t give a damn about fundamental rights too important to lose. His record in office proves it. Dems let him get one right-wing extremist on the High Court for not going all-out to block it. Will they let it happen again?

Kavanaugh believe presidents should be exempt from investigations while in office, earlier saying congressional legislation should exempt “a president—while in office—from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel,” adding, “I believe that the president should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office.”

“We should not burden a sitting president with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions.”

“[I]ndictment and trial of a sitting president [would] cripple the federal government.”

Was this view why Trump chose Kavanaugh over others under consideration? He expressed it during Obama’s tenure.

No one is above the law—not corporate bosses, congressional members, Supreme Court justices or sitting US presidents.

Kavanaugh is a US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia judge, a former White House staff secretary during Bush/Cheney’s tenure, appointed as an appellate judge by their regime in 2003, a controversial choice at the time.

Contentious debate stalled his confirmation until May 2006. His opinions are worrisome. While publicly vowing to uphold Roe, his rulings favored restrictions on abortions.

In an earlier dissent, he wrote: “[T]he government has permissible interests in favoring fetal life, protecting the best interests of a minor, and refraining from facilitating abortion.”

He opposed what he called “a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in US government detention to obtain immediate abortion on demand.”

At the same time, he said “all parties to this case recognize Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey as precedents we must follow.”

If confirmed as a Supreme Court justice, he’ll be in a position to side with a likely anti-Roe majority if a case on it reaches the justices.

In November 2011, he dissented from the majority DC Circuit in upholding Obamacare as the law of the land, arguing that the court had no jurisdiction to consider the case.

In Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services (2014), he dissented from an en banc ruling, affirming the constitutionality of Obamacare.

He ruled in favor of striking down a Clean Air Act regulation on greenhouse gas emissions. He challenged the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

He supported the unlawful conviction of political prisoner Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul, detained as an enemy combatant at Guantanamo in 2002.

His conviction on most false charges was overturned in January 2013. He remains detained on one fabricated charge. In October 2017, the Supreme Court denied his writ of certiorari to review the case.

Kavanaugh ruled in favor of trials by illegitimate military commissions, denying defendants due process and judicial fairness, judging them guilty by accusation, no evidence needed.

He calls “handguns—the vast majority of which today are semi-automatic—constitutionally protected because they have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens.”

Wealth, power, and privileged interests will be protected by Kavanaugh as a High Court justice—equity and justice for everyone losing out.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.” Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

2 Responses to Trump’s deplorable SCOTUS nomination

  1. TonyVodvarka

    Should the Supreme Court become the semi-permanent dead weight of reaction is seems destined to be, I would remind my fellow citizens that judicial review of laws passed by Congress is not mentioned in the Constitution, it is only precedent since the early nineteenth century. Either by constitutional amendment or by simple disregard of that institution by a more progressive majority in the executive and legislature, their malevolent influence might be neutralized. Additionally, we may recall what FDR knew, that the Constitution does not stipulate the number of justices that sit on the court and the problem of black reaction might be solved by appointing several additional uncorrupted justices to that bench.

  2. TonyVodvarka

    May I add, we have witnessed the disasters a politicized Supreme Court has visited upon this nation in the last couple of decades, the judicial coup of 2000 and Citizen’s United which has made our elections a stinking pit of corruption, just for starters. We should recognize that the institution needs either radical change or abolition for it is a heap of dead ash upon any hope we may have for genuine democracy.