Skip to comments.Where Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh stands on key issues
Posted on 07/10/2018 7:12:40 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Kavanaugh, 53, currently serves as a judge on the powerful US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Here's where he stands on some hot-button issues:
Because he was a swing-vote in favor of abortion rights, Kennedy's departure from the court has sparked alarm among abortion rights activists that Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide in 1973, could be overturned. In addition, Trump has long vowed to appoint justices who would reverse Roe and allow states to determine whether abortion should be legal.
Kavanaugh has not expressed outright opposition to Roe v. Wade.
One of his opinions likely to draw scrutiny from senators is a his dissent from a ruling of the DC Circuit last October that an undocumented immigrant teen in detention was entitled to seek an abortion. In his dissent, Kavanaugh wrote the Supreme Court has held that "the government has permissible interests in favoring fetal life, protecting the best interests of a minor, and refraining from facilitating abortion."
He wrote that the high court has "held that the government may further those interests so long as it does not impose an undue burden on a woman seeking an abortion." He said the majority opinion was "based on a constitutional principle as novel as it is wrong: a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in US government detention to obtain immediate abortion on demand." He added, however, that "all parties to this case recognize Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey as precedents we must follow."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Kavanaugh's opinion in a case involving a challenge under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to the Affordable Care Act's so-called contraceptive mandate, Priests for Life v. HHS, has also drawn scrutiny. In a dissent, he expressed sympathy for the religious challengers. Making reference to the Supreme Court's ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, he wrote that "the regulations substantially burden the religious organizations' exercise of religion because the regulations require the organizations to take an action contrary to their sincere religious beliefs."
In a line that has attracted some conservative criticism, however, Kavanaugh also wrote in his dissent that Supreme Court precedent "strongly suggests that the government has a compelling interest in facilitating access to contraception for the employees of these religious organizations."
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR OTHER ISSUES LIKE
SEPARATION OF POWERS, SECOND AMENDMENT.
You would need context to understand why he said this.
An originalist could certainly make the above observation -- and then go on to explain that it is not in keeping with the limited government laid out in the Constitution, and so precedent needs to go out the window.
He is saying that precedent is at odds with free exercise
I dont trust CNNs biased analysis
Stop this nonsense
Trump ran with a list of 25 nominees. Vetted by Leo at The Fedetalist. If you didnt like his choices you should have voted different
Trump has made his pick. Quit the circular firing
As a lower court judge he must defer to precedent. That is not true for a Supreme Court Justice
Same about CNN. To CNN Stalin was not left enough for them.
> You would need context to understand why he said this.
Very true. I don’t know the context and don’t agree with the result, but I can see the possibility
1) Congress passed a law
2) SC allowed the law
3) Executive branch implemented the law (with this regulation)
I think precedent says a lower court judge needs to defer to the agency implementing the court-approved legislation in this case. And if the agency claims a “compelling interest” it should stand whether or not the lower court judge agrees. Congress, not a judge, would need to clarify if it wasn’t what they intended. This would be the opposite of “legislating from the bench” if he disagreed with the legislation and implementation but applied the law against his wishes. The supreme court would be the one that needs to change the precedent to respect the federal agency’s decision.
Yup. According to uncle burn-me and brilliant minds such as rob rhiner, nancy snotra, the country is doomed if this right wing extremist, klansman, hater, white supremancist gets the nod to be on the supreme court. If they are losing their collective minds over this, PDJT did a good job.
I think Amy would have been a better option not so sure about Kavanaugh he may be a flipper just my view.
We will be hearing from the same whiners who stayed home in Nov of 2016 because their candidate did not win in the primaries.
If these morons were actually responsible for Trumps pick for the USSC being confirmed they would prevent it if they could because the chosen individual is nota PERFECT CONSERVATIVE!
CNN wants you to believe Judges are legislators, so they can smear them with “personal beliefs”.
Judges should be judged by their ability to put those personal beliefs aside and interpret the law.
When we have a court that does that and only that, we will have protected our country as founded and stopped the soft coup.
The Supreme Court is the linchpin. If the court falls to progressives, they will dismantle the Constitution and our free republic piece by piece.
Then, all the forces on earth seeking America’s destruction will rejoice.
Based on Kavanaugh’s extensive record, he looks like a clone of John Roberts and could be like Kennedy.
I’m not exactly gung ho on him as I was Gorsuch.
This is quite accurate. He is not a textualist like Scalia or Gorsuch, he is someone who will, unfortunately, look to other sources for the meaning of statutes.
a clone of John Roberts.
That bothers me he helped Obama it’s said that he was pro Obamacare.
RE: That bothers me he helped Obama its said that he was pro Obamacare.
My take is this —Roberts DID use Kavanaugh’s reasoning but WRONGLY APPLIED IT.
Kavanaugh said that Obamacare’s individual mandate would be constitutional IF IT WERE WRITTEN AS A TAX ( which it was not. It was a PENALTY ).
Roberts then effectively RE-WROTE the law and re-imagined the penalty as a tax ( borrowing from Kavanaugh ). THAT was judicial activism.
The right thing to do would be to throw the law back to congress and tell them to re-write it, not declare it a tax when the text never said it was such. Roberts in effective, wrote the law for everyone.
And Kavanaugh has fidelity to the constitution as written. He does not believe in making law from the bench
I do like his pro-Second Amendment views, though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.