Posted on 07/10/2018 12:04:49 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 10, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – With President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee revealed, pro-life activists are now turning their attention to attempting to discern Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s likelihood of voting to overturn Roe v. Wade, which made America one of the most liberal abortion regimes in the world.
Trump announced Monday night that the District of Columbia circuit judge was his choice to replace the retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, hailing Kavanaugh as a “brilliant jurist” who “can set aside [his] views to do what the law and Constitution require[s].”
Kavanaugh quickly won the endorsements of several pro-life groups, including the National Right to Life Committee and Susan B. Anthony List, which already announced plans to mobilize grassroots activists to “urge the Senate to swiftly confirm Judge Kavanaugh.”
Others took a more cautiously hopeful tone, with Live Action president Lila Rose simply “encourag[ing] Brett Kavanaugh to uphold the Constitution and support the most basic human right — the right to life — for all people.”
Before the president’s announcement, the Washington Examiner relayed a quote from an unnamed source close to the White House that “there are concerns in the pro-life community that his decisions in some cases mean he’s not as solidly pro-life as we would like him to be.” Critics have pointed to cases in which he arrived at the pro-life outcome, but his reasoning arguably suggested openness to other pro-abortion legal claims.
On the D.C. Court of Appeals, Kavanaugh sided with Priests for Life against the Obama administration’s contraception mandate, but also suggested the government has a “compelling interest in facilitating access to contraception for the employees of...religious organizations.” (Since then, the case has been settled and the Trump administration has worked to dismantle the mandate and other anti-conscience rules.)
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/trump-pick-for-justice-rich-cordray-campaign-donor/i79sJ5EMGczP2RSFSFo27N/
The Dim’s want to separate unborn babies from their mothers. For EVER!
DEMOCRATS ARE EVIL!
Cordray and Kavanaugh both worked at the law firm, Kirkland & Ellis, in Washington D.C. Both also clerked for retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, though not at the same time.
After thinking about how nominee Kavanaugh answers questions, people in his position undoubtedly have to be very careful how they answer questions.
So I’m glad that Kavanaugh was undoubtedly thoroughly vetted by Pres. Trump.
I’d say likely ruling that it is a states’ rights issue and states should vote individually. Isn’t there a possibility of them ruling on that?
I’m sorry, but Brett Kavanaugh gives of the stench of “evolution on the bench.”
Kavanaugh has been in DC an awful longtime. I also fear the swamp side of the force him.
Kavanaugh spoke of precedent after his intro as the nominee. Roe versus Wade has no chance of being repealed in total. Yet I can see where a state's restrictive laws on abortion that do not totally ban abortion might pass muster.
The quote should be:
I’d say likely ruling that it is a states’ rights issue and states should vote individually. Isn’t there a possibility of them ruling on that? "
It should be repealed in total since it has no connection to the Constitution.
More specifically, RvW is a phony, vote-winning “constitutional right” wrongly legislated from the bench imo, as opposed to established by the consent of Constitution’s Article V state supermajority like all other constitutionally enumerated rights were.
And there are other federally protected “rights" that post-17A Congress can’t justify under enumerated powers imo.
In fact, not only are people possibly in prison for violating vote-winning federal civil rights laws that Congress never had the express constitutional authority to make, but consider the following.
The congressional record shows that constitutional lawmaker Rep. John Bingham had clarified the states had never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to make peacetime punitive civil laws until the 14th Amendment was ratified.
"Our Constitution never conferred upon the Congress of the United States the power - sacred as life is, first as it is before all other rights which pertain to man on this side of the grave - to protect it in time of peace by the terrors of the penal code within organized states; and Congress has never attempted to do it. There never was a law upon the United States statute-book to punish the murderer for taking away in time of peace the life of the noblest, and the most unoffending, as well, of your citizens, within the limits of any State of the Union, The protection of the citizen in that respect was left to the respective States, and there the power is to-day [emphasis added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column.)
Bingham was making the point that the 14th Amendment gave Congress new powers to make punitive civil laws, such laws limited to strengthening only those rights that the states amend the Constitution to expressly protect from abridgment by state actors.
Again, the corrupt, post-17A ratification Congress is making vote-winning civil rights protections laws that it cannot justify under constitutionally enumerated powers.
In fact, instead of petitioning the states for new powers to make specific civil rights laws, the post-17A Congress seems to like to bypass the Article V amendment process by confirming activist Supreme Court justices who legislate such laws from the bench, RvW an example imo.
"It is easier to get forgiveness than it is to receive permission." —Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper, U.S. Navy's Chips Ahoy magazine (July 1986)
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.