Judge Kavanaugh: A Safe Pick for the High Court


Judge Brett Kavanaugh has stellar credentials, an impeccable resume, a long track record of over three hundred published opinions, holds a conservative judicial philosophy and believes a judge must interpret the Constitution as written.   

How many times have you heard that repeated in the past 24 hours?

As a pro-life voter who believes that Roe v. Wade is the worst Supreme Court decision in U.S. history, this pick should have been chosen carefully.   We are in the midst of a Constitutional Crisis.   There is reason to be concerned that once he is confirmed, Judge Kavanaugh will not shift the High Court to the right.   He is Beltway and mainstream.   Judge Kavanaugh may evolve and become more liberal on social issues.   Rather than vote to overturn Roe v. Wade he may consider placing restrictions on the law.   That’s not enough.   And we won’t know anytime soon.

President Trump could have taken a daring approach to this choice.  This was an opportunity to choose someone not so establishment, out of the mainstream, and not tied to the Bush administration.   Judge Amy Coney Barrett should have been President Trump’s pick.   She is a pro-life feminist, a mother to seven children and a devout Catholic.   Judge Barrett graduated summa cum laude from Notre Dame Law School, and clerked for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia for one year.   She managed these remarkable achievements while having seven children. Judge Amy Coney Barrett is every Planned Parenthood supporter’s nightmare.

Judge Barrett would have been be a likely vote to overturn Roe v. Wade should the case come up on the High Court.   She is, to borrow a phrase from radio host Mark Levin, the Gold Standard of judges.  

Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a safe choice for confirmation.  It would be nearly impossible for the foolish Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to try and Bork this nominee.   We won’t see a repeat performance of Senator Feinstein hurling “dogma” questions at Judge Kavanaugh.  

However, expect a repeat performance of radical pro-abortion Senator Chuck Schumer’s interrogation of Judge Kavanaugh during his D.C. Circuit Court hearings back in May of 2006.

Judge Kavanaugh’s response to Sen. Schumer is troubling.   Under questioning, he answers that Roe v. Wade is established law.   He has stated that a judge “must be independent and must interpret the law, not make the law.”   If confirmed, will Justice Kavanaugh consider Roe as precedent?   Will he view the manufactured “right to privacy” as something that women have come to depend upon?   Pro-lifers want to know.

Here is what Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) stated recently about the possible reversal of Roe v. Wade:

“So a [Supreme Court] nominee’s position, whether or not they respect precedent, will tell me a lot about whether or not they will overturn Roe v. Wade.  A candidate of this important position who would overturn Roe v. Wade would not be acceptable to me, because that would indicate an activist agenda that I don’t want to see a judge have.  And that would indicate to me a failure to respect precedent as a fundamental tenet of our judicial system.”

Wasn’t Roe v. Wade promoted by an activist agenda? 

Shouldn’t current scientific advancements providing a window into the womb overrule a precedent established 45 years ago?

If Roe v. Wade is “settled law,” why are we still arguing about it?

I don’t know why or how abortion became a sacrament to women’s rights.   If anything, legal abortion has placed men in the driver’s seat giving them power to pressure pregnant women into obtaining abortions they don’t want.   Abortion frees men of responsibility, emboldens them not to commit to women or get involved, and has made the “shotgun wedding” obsolete.   Since abortion has been legalized, minor girls have been trafficked repeatedly over state lines to obtain abortions, often by adult men.   That was once called statutory rape.  

How is legal abortion helpful to women or young girls in these circumstances?  

On the other hand, what happens when a pregnant woman wants an abortion and the baby’s father desperately wants the child?   Suppose he is willing to take full financial and legal responsibility for that child’s upbringing?   He has no say.   Fathers have no rights.

How is legal abortion fair to responsible, loving fathers?

I remember when the most important issue to the National Organization for Women was passage of the Equal Rights Amendment ensuring that women were not paid less than men for performing the same jobs.  I recall a time when feminists fought for women to enable them to advance in careers that were traditionally not open to women.   You know, successful professional women like Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

That was in the good old days, during the 1960s and 70s.

Today, if a choice had to be made between eliminating equal pay, maternity leave and career opportunities for ambitious women like Judge Barrett or reversing the Roe v. Wade decision, which choice do you think the militant pro-abortion Democrats and their lobbyists would make?