Brett is a legal scholar and expert on a Constitution that appears unrelated to the one handed down by the Founding Fathers. I can think of only one other nominee as poorly qualified for the Supreme Court as Brett Kavanaugh. That would be Harriet Miers.
This is just another ideologue dredged up from Trump’s swamp. Shall I stoop to mouth those pregnant words? Yeah: fake scholar.
Public support for Roe v. Wade is above 70%. For the math-impaired, that means those opposed are somewhere in the twenties, at best. But, for this ‘scholar’ this decision of 45 years standing is not “settled law.” No. It’s not settled law. It’s a part of the Constitution.
Does public support matter? It isn’t and should always be the final determinant but it is, or should be, a prominent consideration in every decision. After all, the Constitution is of, by and for the people. Isn’t that the intent of commencing with that awesome initial phrase, “We the People.” That document was not meant to be relegated to the sandbox where lawyers masturbate.
Although my bias is toward consideration of the welfare of the populace (yes, that dastardly word is in the Constitution), Roe v. Wade is founded on an overwhelming argument from the Constitution itself. It is blatantly obvious to anyone not blinded by ideology and/or base ambition.
Brett is going to the extreme to protect his putative privacy. Is it a million or only several hundreds of thousands of documents he and his benefactors do not want you to know about? He lied to Congress at a previous confirmation hearing. That should be an absolute disqualification. But, to an ideologue, such matters don’t matter.
Look at the picture. Have you noticed it shows two different genders? One he considers worthy of privacy, the other, not so much. What are you talking about?
Though the word privacy is not to be found in the Constitution, several courts have agreed that it is presupposed therein. It has been ruled, time and again, several of our most important rights and protections cannot exist without the firm protection of our privacy. Parenthetically, as technology increasingly suffuses our lives, privacy becomes of ever greater concern.
If I sit here long enough, I will likely think of some aspects of our lives more needful of privacy than our bodies, well, maybe. Not only is privacy embedded in the Constitution, it is used as the basis of numerous laws. The one that comes immediately to mind is HIPAA. Have you been to a doctor in the past couple of decades? There is no escaping the HIPAA-required paperwork. Congress, the medical profession, insurance companies and affiliated groups must protect your privacy — except for abortion.
The health and well-being of a person’s body is enthusiastically protected, except for the medical situation protected by the Constitution. Truly weird logic nonsense. Who comes up with such absurdities? Ideologues. Religion is an ideology, though not all religious people are so perverted, those who actually understand and practice their religion.
In his opening statement this week, Brett went out of his way to portray himself as a doting father of his two daughters. Wow, he coaches their ball teams. What a guy. He certainly has his priorities worked out. Softball is important to females, while their bodies are the province of old Christian white men, you know; those experts on the medical needs of females.
While denying the rights of the majority of the people, this learned scholar wants to give the president more power, power that is presently supposed to be denied. The timing for such contra-Constitutional hogwash (once commonly called trumpery) would be humorous, were it not so stupid.
Perhaps I should here correct a common misconception. Everyone has undoubtedly heard the phrase “three coequal branches” of our government. Surprise! That is false. Think about it. The House of Representatives can impeach the president, judges and other officials in the other two branches. Despite Trump’s dreams, he has not the power to fire members of the other two branches. Then there is the little matter of spending money. All such bills must originate in the House. The president cannot appoint anyone to high office, even in his own administration, Though his nominations are far too frequently approved, only the Senate can confirm them. Supposedly, actually, Constitutionally, Congress alone has the power to declare war. We forget. The executive is assigned the responsibility of executing what Congress directs him to do, if long as the courts permit. And don’t forget, they are all supposed to be our servants. We need to take that seriously and require the same of them.
If this clown truly had the respect for the Supreme Court that he congratulates himself of, he would withdraw his name, rather than add another stain to that of Clarence Thomas.
I would like to think that only a president as deficient of a grasp of what constitutes our government and the precepts that underlie it could nominate a judge limited by similar misconceptions.
,
,
Comments were shut down for over a year due to spam. This feature is now open again. Many of you want to express your opinions or, irrationally, disagree with my article. Have at it.