Each week, LA Progressive’s editors pick what they regard as a particularly insightful comment from one of our readers, both to draw attention to one particular reader’s thoughts and to encourage more readers to weigh in with their opinions. This week’s pithy "Feedback Friday" response comes from Tom Hall, who commented on the article by Sharon Kyle, "Kavanaugh, Planned Parenthood’s Nemesis
[dc]"I[/dc] respectfully dissent. Professor Kyle is simply wrong when she says that we can’t know with certainty how Brett Kavanaugh will vote on a Roe v. Wade reversal case. We do know. He’s stated his position in writing.
In the Garza v. Hargan case, Brett Kavanaugh wrote a 10 page dissent. In those 10 pages, he referred to “Supreme Court precedent” 12 times and made 9 other references to the “Supreme Court.” He stressed, over and over that the only reason for the current legal question was that the lower court – HIS court, was bound by “Supreme Court precedent,” however wrong that precedent might be. And that only the Supreme Court could ‘correct’ that precedent. He was clear that the Supreme Court should overturn that “wrong” decision. Now that he is nominated to the Court, we DO know how he will vote.
The majority opinion also is clear in pillorying Kavanaugh for his clear, intentional misstatements of existing law.
Brett Kavanaugh also modeled Chief Justice Roberts in his decision to simply alter facts that were inconvenient to his analysis. He said that it was necessary for the pregnant teen in the case to be given time, with a sponsor, to consider whether to have an abortion. In fact the teen had already had seven weeks of federal detention to “consider” and she had made the decision and pursued her legal rights, in both state and federal courts. Kavanaugh simply ignored that factual record, and insisted that the girl be held, without an abortion, for more weeks, while a sponsor could be found to counsel the girl on a decision she had already made.
The majority opinion also is clear in pillorying Kavanaugh for his clear, intentional misstatements of existing law. The reality is that this case reveals clearly that Brett Kavanaugh is a Republican Party political hack, actively seeking to alter existing law (ACTIVIST judge), and to impose his fundamentally anti-Christian religious views on women held in federal custody. He will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade as soon as the proper case is put before him.
The focus on Roe v. Wade is not unfortunate. Rather it is TRAGIC. While people are emotionally drawn to that issue, there are other issues, that will impact vastly more lives, that will receive a lot less attention during the Kavanaugh (and subsequent) confirmation hearings.