Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is set to begin his confirmation hearings in a matter of days. This is fairly normal protocol for events following the death or retirement of a member of the Supreme Court. Despite this normalcy, and the fact that a conservative president nominated him, members of the Left are acting as if their rights will be immediately stripped and they’re fearmongering like it is, quite literally, their job.
While liberals may not like that Kavanaugh purports to be a Scalia-like originalist, he is a qualified candidate, a stellar judge with an exceptional professional and personal background. Yet that has not stopped them from a full-fledged campaign to halt his nomination. Writer Lauren Duca organized a ten-city “Stop Kavanaugh” tour, where she met with liberal politicians and activists, encouraging attendees to contact their politicians about the nomination.
— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) August 25, 2018
Make no mistake: Kavanaugh is a radical, fringe conservative. “Textualism” + “oringinalism” are code words for subscribing to the white-male-land-owner doctrine that originated the US. Tell your Senators to push against this white supremacist patriarchal bullshit.(202-224-3121)💫
— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) August 15, 2018
Campaigns like this are examples of fear mongering at its finest and they’re incredibly misleading to the public. The Senate is tasked with confirming a nomination, not the people. While a grassroots effort to contact senators to encourage them to vote “no” on the nomination is admirable, I suppose, it’s relatively unheard of, not to mention somewhat pointless.
The larger issue at stake is the reason for such intense campaigns against Kavanaugh. The left posits that once confirmed, Kavanaugh will immediately aid the Court in overturning Roe v. Wade (or Planned Parenthood v. Casey). While it appears Kavanaugh is religious and more conservative politically, a good Supreme Court justice does not overturn a case simply because he does not like it; it’s very difficult to overturn a precedent.
A particular kind of case would need to be presented before the court — one that would raise the question: Does a woman have a constitutional right to abortion? Pro-life advocates, of course, would say no, a woman does not. But presenting that case, and making a case for at least five judges to agree with it, is an entirely different story. I’m not saying it’s impossible — and many pro-life advocates like myself hope this happens — but Roe or Casey are not going to be overturned instantaneously.
While it’s understandable that liberals are worried about an originalist judge, it’s sad to see the efforts through which they are going to mislead Americans both about the confirmation process and how the Supreme Court approaches laws.