Login

Kavanaugh, Staunch Catholic, Trump's Supreme Court Nominee: Roe v Wade Spotlight

Brett Kavanaugh, a staunch Catholic, is Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court. Roe vs Wade is in the spotlight.

In his remarks, the Supreme Court nominee said he would rigorously interpret the Constitution as written. "A judge must interpret the law, not make the law," Kavanaugh said.

The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, 53, a federal appeals court judge, former aide to President George W. Bush and onetime investigator of President Bill Clinton, was not a huge surprise, given his conservative record, elite credentials and deep ties among the Republican legal groups that have advanced conservatives for the federal bench.

But it will galvanize Democrats and Republicans in the months before the midterm elections. Justice Kennedy, who is retiring, held the swing vote in many closely divided cases on issues like abortion, affirmative action, gay rights and the death penalty. Replacing him with a committed conservative, who could potentially serve for decades, will fundamentally alter the balance of the court and put dozens of precedents at risk.

Strong Disagreement

As a staunch Catholic, it is easy to understand his personal views on abortion rights.

I am not in favor of reversing Roe and I strongly disagree with this choice.

I do not consider a few dividing cells as "personhood". Nor does the US public.

Gallup Poll

A Gallup Poll on Abortion shows a mere 18% of the population supports a total ban.

In a rebuke to Catholic conservatism, Ireland Voted to End Abortion Ban, and correctly so, on May 26. The vote was a 66% landslide!

The US may foolishly be headed the other way.

It's possible that I am wrong in my assessment of Kavanaugh. He may set his personal, religious views aside.

But I doubt it.

This appointment is likely to be a disaster unless Neil M. Gorsuch, unexpectedly decides the other way.

Such is the guessing game, but this is not a good setup.

Please spare me that sap on your religious views. I don't want to hear them any more than you want to listen to Hindus or atheists.

And I especially do not want to hear from the vast majority of the religious right hypocrites who support war, drones, and millions of people dying because of US policy in Yemen, Syria, and elsewhere.

Listen to Ireland.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Point of note: the due process clause of the 14th Amendment is where the right to privacy is found, not the 9th Amendment. The 9th Amendment reasoning was rejected by the Court as it obviously limits the power of the federal judiciary. So, to sum up, State power to interfere with a person's privacy is forbidden by the 14th Amendment, unless such interference is subject to "strict scrutiny."

Whatever the case may be if you look at the article on SCOTUS Demographics this pick would mean we have 6 Catholics and 3 Jews on the High Court. Does that not seem a little out of the mainstream? What about some WASPS? Or BASPS? The Court is already tilted. This seems unwise.

I am clearly fanatical? Because I believe killing babies and spreading false statements are wrong? The first priority of a person in the medical field should be preservation of life. If that makes me a fanatic than I embrace it. I use reason to show that both your statement about a woman’s body and Mish’s comment about a few dividing cells are scientifically incorrect and I get a long response about amendments, legal personhood, etc.

By definition (check Webster’s), a person is human and an individual. Medical technology has proven beyond any doubt that a fetus is both human and an individual. It is not the woman’s body as you stated but an individual human based on the distinct DNA of our species. If you wish to argue that we should stop a human, individual life than give us an argument for why that is ethical or moral. If you wish to say it is acceptable to do kill one human because privacy rights overshadow the right of life, I see where you stand. However, I disagree. I am not saying you are a bad person or that I am better than you. Hell, I know I am no saint. That happens to be my stance on this issue based on my medical background. I hold nothing against women who have abortions. I know women who have had them and it is a tough decision.

At this stage of our medical knowledge it is time we used our technology to set a scientifically based line on when a doctor can do the procedure. That should be determined by medical professionals working with Congress to pass actual legislation and not a few judges who are legally and not medically trained.

I wish you well.

Yep, we're at the "agree to disagree" portion of this exercise in talking past each other. Good luck Morris.

Stories