Share This Article with a Friend!


By Whom Would You Want To Be Judged: Brett Kavanaugh Or Senate Democrats?

Like ill-bred children tormenting a turtle or some other harmless animal, Senate Democrats spent yesterday circling Judge Brett Kavanaugh poking him with the sticks of repetitive questions on his views on abortion, executive privilege, President Trump’s alleged wrongdoing, the Second Amendment and other appeals to their increasingly Far Left political base.

Chairman Chuck Grassley had barely gaveled open the second day of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation DiFi Kavanaughhearing when Far Left agitators started screaming and trying to interrupt the hearing. Grassley then pointed out that Democrats interrupted the hearing 63 times on Tuesday and vowed that Wednesday’s hearing would be different – and it was, sort of.

Democrats were slightly more inclined to follow some semblance of decorum and agitators were quickly cleared from the room, but the partisan political tenor of the hearing was just as intense.

Senator Grassley teed-up one of Judge Kavanaugh’s finer moments when he asked what makes a judge a good one and how he goes about deciding cases.

Judge Kavanaugh what makes a good judge is “independence” and pointed to Article III of the Constitution. He said that remining independent takes some “backbone” and cited Youngstown Steel and Brown v. Board of Education, United States v. Nixon as cases that required such backbone. Kavanaugh also identified “respect for precedent” as an important quality for a good judge.

Perhaps most importantly, Judge Kavanaugh said being a good judge means paying attention to words that are written – the Constitution, statutes, etc.

Judge Kavanaugh later told Chairman Grassley his personal beliefs are not relevant when deciding cases when Grassley asked him for examples where he followed precedent even when it went counter to his personal beliefs. Kavanaugh said precedent is about judicial independence and ensuring predictability. “Foundational to our Constitution,” adding that it is also about “stability.”

Kavanaugh also cited the Korematsu dissent and Justice Robert Jackson’s concurrence in Youngstown as examples of judicial independence spoke about his opinion in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, saying he ruled for Hamdan, who was involved in the 9/11 attacks, because “we don’t make decisions based on who people are” and “make decisions based on the law.”

And in some sense that was what the rest of the hearing was about.

When it was California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein’s turn to ask questions, she grilled Judge Kavanaugh about his views on the Second Amendment, and Kavanaugh came back to those basic principles.

When Sen. Feinstein bore down on Kavanaugh about his dissent in the Heller when he as on the D.C. Circuit she said she thought she and Kavanaugh were on “totally different wavelengths” regarding what firearms were in “common use.”

Judge Kavanaugh pointed out that most handguns today are semi-automatic and cited Justice Scalia’s opinion in the Heller case saying that he was strongly following the Supreme Court’s precedent in the Heller and McDonald cases.

Another of Kavanaugh’s finer moments came when he referred Senator Feinstein to the last few pages of his Heller dissent:

...my view on how to analyze the constitutional question here under the relevant Supreme Court precedents is not to say that I think certain gun registration laws or laws regulating semi-automatic guns are necessarily a bad idea as a matter of policy. If our job were to decree what we think is the best policy, I would carefully consider the issues through that different lens and might well look favorably upon certain regulations of this kind. But our task is to apply the Constitution and the precedents of the Supreme Court, regardless of whether the result is one we agree with as a matter of first principles or policy. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 420-21 (1989) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (“The hard fact is that sometimes we must make decisions we do not like. We make them because they are right, right in the sense that the law and the Constitution, as we see them, compel the result.”). A lower-court judge has a special obligation, moreover, to strictly and faithfully follow the lead of the “one supreme Court” established by our Constitution, regardless of whether the judge agrees or disagrees with the precedent.

D.C. believes that its law will help it fight violent crime. Few government responsibilities are more significant. That said, the Supreme Court has long made clear that the Constitution disables the government from employing certain means to prevent, deter, or detect violent crime. See, e.g., Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966); City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000); Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004); Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008); District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). In the words of the Supreme Court, the courts must enforce those constitutional rights even when they have “controversial public safety implications.” McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3045 (2010) (controlling opinion of Alito, J.).

As I read the relevant Supreme Court precedents, the D.C. ban on semi-automatic rifles and the D.C. gun registration requirement are unconstitutional and may not be enforced. We should reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. I respectfully dissent.

Enforcing constitutional rights are what courts are supposed to do when the legislative or executive branch overreach and encroach on the constitutional rights of citizens – but liberals like Senator Feinstein are all for courts enforcing rights they like and totally against them enforcing rights that are inconvenient to their Far Left policy goals or that threaten their grip on power.

Perhaps the pre-CHQ deadline low point of the hearing came when Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, the Senate’s Assistant Democratic Leader, accused Judge Kavanaugh of lying about his role in crafting the Bush administration’s torture policy.

This territory had already been covered to some extent by Senator Lindsey Graham during his questioning of Judge Kavanaugh when he asked Kavanaugh if he helped create or give legal advice about the “terrorist surveillance program.” And the Judge replied he did not.

But keeping with the Democrats’ goal of inflicting maximum political damage on Kavanaugh Durbin let the charge of lying hang out there before quickly moving on to free abortions for illegal alien minors.

Another great moment in the hearing was when Senator Ted Cruz asked Judge Kavanaugh for his definition of a judicial activist.

Judge Kavanaugh responded that a judicial activist is someone who allows “personal or policy preferences” to “override the best interpretation of the law.” He then made this key point – it could go in either direction – upholding or striking down statutes.

Cruz later asked him about the separation of powers, Judge Kavanaugh responded that it is important because it preserves individual liberty. He pointed out that the late Justice Antonin Scalia would always say that the Soviet Union’s Constitution had a Bill of Rights, but it was useless without true separation of powers.

As we alternated between the televised proceedings and the live comments of our fellow conservative observers our takeaway from today’s confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh was this simple question: By whom would you want to be judged; someone who is bound by the plain meaning of the Constitution, the statutory law and Supreme Court precedent, or someone who, like the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, will judge you according to their own personal whims and political goals?

We urge our CHQ friends and readers to call their Senators to demand that they vote AYE to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States. Don’t wait, the toll-free Capitol Switchboard is (1-866-220-0044) we urge you to pick up your phone and call your Senators TODAY.

Share this