Will Trump’s SCOTUS Nominee Practice Religious Or Corporate Bias On The Court?


On Monday, President Donald Trump, playing host for the most politically divided country turned reality TV show imaginable, announced that D.C. Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh will replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the United States Supreme Court.

For over a week, the government teased their public audience with a short list of other controversial names such as Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Judge Raymond Kethledge, and Judge Thomas Hardiman, all of which facing scrutiny in their search for a SCOTUS appointment that could last generations.

The concern from the left centres on contentious issues such as Roe V. Wade, a key decision that guarantees abortion rights to all U.S. citizens on the federal level. A precedent which could be overturned if conservatives hold a firm majority in the country’s highest court, particularly if they squeeze justices of religious bias past the nomination process.

Despite being a late Reagan appointee, the court record of Justice Kennedy presented the man as America’s “decider”, proving himself as a genuine swing-vote untethered to theocratic motivations from the Catholic faith. Would a post-Kennedy SCOTUS, constructed under the evangelical-pandering President Trump, meet this amount of secularist integrity?

It’s a fair question for those who believe in the separation of church and state.

To the likes of large conservative outlets in National Review, Fox News, the Daily Wire, InfoWars, even just mainstream outlets like The Hill, however, this question, regarding how someone’s religious and judicial views intersect, is considered a form of “religious bigotry” against Christians. The outlets often highlighted a scandal surrounding Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who notorious confronted Barrett during her 2017 confirmation hearing.

“Why is it that so many of us on this side have this very uncomfortable feeling that you know dogma and law are two different things?” Feinstein asked of Barrett, an admitted Christian devotee. “I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for, for years in this country.”

The senator was addressing the 1998 Marquette Law Review article Barrett co-authored with John Garvey, her former law school colleague at Indiana’s University of Notre Dame and now president of the Catholic University of America, concluding Catholic judges who opposed to the death penalty could always recuse themselves under federal law.

This, in effect, would mean they put religious beliefs above their occupation.

Years later, Barrett was revealed to be a member of People of Praise, a known gender-segregated Catholic cult, which upheld literal patriarchal notions that “handmaidens” — their name for obedient Catholic women — should submit to male authority in most facets of life where they’re not leader. It’s easy to see why someone of Catholicism’s fringe on the court strikes concern.

With all this in mind, Feinstein simply wondered whether the Republican’s SCOTUS picks can always preform their jobs as unbiased arbiters of the law, whether they can only pick and choose which cases to oversee, or whether their religious ties result in theocratic politics.

“If you’re asking whether I’m a faithful Catholic,” Coney shot back, “ I am, although I would stress that my own personal Church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on the discharge of my duties as a judge.”

But can the same be said of Kavanaugh?

In the past week, the judge has being hailed as a “warrior for religious liberty” with endorsements from the religious right in National Review, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Leonard Leo, Eugene Scalia, Matt Schlapp, J. D. Vance, and Ed Whelan. The current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer declared the replacement to Justice Kennedy “has an obligation — a serious and solemn obligation — to share their personal views” on issues Kavanaugh has avoided, particularly his recent non-opinion on Roe V. Wade.

The Atlantic reports Democrats are set to oppose Trump’s latest nominee for being the former chair of the Federalist Society’s “Religious Liberties Practice Group”, the conservative non-profit organisation where, a pro bono basis, Kavanaugh submitted several pro-religious liberty amicus briefs to the Supreme Court, legal documents which essentially play the role of lobbyist in offering justices arguments and data outside traditional court hearings in order to sway their decisions.

Since Justice Kennedy, was the swing-vote on several abortion rights cases, progressives are wonder if Kavanaugh, one of Kennedy’s former law clerks, would be influenced by religious lobbying bias. His most controversial moment came in an October 2017 where Judge Kavanaugh, severing on a D.C. appeals court, dissented from the majority in saying undocumented immigrant teens, while locked away in detention centres, are not entitled to abortions regardless of the circumstances for the pregnancy, whether it’s from consensual sex or rape.

Detailed in a report from The Washington Post, Kavanaugh wrote the Supreme Court has held that “the government has permissible interests in favoring fetal life, protecting the best interests of a minor, and refraining from facilitating abortion.” He continued to say that the high court has “held that the government may further those interests so long as it does not impose an undue burden on a woman seeking an abortion.”

He said the majority opinion was “based on a constitutional principle as novel as it is wrong: a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in US government detention to obtain immediate abortion on demand. Regarding citizens, however, he said “all parties on this case recognise Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey as precedents we must follow.”

Trump has stated his interest in overturning this precedent, evidenced in his 2017 instalment of of lifelong pro-life advocate Justice Neil Gorsuch over former Obama-era nominee Merrick Garland, but Kavanaugh instead presents the pro-elite side of White House nominees.

Keep in mind, Kennedy was no fighter against Citizens United v. FEC, the 2010 ruling which decided money is a form of free speech and free expression, therefore private citizens and corporations have the liberty of making political campaign contributions which, in effect, act as bribes.

This kind of corrupted was condemned by candidate Trump in the past, but suddenly isn’t the case for President Trump now. Since Kennedy, in fact, wrote the opinion for Citizens United, it’s likely his replacement, known for strict opposition to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), will just continue the political swamp of Washington. As both CNN and New York Magazine rightly point out, there’s always one person we should wonder who benefits from these modern political decisions: President Donald Trump.

Reporter Jim Acosta writes: “Trump SCOTUS team has looked at Kavanaugh’s past comments on indicting a sitting president, we’ve confirmed. In 2009, Kavanaugh wrote: “The indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government…”

This opinion, of course, only applies to Republicans.

Kavanuagh was among the independent watchdogs for Kenneth Starr’s investigation of Democratic President Bill Clinton and his predatory relationship with Monica Lewinsky. According to records cited by Ken Gormley, Duquesne University law professor and Watergate biography, Kavanaugh wrote the counsel shouldn’t go easy on the president since Clinton “has disgraced his Office, the legal system, and the American people by having sex with a 22-year-old intern and turning her life into a shambles… callous and disgusting behavior that has somehow gotten lost in the shuffle. He has committed perjury. … He has tried to disgrace … this Office with a sustained propaganda campaign that would make Nixon blush.”

Now Kavanaugh once argued in favor of a broad definitions for what constitutes presidential obstruction of justice and wrote that Congress should pass a law making the president exempt from criminal prosecution and general investigations while in office:

“If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available. No single prosecutor, judge, or jury should be able to accomplish what the Constitution assigns to the Congress. Moreover, an impeached and removed President is still subject to criminal prosecution afterwards.”

This begs the question of which God does Kavanaugh serve?

Is it the kind of the Christian dogma variety, who he believes gave him life?

Is it the Republican president, who quite literally gave him power?

Or is it the law, who likely won’t get a fair hearing for another generation?

Thanks for reading!

Bailey T. Steen is a journalist, editor, artist and film critic based in Victoria, Australia, but is also Putin’s Puppet on occasion.

Articles published on TrigTent | Medium | Janks Reviews | Steemit

Updates and contact: @atheist_cvnt on Twitter | Instagram | Gab.Ai

Business or personal contact: bsteen85@gmail.com | Comment below

Cheers, darlings!! 💋

troubled writer, depressed slug, bisexual simp, neoliberal socialist, trotskyist-bidenist, “corn-pop was a good dude, actually,” bio in pronouns: (any/all)

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store