The Moral Case for Kavanaugh
Captivated and riveted by the events of this week concerning Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, a nation watches intently as they reaffirm their stances before the entire process began. Conservatives continue to believe that Kavanaugh is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, while left-leaning and progressive-minded people squint with incredulity at Kavanaugh’s seeming mischaracterization of his “choir boy” adolescent years. As of Friday afternoon, ranking GOP members Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska welcomed a delay in the confirmation vote to promptly submit the allegations made against Kavanaugh to the FBI for a brief investigation set to last no longer than a week. While it would be ideal, and ultimately preferable for our newest addition of the Supreme Court to lack a single blemish in his record, I do not accept the mainstream Conservative arguments concerning Kavanaugh’s conditional fitness for the job. The morally imperative duty to confirm Kavanaugh transcends his possible culpability of sexual assault for multitudinous reasons. Here is a moral case for confirming Kavanaugh, given that the worst aspects of Dr. Ford’s testimony are true.
In the simplest way I can put it, there is infinitely more moral destruction in abandoning a conservative majority on the court than confirming someone who engaged in a sexual assault while at a drunken party in high school. The reason the left is genuinely desperate to defeat Kavanaugh and confirm someone who will vote with the court’s progressives is because the left views the court as a vehicle to enact their highest political priorities into law. If the left had their way, Washington D.C. would be home to nine unelected high priests in black robes who decide the law on the basis of what they believe the law ought to be. Roe v. Wade (1973) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) are the two major examples of the Supreme Court’s broad-constructionist activism. Both the right to an abortion and the legal redefinition of marriage came from a false interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The clause in the amendment reads: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. This was somehow twisted to mean that individuals have the right to have an abortion to the point of viability. Unfortunately, this is not the extent to which the leftist Court has enforced their policies.
In 2011, the Oklahoma state Congress passed a law which restricted the usage of abortion-inducing drugs to those methods approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This law was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court because of yet another made-up legal establishment. The Court ruled that this law was an “undue burden” on the right to an abortion. In other words, limiting the use of federally unapproved abortion drugs was an infringement on a woman’s right under Roe. No, the progressive Supreme Court would never find an “undue burden” on the Second Amendment, or with all the draconian restrictions states like California have on gun rights; but only those that fit in with the progressive laundry list of judicially constructed rights.
Lastly, the landmark case D.C. v. Heller (2008) should be more than enough to illustrate the gravity of this current confirmation process. In this case, the Supreme Court reached a 5-4 decision in favor of reestablishing the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In his frighteningly catachrestic dissent, Justice Stevens wrote:
“The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.”
Thus, in practicality, the only legal argument the left can use to support gun control is that our entire notion of “gun rights” is invalid altogether. If we do not confirm Brett Kavanaugh, I hope self-righteous Conservatives will rest easy knowing that we grant higher moral credence a drunken sexual assault committed in high school, more than our Second Amendment rights. There is nothing “conservative” about permanently jeopardizing the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the future of American legal thought.
Aside from the stakes, Kavanaugh has led an exemplary public life that was free from imperfection until Dianne Feinstein opened the Pandora’s Box of unsubstantiated allegations. From Kavanaugh’s testimony, the United States learned of what a resolute advocate he has been for the advancement of women in their legal careers. A former female law clerk wrote that gender discrepancies in legal practice are fairer and more equal because of Kavanaugh. Can’t we say that even if he committed a drunken sexual assault at a high school party, his life of impeccable public service neutralizes and outweighs it? As Conservatives, we must unequivocally support the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. The only alternative is to be complacent with the possibility of a progressive majority on the Supreme Court for generations to come, and all that it may entail. I submit to any Conservative who values the ideals of our country and constitution, the macro moral choice is quite clear.
Donations: Support Our WorkPatreon Donation GoFundMe Donations Paypal Donations
Venmo DonationsShow QR Code
Donate CryptocurrencyShow QR Code
3MWPWwXQAECcPfe95 k33hbYkPxVvNnkWCdShow QR Code
0x6FbaaBe48c97aa61288 7Ba6B76311ac0Cc3491FeShow QR Code
MTSdZBdw3gAhRzhNL Gu91JoMaDYstGqtXSShow QR Code