One of my favorite and most influential things I have read is John Hasnas’ The Myth of The Rule of Law, although a long read, it’s entertaining and very eye opening. But we’re going to touch on something slightly different.
With the recent Brett Kavanaugh hearings turning to what seems like a third world congressional session, it’s made obvious that the rule of law isn’t applicable. Democrats aren’t holding anything back against him. They’re even accepting as valid sexual assault claims from THIRTY SIX YEARS AGO while him and the girl were in HIGH-SCHOOL. Wow, you had all that time and NOW you have something to say. Stop.
This is deflating the value of other sexual assault claims that aren’t politically motivate because of people crying wolf. If this girl really cared and was telling the truth why would she do it now when the person she is accusing could become one of the most powerful people in the world? Why not due it while you were still seniors in high school THIRTY SIX years ago? Anyways…
Despite some of the bogus things thrown his way Democrats are also opposing him for ideological reasons. Take for instance, Dr. Paul Krugman’s take:
Meanwhile, Kavanaugh accumulated a record as an appellate judge — one that places him far to the right on everything from the environment, to labor rights, to discrimination. His anti-labor views are especially extreme, even for a conservative.
So who is Brett Kavanaugh? If he looks like a right-wing apparatchik and quacks like a right-wing apparatchik, he’s almost surely a right-wing apparatchik. Which brings us to the coming constitutional crises.
His whole article reads like this. There is nothing of Krugman saying “The Constitution says this, but Kavanugh wants to do this”, instead it’s “I don’t like his views therefore he is bad”. If we are truly to have the rule of law, then shouldn’t we be judging him by the way he interprets the Constitution rather than his political positions? Why do his positions matter when he is supposed to be viewing the a judge of the Constitution as it applies to government?
Similarly Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has a similar view:
In selecting Judge Kavanaugh, President Trump did exactly what he said he would do on the campaign trail — nominate someone who will overturn women’s reproductive rights and freedoms and strike down health care protections for millions of Americans, including those with preexisting conditions,
Yeah, still just political views. Nothing to due with the Constitution. Let’s say that the Constitution didn’t allow for “women’s reproductive rights”, then shouldn’t Kavanugh be in the right for being against it from a Constitutional basis? I mean that is what we are supposed to be looking at right…right? No where are the Democrats saying “He is violating the Constitution by holding these views”. It’s just “Far right extremist therefore bad”.
You could very easily make the case that his views on the fourth amendment are violating the Constitution, but only honest leftists would bring that up. If Democrats want to make this a political issue then fine. I hope Kavanaugh is an activist right wing judge who helps bring down Roe v Wade, environmental rulings, rulings in favor of labor unions and everything else to make the Democrats furious. You want to make things political fine, enjoy :).