Brett Kavanaugh: Brilliant, Unforeseen SCOTUS Nominee

President Trump is a superb showman as well as statesman. On
his second Supreme Court nomination, he kept the public waiting and his
supporters wondering. Before he announced his decision, the Left and their
Democratic hordes in Congress raged about the end of Roe v. Wade (and the poorly written, judicial activist imposed gay
marriage decision).

I had wanted US Senator Mike Lee. Unfortunately, the fact
that he declared his fervent opposition to Roe
v. Wade (which should be overturned, by the way) would have hurt his
chances of getting the two pro-choice Republican US Senators (Murkowski of
Alaska and Collins of Maine) to support him. Beyond that, judges should not
declare distinct, fervent opposition to specific decisions or laws early on. Such
policy statements undermine the veneer and core of judicial independence.

Ann Coney Barrett would have checked off a number of
interests (young, female, staunchly pro-life and pro-First Amendment). She
would be the perfect replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Thomas Hardiman would have been the logical
choice, since he had already been vetted, ending up runner-up to Neil Gorsuch. Kavanaugh
is an excellent choice, although an option I had not considered seriously until
the increasing number of reports the day before indicated that he was the
likely nominee.

Ann Coulter brought him to the forefront multiple times over
the past week. She argued consistently that he was the best candidate for
advancing the “America First” agenda.

Indeed, Kavanaugh’s record on “American First” is a proud
pedigree worth looking at more closely:

Note that Kavanaugh is not afraid to be a losing dissenter,
while his predecessor was more interested in being in “the majority”. This
judicial vetting process that led to Judge Brett Kavanaugh is the first time to
my knowledge that the President, the political class, and the public at large
applied an immigration litmus test. It’s disconcerting in a limited sense that
popular interests have become so central in the selection of federal judges.
Still, the highest court in the country should not shy away from shoring up the
nation’s borders and securing the sovereignty of the nation. The rule of law is
at stake, especially in the blue bastions of resistance like California and New
York. This country needs a federal judiciary ready to challenge this regional
rebellion.

Other factors make the Kavanaugh nomination noteworthy.

He
worked for the Bush Administration. He helped with the Florida
recount which flipped the state into the red column in Election 2000. That record
should invite support from the  GOP
Establishment while outraging from the Left. The GOPe wouldn’t reject a nominee
who had not only worked with W., but was later nominated by W. for the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

As with Gorsuch, Trump listened to the people and considered
the best interests of the county, not the comfort of the political
power-brokers. Reports indicated that Majority Leader McConnell wanted Raymond
Kethledge (or Thomas Hardiman) for an easier confirmation. When the populist
uproar over Kethledge reached a boil (his
past decisions suggested weakness on immigration), reports quickly
tumbled out that Kethledge was out of the running. This process played out last
year, when Trump had favored Judge William Pryor. His record on First Amendment
issues, especially religious liberty, was shaky, though. National grassroots
groups had registered their complaints to good effect.

Unlike previous Republican Presidents, Trump welcomes the
political fight for good nominees. 

Kavanaugh, the rock-steady constitutional originalist,
has courted controversy before. When Bush 43 nominated him to the DC Court of
Appeals, but he wasn’t confirmed for three years! In the minority at the time,
Senate Democrats pulled ever stop to stop him and other Bush-era judicial
nominees. 

Eventually, the
“Gang of 14” allowed some appointments to move forward, thus
averting the nuclear option to quash the filibuster for federal district and
court nominees. Kavanaugh likely got confirmation because of this brokered deal
at the time. Trump could have but didn’t choose a “consensus” choice. Kavanaugh
has a definitive, controversial, and consistently conservative record.

Trump’s nominations continue to be refreshingly principled,
a contrast to the last Republican president, George W. Bush, who didn’t want to
confront the US Senate gridlock. John Roberts had a thin judicial record, and
some of his decisions have hurt the country. When Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retired
Bush first nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers: a liberal nominee with
no discernible record or judicial experience. Bush’s choice came from weakness,
simply because the White House wanted to avoid a senatorial showdown. Trump
doesn’t flee from the fight.

In fact, the Kavanaugh nomination guarantees trolling
against and feckless opposition from the Democratic Senate minority. Kavanaugh
worked with Kenneth Starr during the prosecution of President Bill Clinton.
Expect to hear the Clintons mentioned in the press, with reminders of their perennial
corruption. Kavanaugh’s strong record supporting life, the Second Amendment,
and religions liberties will also inflame the Left. Of course, Red State
Democratic US Senators will be caught between their caucus leaders and the Deep
Red Wave coming in November. This will be fun.