Court Choice Kavanaugh… Faces A Leftist Minefield Where Tolerance Isn’t Tolerated

By DEXTER DUGGAN

Just before President Trump chose highly placed federal judge Brett Kavanaugh to fill Anthony Kennedy’s vacancy on the Supreme Court, aggressive political leftists had forcefully demonstrated their intolerance for tolerance and civility by chasing Trump administration officials away from public accommodations.
Strident Cong. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.) was one of the rabble-rousers helping stoke the dangerous fires by urging that “you create a crowd and you push back on them! And you tell them that they are not welcome, anymore, anywhere.”
Now where did we ever hear before that people shouldn’t be able to sit at a public lunch counter in peace?
Oh, that sorta had something to do with the Ku Klux Klan having infused the U.S. South by the time the 1960s arrived, when the Klan long had been arm-in-arm with, um, Southern Democrats.
In 2018, national Democratic Party officials and their allies were plenty ready to try to chase the Catholic Judge Kavanaugh’s High Court nomination out the door. But would they act a bit more restrained in the national gaze after the recent proof that their team is ready to try to destroy even the dinnertime world of whomever they disapprove?
The supposedly enlightened ranks of the compassionate leftist elite had no compunction against damning, reviling, and threatening those they differed with. The shoe kicked high, toward the throat, when it was on the other foot.
That Kavanaugh, amid such a hostile atmosphere, survived a thorough vetting for nomination by a president fully conscious of fulfilling his pledge for a constitutionalist court probably should provide encouragement, although some people may have preferred a different choice.
Still, the days seem gone when putatively conservative Republican presidents could spring big surprises of unknown names on the nation who turned out to be liberals in judicial practice. A steady hand at the court has grown all the more necessary.
The very evening Kavanaugh’s name was announced on July 9, the national pro-life Susan B. Anthony List issued a news release saying:
“SBA List is mobilizing the pro-life grassroots nationwide and in key Senate battleground states to urge the Senate to swiftly confirm Judge Kavanaugh. Vulnerable senators up for re-election this year have a choice: stand with the president and their constituents and confirm a Supreme Court justice who will respect and uphold the Constitution, or cave to pressure from the extreme abortion lobby.
“If every self-avowed pro-life senator votes the right way, Judge Kavanaugh will be confirmed easily,” the news release said.
The U.S. has gone through a few years recently — with legal cases being pursued even to the Supreme Court — when Christian merchants were denounced vehemently and even punished by leftists when the merchants declined their regular customers’ specific orders for “gay wedding” cakes or flowers.
The shops hadn’t shooed these customers out the door. Indeed, a shop that refused to sell its goods might not remain in business for long. But the owners behind the counter in this case thought they had the same discretion as, say, a Democratic vendor who understandably didn’t want to bake the rare cake that would celebrate Donald Trump as a glorious national savior.
However, Trump administration officials being hounded and harassed hadn’t walked into a business to demand that workers there subjugate their consciences — maybe having to show they’re all registered Republicans, or promising to decorate the walls with art demeaning to Democrats.
No, the Trumpsters were attacked simply over their freedom of choice for working where they did.
Media often intentionally had misreported that Christian merchants “denied service,” although the issue was far more limited. However, when aggressive leftists in fact intentionally broadly denied Republicans service due to the very fact of who they were, this was celebrated and indulged, not subjected to official civil-rights scrutiny.
A left-wing UK Guardian feature article provided an embarrassingly useful example of hatred and loathing against Trump that was posted July 11 under the headline, “‘Make them pariahs’: how shaming Trump aides became a resistance tactic.”
Stop right there. The last thing one would expect from warm, huggy leftists is driving people into pariah-hood. “Pariahs,” after all, entered the language as literally members of a low caste in India. Isn’t erasing class bias and related prejudicial social constructs a supposed key liberal goal?
Unfortunately, however, preening moral arrogance and hypocritical judgmentalism also can be key attitudes in the unreflective progressive mind. The indulgent Guardian article quoted a well-known lefty about the “moral imperative” of publicly shaming Trump officials because, according to his raging mind, the GOP actually encourages, among other barbarities, white supremacists and Nazis.
“We have no choice but to turn them all into pariahs, now and forever into the future,” he foamed. In addition to which: “They are destroying lives every single day, literally killing people in many cases, so they don’t get to be treated like royalty. They need to be confronted with the reality of their choices.”
It’s revealing, of course, when one asks such a moral peacock who’s objecting to “literally killing” what he thinks about literally cruelly killing millions of defenseless preborn babies year after year. This is a wondrous, glorious slaughter that, to these birdbrains, must rage unlimited unto everlasting.
Although every Supreme Court nominee in these times is asked by senators to affirm the inviolability of precedent, honoring precedent never matters when leftist activists spring new constitutional rights from out of nowhere, to impose their narrow ideological agenda widely upon the nation — as with permissive abortion or same-sex “marriage.”
To lose control of a High Court majority is to lose leftists’ privilege of, um, leading from behind — behind the magical drapes concealing the machinery of Oz.
Into this unhinged leftist battlefield strewn with landmines steps Kavanaugh, yet another Catholic for a Catholic-dominated court weighing the constitutionality of the nation’s laws — a Catholic domination that certainly has left something lacking about fidelity to nondenominational moral law.
The depth of the stake that pro-abortionists felt about preserving the made-up law of 1973’s Roe and Doe opinions burst forth 31 years ago, in 1987, when Ronald Reagan nominated powerful federal judge Robert Bork to fill the seat of retiring pro-abortion Justice Lewis Powell.
Disgraceful Catholic Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy with appalling indecency quickly rushed out to denounce Bork as a dangerous foe of abortion and civil rights, and Reagan as a dealer in muck and a “reactionary vision of the Constitution.” Thrown off balance, Bork’s nomination faltered, and he went down to a Senate defeat.
That Massachusetts Catholic Kennedy dared speak this way showed how far U.S. Catholic bishops’ capitulation to secular progressivism already had damaged the Church and nation. He set a new low standard of infamy whose ghost has haunted Supreme Court nominations since.
After Phoenix radio host James T. Harris on July 11 cited support for Kavanaugh spreading among moderates, Arizona GOP Cong. Andy Biggs replied, “I don’t think he’s going to get borked” — a verb that entered the language after Bork’s loss, denoting a fierce, unfair attack.
Fox News reported July 10 that American Bridge, a liberal Democratic PAC, “says it is leaving ‘no stone unturned’ to get its hands on any damaging information about . . . Kavanaugh amid the upcoming contentious confirmation battle in the U.S. Senate.”
It might be more useful for the nation to get its hands on information about the frightening scope of 1973’s Roe and Doe that dominant media since have labored to conceal — for nearly a half-century! What other major court action intentionally has been beclouded for so long to help protect it?
In an editorial posted July 11, the Washington Examiner said, “Most legal scholars who have spoken up on Roe contend it is horrific legal thinking. ‘As a matter of constitutional interpretation,’ wrote Harry Blackmun’s clerk, Edward Lazarus, ‘even most liberal jurisprudes — if you administer truth serum — will tell you it is basically indefensible’.”
Blackmun was the author of the disastrous abortion opinions.
The Examiner editorial went on to conclude: “This may explain why Democrats have begun to move toward Obamacare’s subsidies and away from Roe v. Wade as their main objection to Kavanaugh: They’re afraid the public might find out what Roe actually did.”

Judge Amy Coney Barrett

Might Trump have energized Republican voters more for this November by selecting Federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett? Her courage against Democratic Party anti-Catholics last year in Senate hearings boosted her profile favorably, and left little doubt of where the Dems long have been headed disgracefully.
Washington Examiner opinion writer Emily Jashinsky posted on July 9 that all three of the High Court’s current female justices were nominated by liberal Democrats, and, should abortion return to the court’s calendar, it would be good to have a woman on the Republican side.
“If not Amy Coney Barrett,” Jashinsky wrote, “surely there must have been some female judge in this country with a record that could meet the criteria of a Republican president, and could survive the forthcoming confirmation process, tough as it’s expected to be. Ensuring at least one of the five Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices is female was a legitimate and worthy pursuit.”
Although there’s much pleasing about Kavanaugh, she wrote, “If the court is to take up significant, far-reaching abortion-rights cases in the future, any all-male, five-vote majorities from Republican appointees will hurt the credibility of pro-life rulings in the eyes of the public, whether conservatives like it or not.”
However, northern California conservative commentator Barbara Simpson questioned making court choices by sex. She told The Wanderer on July 11, “It continues to appall me that liberals…rail ‘we’ are all equal, but when something like a Supreme Court nomination comes along, they split and want people nominated based on their sex — yes, sex not gender.
“Should Donald Trump have nominated a man or a woman — and which man or woman? Apparently today, the only issue worth considering is abortion — as though that’s the ‘be all, end all’ of issues facing our country,” Simpson said. She added:
“On top of that, not only should Trump choose based on abortion views but also the religion of the nominee. Sen. Dianne Feinstein challenged Catholic Judge Amy Coney Barrett because ‘the dogma lives loudly within you.’ Hey, she’s Catholic so she must be anti-abortion. Funny how DiFi hasn’t raised that issue with Brett Kavanaugh, who also is Catholic, but she’s opposed to him because, after all, he’s a man. These people disgust me.”