ShareThis Page
Featured Commentary

Cal Thomas: The Brett Kavanaugh nomination

| Sunday, July 15, 2018, 9:03 p.m.

If Alexander Hamilton had been nominated for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court today, Democrats would likely oppose him.

About the court, Hamilton said: “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing. … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

In Federalist No. 78, Hamilton said that the judiciary branch of the proposed government would be the weakest of the three branches because it had “no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society. … It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.”

Today, however, the judiciary seems to have surpassed Congress and rival even the executive branch as it has, particularly in the last century, assumed powers unto itself that the Constitution’s framers never intended.

Given his record and views of the Constitution, President Trump’s latest Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, is in line with Hamilton’s thinking, but out of line with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and most Democrats. Yet, in a closely divided Senate, some Democrats may be needed to seat Kavanaugh, given the uncertainty as to how Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, both pro-choice on the issue of abortion, will vote.

Then, for some, there’s the issue of Kavanaugh’s Catholic faith, which Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has already disparaged. Last year during confirmation hearings for Notre Dame Law School Professor Amy Coney Barrett for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Feinstein said, “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.”

Would Feinstein be equally concerned that an atheist might impose his or her views on the Constitution, if those views tracked with a verse from the Old Testament, with which Feinstein, born into a Jewish family, might be familiar? “In those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes.” (Judges 21:25, NLT)

Rush Limbaugh had a good suggestion for Republicans. On his radio show, Limbaugh said Republicans should dispense with a lengthy confirmation process and visits by Kavanaugh to the offices of individual senators (they know him because he has visited before during his previous confirmation) and get right to a confirmation vote. Don’t let senators go home for summer recess where they will be confronted by protesters and demands that they oppose him, he said. Don’t allow TV ads designed to sway senators, the ad campaigns planned even before the nomination, to have an effect. Limbaugh wants Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to schedule hearings next week, followed by a quick vote afterward.

Democrats and big media will scream, but Republicans have an opportunity to do something they have traditionally been squeamish about — use power when they have it.

If Republicans stay unified and if they can pick off two or three Democrats who are up for re-election in states where Trump won handily in 2016, Kavanaugh, with his stellar credentials, should be easily and properly confirmed.

Cal Thomas is a columnist for the Tribune Content Agency.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me