In the past week, the American media has continued its frenzied focus on President Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. Americans United for Life’s legal team, led by our CEO and President Catherine Glenn Foster, General Counsel Steven H. Aden, and Senior Counsel Clarke D. Forsythe, have logged hundreds of media interviews since the nomination announcement, including Fox5 in New York, Fox News, CNN, the Washington Post, the 700 Club, and even staunchly liberal outlets like Cosmopolitan and The Atlantic. The total impact of our voices raised in support of an eminently qualified judge for the Nation’s highest court cannot be understated; our media team estimates that we have reached millions of Americans already with our message and we’ll continue to speak out in public media until Kavanaugh is confirmed
Strong voices in support of Judge Kavanaugh are necessary to answer baseless charges against his record, like the one we examined on Monday of this week. Critics ask why Judge Kavanaugh failed to speak out more strongly for the right to Life in his opinions in Garza v. Hargan, which involved federal assistance for refugees seeking abortions. Even though Judge Kavanaugh actually dissented from a decision that held minors had a right to demand that federal refugee resettlement officials facilitate their access to abortions, and called the court’s decision a “radical extension of the Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence” and “a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. Government detention to obtain immediate abortion on demand,” some believe he did not go far enough. As we explain, Judge Kavanaugh’s position in Garza stated a pro-life view and supported the U.S. government’s arguments, in a way that was pragmatic and wise under the circumstances. Criticism of Judge Kavanaugh on the basis of this opinion is simply sour grapes – a demand that a federal judge go beyond his appropriate authority to be even more critical of the purported right to abortion than the case called for.
Tuesday through Thursday, we took a look at the road ahead to the Supreme Court for Judge Kavanaugh, focusing first on the confirmation process in the Senate Judiciary Committee and then the full Senate. And we shone a spotlight on the most significant debate that is likely to take place – the debate between two very different views of the proper role of a federal judge in deciding constitutional questions. We are hopeful that if charges of “judicial activism” arise, they will be turned back on pro-abortion senators who support Roe v. Wade since Roe is the quintessential example of such improper judicial activism and the antidote for judicial overreaching is Judge Kavanaugh’s brand of faithfulness to the constitutional text. Finally, we reviewed the critical role that the people play in the confirmation process, and the many ways Americans can make their voices heard in the Senate.
Next week, we’ll again take up specific criticisms the Left has leveled against Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination – everything from the desperate and outrageous “Frat Boy” character assault to the charge that his nomination is simply “political payback” for a career spent in Republican party circles – and we’ll see how Judge Kavanaugh’s own record speaks loudest for him in his defense.
