Anti-Kavanaugh activists ignore true role of judges

JUDGES are supposed to rule based on the text of the U.S. Constitution and the law, but too many activists want judges to instead rule based on political whim. This was highlighted again by the citizen witnesses produced by Senate Democrats to oppose U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

Melissa Smith, a social studies teacher at U.S. Grant High School in Oklahoma City, described how she once “sat in a classroom on lockdown because a student brought a loaded .380 gun into the school building.” She said Kavanaugh “could stand as a barrier to common-sense gun safety reforms that would keep our schools and communities safe.”

Smith’s comments ignored several basic facts. Schools are already “gun free” zones. Those zones represent strict gun control regulations that are not under attack in the courts. And, based on Smith’s own testimony, that “common-sense” gun control measure is ineffective.

Similar views were espoused by Aalayah Eastmond, a student survivor of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida. Eastmond decried “Second Amendment extremists groups, and other domestic terrorists.” She suggested judges should join youth like herself who “fight to eradicate gun violence.”

Jackson Corbin, a 13-year old from Pennsylvania with Noonan Syndrome, a genetic condition, declared, “We must have justices on the Supreme Court who will save the Affordable Care Act, safeguard preexisting conditions and protect our care.”

Hunter Lachance, a 15-year old from Maine who has asthma, complained that Kavanaugh once ruled against an Environmental Protection Agency “CrossState Air Pollution Rule,” declaring such regulations to be “a life-or-death issue for so many people like me.” He added, “We also need a Supreme Court that will uphold protections to address climate change because my generation’s future depends on it.”

Alicia Wilson Baker of Indiana opposed Kavanaugh because her insurer didn’t cover her preferred form of birth control.

Smith complained that Kavanaugh would support programs empowering parents to choose the best school for their children, rather than having schools assigned based solely on geographic proximity. But she unintentionally highlighted why some parents might seek more options when she described how she “arrived to school on the morning after the 2016 presidential election filled with concern for our school community,” and spoke admiringly of how the principal at U.S. Grant, which has a large Hispanic enrollment, “came over the intercom and reminded all of us that ICE officials are not welcome on our campus.”

Could it be some parents would prefer their children attend a school where the staff doesn’t foment baseless fears that federal agents are poised to arrest children simply because the staff’s preferred political candidate lost?

Notably, none of Kavanaugh’s citizen critics argued that his legal analysis is flawed. In effect, they were upset they might have to abide by the law and Constitution if he is confirmed.

Laws can be changed and the Constitution can be amended, but that requires work and public persuasion. The weakness of the arguments put forth by Kavanaugh’s critics shows why they wish otherwise.