Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) stood with other Democrats in the Senate on Tuesday as they denounced the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to fill the empty seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. (Photo: @SenKamalaHarris)
Why I Will Oppose Brett Kavanaugh's Nomination to the Supreme Court
Trump's pick represents a direct and fundamental threat to the court's promise to ensure "Equal Justice Under the Law"
The Supreme Court has a profound impact on the rights -- and lives -- of all Americans. When at its best, it has advanced the meaning of those words above its doors, 'Equal Justice Under Law.' At its worst, the Supreme Court has upheld racial segregation, enabled voter suppression, and equated corporations with people. Whether or a not the Supreme Court enforces the spirit of those words, 'Equal Justice Under Law,' is determined by the individuals who sit on that Court.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh represents a direct and fundamental threat to that promise of equality and so I will oppose his nomination to the Supreme Court. Specifically, as a replacement for Justice Anthony Kennedy, his nomination presents an existential threat to the health care of hundreds of millions of Americans.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, President Trump made clear that he had a litmus test for Supreme Court Justices -- overturn Roe v. Wade and oppose a woman's constitutionally-protected right to make her own health care decisions. The President then released a list of nominees who had been vetted to meet that test. Judge Kavanaugh is on that list.
Judge Kavanaugh has consistently proven to be a conservative ideologue instead of a mainstream jurist. As recently as last year, he disregarded Supreme Court precedent and opposed the health care rights of a vulnerable young woman. That ruling was overturned by a sitting of all the judges on his court. In 2015, Kavanaugh wrote that an employer, based on their personal beliefs, can deny their employee access to birth control coverage.
I know personally just how consequential this seat on the Supreme Court is. Almost two decades after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, I was part of only the second class to integrate the Berkeley, California public schools. If that Court had not issued that unanimous opinion led by Chief Justice Earl Warren in that case argued by Thurgood Marshall, I likely would not have become a lawyer, or a prosecutor, or a been elected district attorney, or the Attorney General of California. And I certainly would not have become a United States Senator.
That's the power an individual Supreme Court Justice holds. Those are the stakes of this nomination. We must demand a mainstream jurist worthy of our great country.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just two days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The Supreme Court has a profound impact on the rights -- and lives -- of all Americans. When at its best, it has advanced the meaning of those words above its doors, 'Equal Justice Under Law.' At its worst, the Supreme Court has upheld racial segregation, enabled voter suppression, and equated corporations with people. Whether or a not the Supreme Court enforces the spirit of those words, 'Equal Justice Under Law,' is determined by the individuals who sit on that Court.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh represents a direct and fundamental threat to that promise of equality and so I will oppose his nomination to the Supreme Court. Specifically, as a replacement for Justice Anthony Kennedy, his nomination presents an existential threat to the health care of hundreds of millions of Americans.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, President Trump made clear that he had a litmus test for Supreme Court Justices -- overturn Roe v. Wade and oppose a woman's constitutionally-protected right to make her own health care decisions. The President then released a list of nominees who had been vetted to meet that test. Judge Kavanaugh is on that list.
Judge Kavanaugh has consistently proven to be a conservative ideologue instead of a mainstream jurist. As recently as last year, he disregarded Supreme Court precedent and opposed the health care rights of a vulnerable young woman. That ruling was overturned by a sitting of all the judges on his court. In 2015, Kavanaugh wrote that an employer, based on their personal beliefs, can deny their employee access to birth control coverage.
I know personally just how consequential this seat on the Supreme Court is. Almost two decades after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, I was part of only the second class to integrate the Berkeley, California public schools. If that Court had not issued that unanimous opinion led by Chief Justice Earl Warren in that case argued by Thurgood Marshall, I likely would not have become a lawyer, or a prosecutor, or a been elected district attorney, or the Attorney General of California. And I certainly would not have become a United States Senator.
That's the power an individual Supreme Court Justice holds. Those are the stakes of this nomination. We must demand a mainstream jurist worthy of our great country.
The Supreme Court has a profound impact on the rights -- and lives -- of all Americans. When at its best, it has advanced the meaning of those words above its doors, 'Equal Justice Under Law.' At its worst, the Supreme Court has upheld racial segregation, enabled voter suppression, and equated corporations with people. Whether or a not the Supreme Court enforces the spirit of those words, 'Equal Justice Under Law,' is determined by the individuals who sit on that Court.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh represents a direct and fundamental threat to that promise of equality and so I will oppose his nomination to the Supreme Court. Specifically, as a replacement for Justice Anthony Kennedy, his nomination presents an existential threat to the health care of hundreds of millions of Americans.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, President Trump made clear that he had a litmus test for Supreme Court Justices -- overturn Roe v. Wade and oppose a woman's constitutionally-protected right to make her own health care decisions. The President then released a list of nominees who had been vetted to meet that test. Judge Kavanaugh is on that list.
Judge Kavanaugh has consistently proven to be a conservative ideologue instead of a mainstream jurist. As recently as last year, he disregarded Supreme Court precedent and opposed the health care rights of a vulnerable young woman. That ruling was overturned by a sitting of all the judges on his court. In 2015, Kavanaugh wrote that an employer, based on their personal beliefs, can deny their employee access to birth control coverage.
I know personally just how consequential this seat on the Supreme Court is. Almost two decades after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, I was part of only the second class to integrate the Berkeley, California public schools. If that Court had not issued that unanimous opinion led by Chief Justice Earl Warren in that case argued by Thurgood Marshall, I likely would not have become a lawyer, or a prosecutor, or a been elected district attorney, or the Attorney General of California. And I certainly would not have become a United States Senator.
That's the power an individual Supreme Court Justice holds. Those are the stakes of this nomination. We must demand a mainstream jurist worthy of our great country.