Justice Brett Kavanaugh deserve to be appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States because of his textualist and originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Fluid interpretations lack protection for the rights of citizens, which mostly occurs in turbulent political periods. The government is supposed to respect our inalienable rights, not expunge them during cycles of a growing consensus might favor their erasure. We think that Kavanaugh’s interpretation of refusing government intervention in the case of individual liberty keeps Orwellian legislation in check.
In the “Volokh Conspiracy,” a blog hosted by The Washington Post for law professors, Ilya Shapiro argues in favor of Kavanaugh. He explains how Kavanaugh’s decisions preserve the sovereignty of the individual. “In a 2009 law review article, [Kavanaugh] wrote that ‘… the President does not enjoy unilateral authority with respect to all incidents of war…’ Kavanaugh …rejected executive supremacy in favor of judicial review… in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), which argued that the military can’t detain U.S. citizens absent a congressional suspension of habeas corpus.”
Kavanaugh’s analysis reaffirms the U.S. citizens’ writ of habeas corpus, which requires arrestees be brought to a judge. In that example, instead of succumbing to executive powers that could have easily tempted other judges, Kavanaugh stood his ground. This is ideal for a judge since the way a legal document was written is the way it should be interpreted. When this is not enforced, partisan ideas can influence a judge’s decision on a case.
The Supreme Court is not designed to carry out personal justice; instead, their rulings should align with the ideals of the Constitution. Legislators are supposed to devise bills that address the population’s concerns in the modern day. We believe Kavanaugh’s discernment of law is unwavering through civil unrest and resists the ideological fluidity of human discourse in favor of an interpretation that will withstand the test of time.
Recently, Kavanaugh has been accused of sexual assault by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. We would like to address that if these allegations against Kavanaugh are true, he should not be on the Supreme Court and he should be put on trial for sexual aggravation. However, Ford’s testimony falls apart under scrutiny. She was unable to give a consistent account of events leading up to nor during the “assault.” According to The Washington Post, her therapy notes from 2012 (no mention of Kavanaugh) stated that there were four boys in the bedroom at the time of the assault.
Then later with The Washington Post, she stated that there were four boys at the party, and two in the bedroom, making the therapy notes contradictory. In Ford’s letter to Senator Feinstein, she said that there were “… me [Ford] and four others… ” at the party. However, she later stated it was 4 boys, Leland Keyser (one of her lifelong friends), and herself who were present. Ford also writes that she heard Mark Judge (person identified by Ford) and Kavanaugh speaking to each other. However, in her testimony, she said she was unable to hear any conversation occur. She also refused to provide any therapy notes to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Ford has also lied on multiple occasions in her testimony, according to other records and testimonies. She initially refused to go to Washington to testify since she had a “fear of flying,” but, if one looks at her flight record, she flies annually to visit her family. She also has flown for fun to Hawaii, French Polynesia, and Costa Rica. She also recounted how she asked her husband, in 2012, to put in a second door in their renovated home during couples therapy. She claimed this was due to claustrophobia from her “sexual assault.” According to Palo Alto City records, she actually wanted to rent the room and use the door as an alternative entryway for tenants. The records also show that the door was built in 2008, four years before the reported therapy session.
Coming to terms with reality, though, if it were possible to peer into Kavanaugh and Ford’s memories, and do comparative analysis of their experiences, then perhaps the truth wouldn’t be so difficult to attain.
However, the evidence mounts demonstrably against Ford in our opinion. Separate from any sentiments one would have towards Ford’s account, she is not credible, and it is dishonest to condemn Kavanaugh without legitimate evidence.
Without the notion of innocent until proven guilty, a society cannot expect legal proceedings to be demonstrative of justice since it is very easy to fabricate an allegation, and inversely immensely difficult to disprove.
The burden of proof should be on the accuser since without this, all people can be ended by another’s wicked semantics. In the words of Steven Crowder, a political commentator and comedian, “It’s [innocent until proven guilty] because we know that if people can use lies to further their own personal position, to advance their own personal gain for power, that they will.”