Justice Kavanaugh

As had been broadly anticipated, President Trump last night nominated Appeals Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to fill the seat on the Supreme Court of retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. This nomination has been immediately opposed by most Democrats in the Senate and across the party while being lauded by most Senate Republicans who would speak out.  The primary arguments offered  initially revolve around what Kavanaugh  will do on reproductive rights/Choice issues and, perhaps, his approach to presidential powers and rights.
My initial thoughts were (and may still be) based on the belief that should whoever Trump pick be rejected by  the Senate that his subsequent selections would undoubtedly be worse or at least no better on substantive issues.  And with that thought I was prepared to watch the confirmation process roll out and shrug when Vice President Pence broke the tie and put Kavanaugh over the top.
I am still not convinced that the status quo position of Roe v Wade will automatically be dissolved by  Kavanaugh's win. I actually have more faith in Chief Justice Roberts that he might fill that "swing vote" role on this issue if push came to shove.
However, as of Tuesday evening, July 10, I now think I support the "never Kavanaugh" movement. There is just too much to this "Forrest Gump" of Republican jurisprudence for him to get the benefit of the doubt after he dances around and coyly avoids admitting his undemocratic (little "d") positions during Senate hearings. Kavanaugh is, indeed, dangerous. He would shield Trump from scrutiny into questionable activities with Russians and a wide range of "get richer quicker" schemes of the Trump administration and Trump companies.
Kavanaugh's positions on presidential immunity seems to have flipped from early in his career when he was a Starr investigation attack dog to recent months when he wishes to shield the president who is appointing him to the SCOTUS job.
So, maybe I'll mellow as the summer drags on. But today I'm thinking -

Sept, 2018 -  The unforeseen curve in the path to the vote on Kavanaugh has been the "sexual assault" allegations. The big committee hearing will occur in two days, but as currently planned it won't prove anything as the committee leaders have rigged it to limit all discovery to "He said, she said" and no other damning evidence allowed.  The bottom line is that it's unclear if Kavanaugh will receive 50 or 51 votes in the full Senate.

    But if he can't, Trump will only nominate an even more conservative choice. However, the delay could put off a vote until after the midterm elections. And the Democrats very well might repay the Republicans for the unconstitutional treatment of Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland. In which case we'd limp along with an 8-person SCOTUS for two years. No big deal.

SCOTUS Senate Confirmation hearings

Since I taught federal government classes at community colleges off for 15 years following a 32 yr career in the federal government, I have studied these issues a little more than the average bear. But I confess to being confused and puzzled. How do we get a Supreme Courts containing liberals like Sotomayor and Kagan along with conservatives of the Thomas and Scalia ilk and still have the gall to pretend the established process is not political? You say, “Nobody pretends that. Everyone knows it's political and how it works.” Everyone? Really? Well somebody needs to whisper that to Mr. Kavanaugh. He is sitting in the witness chair of the Judiciary Committee declaring with a straight face that he will follow the lead of EVERY current sitting justice and render decisions devoid of a shred of political influence. He will take his extensive judicial and governmental experience and background, consider the provisions of the constitution and written law along with the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case before him and he will vote for a decision that is obviously correct and apolitical. His only litmus test other than the constitution will be whether his vote is consistent with the answers he gave the Senate Judiciary in confirmation hearing years before.

The big question or issue that seemingly is never challenged is the notion that there can appropriately be a “liberal” versus a “conservative” solution to a given constitutional issue. Are important laws that poorly written that vastly different interpretations of those laws can be drawn by different jurists? If not, then where have we gone wrong in the way we select judges? Why don't “liberal” justices and “conservatives” reach the same conclusions in comparing the facts of a case with written law and the constitution? Had I understood that conundrum, my years teaching federal government topics might have produced a clearer concept of the place of the Judiciary in a fair American republic.