The Ivy League schools Yale and Harvard have educated the most Supreme Court Justices of any college in the U.S. Proudly, Yale congratulated the most recent appointee, with many praising his respectable character and intelligence. Others “educated” at such institutions, however, disagree with the decision and believe the new Justice will attempt to repeal Roe v. Wade, a move that would supposedly lead to the deaths of Americans as they claim women seeking abortions would be forced to seek unsafe and life-threatening procedures.
Scores of Yale law students, alumni, and educators signed an open letter directed to the college’s leadership team and the Dean of its law school, Heather Gerken, saying they are “ashamed” of their alma mater. For what are they ashamed? Yale submitted a press release soon after the selection of the university’s alumnus Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, supporting President Trump’s decision.
In the document, the university’s decision to praise Judge Kavanaugh was criticized, declaring that his nomination will pose a grave danger to the country. Could this proclamation contain any truth?
The signatories claim that Kavanaugh will attempt to repeal Roe v. Wade, resulting in women seeking abortions through illegal and dangerous means. What evidence have they collected regarding his view on the matter?
Kavanaugh was involved in a high-profile case in which an undocumented pregnant teen in Texas wished to receive an abortion. The state government approved a temporary leave of custody of the girl to undergo the procedure. However, Kavanaugh suggested that she did not have the right to an immediate abortion, as she had illegally entered the country and would thus have to wait until her release.
The signatories of the letter believe Kavanaugh’s behavior to be a product of an underlying desire to overturn Roe v. Wade. The fact is that there is currently insufficient evidence to form their conclusion.
During Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing in 2006 to become D.C. Circuit Judge, he was asked if he considered Roe v. Wade to be an “abomination.” He responded that his job is not to create legislation, but to rather follow the law “faithfully and fully.” Furthermore, as reported by Liberty Nation’s Graham Noble, it is highly unlikely for Roe v. Wade to ever conclusively be overturned. The court cannot decide to reverse any piece of legislation at will but instead requires a specific case to spur the action. Noble also explains that even if the legislation were overturned, the decision to permit abortion would still be in the hands of the states, where it would also be unlikely to criminalize the procedure. After all, about 69% of Americans support Roe v. Wade, according to the Pew Research Center.
A Bipartisan Judge
In the Yale press release, numerous professors congratulated Kavanaugh on his appointment to the Court. Akhil Reed Amar, an instructor at the college, says that the nominee has compiled exemplary experience and displays skill for close observation, granting him a profound understanding of the intricacies of the executive and legislative branches. Another detailed that Kavanaugh is “fair-minded” and has employed law clerks of all backgrounds and viewpoints. Others avowed that he is one of the most “learned judges in America.”
The writers of the open letter, all of which are educated in the field of law, chose to form empty allegations to further their agenda. They asserted that Kavanaugh is highly partisan due a statement he published in the midst of the 2008 presidential race. Kavanaugh wrote, “A serious constitutional question exists regarding whether a president can be criminally indicted and tried while in office.”
When he published the work, he was referring to the fact that taking action against a president may cause the country to delve into chaos. He noted that the federal government’s credibility would be damaged both domestically and internationally during such an event, creating an ill effect on the public interest in times of financial or national security crisis.
Kavanaugh explained that such a feat is in the hands of Congress, however, and he only suggested considering the idea. He also noted that no single judge should be able to accomplish what the Constitution assigns to Congress.
The evidence shows that President Trump has nominated one of America’s most experienced and knowledgeable individuals in the field of law. Brett Kavanaugh has championed bipartisanship and most of all aims to uphold the values of the Constitution. Perhaps the signatories of the letter objecting to his appointment should reevaluate their values, as they seem ill-equipped to contribute to a useful discussion without objectively examining Kavanaugh’s history.
What are the thoughts of our readers? Do you support the new Court Justice?