Is the Face of the Man Who Will Repeal Roe v. Wade?

Brett Kavanaugh sounds like the name of a quarterback just drafted out of USC by the Minnesota Vikings. But he's Donald Trump's choice to replace Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. As one would expect, he's hard right, and some Democrats have announced their opposition already. Is this the right move?

Clearly Kavanaugh is yet another pro-business, pro-executive branch judge. While many are worrying about the precarious status of Roe v. Wade, I think the most troubling thing about Kavanaugh is his statement that a president can not be indicted, because it would make his job hard. I'm sure Trump got a boner when he was told that (I'm sure he didn't read anything Kavanaugh wrote--Trump doesn't read). Today there are reports that Kennedy only agreed to retire if Kavanaugh were chosen, which would have made this beauty pageant process ever more of a charade that it already is. And is there a deal between Trump and Kennedy that the latter's son will not be investigated for Deutsche Bank shenanigans? The mind reels at all this corruption.

Amazingly, some conservatives are wary of Kavanaugh, thinking he's not bloodthirsty enough. But he checks all the boxes--he was the lone dissent in a case involving an immigrant wanting to leave detention to have an abortion. He'll lie up and down during his hearing that he'll keep an open mind and judge on the facts, yada yada yada. He seems never to have written an opinion on gay rights, but even now some group is planning a suit to overthrow the gay marriage decision (that Kennedy himself wrote). Kavanaugh is unlikely to drift left like David Souter or John Paul Stevens.

What should the Democratic strategy be? Based on his resume, Kavanaugh is eminently qualified, although Democrats should aggressively question him on presidential powers and try to get him to promise to recuse himself on any case in which Trump is involved. The "McConnell Rule" won't work, because the Dems are not in the majority. And even if they could swing a Susan Collins or, in my favorite fantasy, get John McCain to rise from his sickbed to vote no, there are Democrats in red states who may vote for him to save their hide.

This is what I would do--stall. Kavanaugh has written extensively--some 300 opinions, plus lots of law journal articles--and Democrats can say they need more time to read them. If they can somehow stall until after November 6, and also win the Senate, they can possibly stop Kavanaugh.

But what does that accomplish? Trump will still be making the choices. Are we really to the point where a president of one party will not be able to get a Supreme Court justice approved if the opposite party holds the Senate? Is it possible to get Trump to choose a moderate?

The Supreme Court as politics is nothing new. Andrew Johnson's picks were denied, as congress merely reduced the number of justices (it's not constitutionally set at nine). The Bork hearing of 1987 (he was the first choice by Ronald Reagan for the seat Kennedy eventually got) changed the current way of voting on justices. Hearings are a relatively new phenomena. Ruth Ginsburg got over 90 votes--that wouldn't happen today. The court is as political a football as it's ever been.

Should Democrats hold their nose and allow Kavanaugh to be seated, grateful that Trump didn't pick someone more ideological, like Amy Coney Barrett? I think they'll have to live with it. Again, all we can hope for is that Trump is gone by 2021 and Clarence Thomas has a coronary.