SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,401
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 60:
Line 60: + + +
Kavanaugh has sided with the left on Planned Parenthood
On another note, although Kavanaugh's argumentation was in a dissent that has no legal weight whatsoever, it is still troubling because it was rooted in the idea that assumptions for the sake of scenario creation are identical to arguments intended to have a reasonable person interpret them as being implicit adjudication. This idea has the potential to cause damage on two fronts. First, it paves the way for incorrect interpretations of Hobby Lobby by future lawyers and judges. And second, it opens a pathway to abuse of discretion by future judges due to conflation of terms.
On another note, although Kavanaugh's argumentation was in a dissent that has no legal weight whatsoever, it is still troubling because it was rooted in the idea that assumptions for the sake of scenario creation are identical to arguments intended to have a reasonable person interpret them as being implicit adjudication. This idea has the potential to cause damage on two fronts. First, it paves the way for incorrect interpretations of Hobby Lobby by future lawyers and judges. And second, it opens a pathway to abuse of discretion by future judges due to conflation of terms.
== Tenure on the court ==
In December 2018, Kavanaugh (along with [[John Roberts]]) sided with the liberal wing of the Court, in 6-3 a decision to decline to hear three cases relating to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood at the state level. Kavanaugh's decision (and those of the other five justices in the majority) were implicitly criticized in a dissent written by [[Clarence Thomas]], which stated that "the Court's refusal to do its job" may have had "something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named ‘Planned Parenthood."[https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/10/planned-parenthood-kavanaugh/]
== References ==
== References ==