How Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh may affect issues that matter to Jews

Progressive groups concerned Trump’s nominee may be threat to reproductive rights while Orthodox group welcome his record on religious liberty

ed note–again, without even reading the piece itself but merely considering the TITLE underscores the gorilla in the room which no one is allowed to discuss. Imagine for a moment the screeching campaign that would take place if back when the present Judaic occupants sitting on the Supreme Court were being vetted, news pieces were published discussing how the legal decisions on the part of a Judaic SCJ would  affect Gentiles living in America.

Mon Dieu, the noise…

Putting that aside however, what it does reveal–decades or even generations too late–is that the Jews as a group DO NOT share any of the moral or cultural values held sacrosanct by orthodox Christians and Muslims and why they should not be included in any kind of ‘group hug’ thing as is so often the case today. As Shakespeare once wrote, they come wearing smiles but bearing daggers.

Please note the utter hypocrisy on the part of Jody Rabhan, director of the National Council of Jewish Women who kvetches that Kavanaugh would ‘use religion’ in his legal decisions, despite the fact that Jewish religious protocols have been used in guiding US law on a myriad of issues from legalized infanticide to the billions in monetary support that Israel receives from the US every year.

Times of Israel

US President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, a Republican establishment favorite who has worked in the George W. Bush administration, has triggered furious reactions from Jewish groups.

Progressive groups raised flags about the pick, saying Kavanaugh’s record shows he would be a threat to reproductive rights and separation of church and state.

Trump announced on Monday evening that he was nominating Kavanaugh, a federal appeals court judge in Washington, DC, to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy upon his retirement at the end of July.

Within an hour of the announcement, the National Council of Jewish Women released a statement saying it was “incensed” by the choice and helped organize an opposition rally in front of the Supreme Court.

Other progressive groups, such as the Workmen’s Circle, a Jewish organization with roots in the labor movement, denounced Trump’s pick, while the centrist Anti-Defamation League said it was wary that the nominee’s judicial record “does not reflect the demonstrated independence and commitment to fair treatment for all that is necessary to merit a seat on our nation’s highest court.”

On Tuesday, Jody Rabhan, who directs NCJW’s Washington operations, said that Kavanaugh, like the other candidates considered by Trump, was “terrible on the issues that we care about.”

“The assumption based on his record and his ruling is that he would further push the court in the direction of using religion as an excuse to discriminate, not to mention the incredible horrors that could be, should he end up on the court, around reproductive health rights and justice,” Rabhan told JTA in a phone interview.

Many on the left are concerned that a Trump appointee could join a conservative majority in taking away abortion rights and overturn Roe v. Wade, which Trump made a campaign promise. CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin has said that there is “just no doubt” that abortion would be illegal in a significant part of the United States within a year-and-a-half of the confirmation of whomever Trump picked to fill Kennedy’s seat.

In 2006, Kavanaugh said he would respect Roe v. Wade, but Rabhan said that did not assuage her concern.

“Trump has said that overturning Roe v. Wade is a litmus test for anybody on his shortlist for the Supreme Court, and he has made anti-abortion [views] a litmus test for folks he’s nominated to lower courts,” she said. “We’ve seen it, so we believe him.”

Rabhan and others cited a case, Garza v. Hagan, in which Kavanaugh opposed a detained undocumented immigrant minor’s right to obtain an abortion. In that 2017 case, the government had mandated that the teen could leave her detention center to have an abortion. Kavanaugh vacated the order, postponing the abortion for another week-and-a-half, until a court ultimately ruled in her favor. Kavanaugh dissented, writing that the government had betrayed its “interest in favoring fetal life, protecting the best interests of a minor, and refraining from facilitating abortion.”

Marc Stern, the general counsel of the American Jewish Committee, said most of Kavanaugh’s legal record was “unremarkable,” but that his opinion in the Garza case was “disturbing” and raised questions.

“It’s not clear to us what that means exactly,” Stern said. “Does he believe that immigrants have lesser constitutional rights than everybody else? Does he think that teenagers don’t have a right [to an abortion]? … Does he mean only that the government has a right not to participate and you’re sort of on your own?”

The AJC has not taken a position on the nomination, and Stern said it was studying Kavanaugh’s record, specifically with regard to issues of immigration law, religious liberty, separation of church and state, and reproductive freedom. He said that Kavanaugh’s opinion in Newdow v. Roberts, a case presenting a challenge to prayers at the presidential inauguration and the phrase “so help me God” in the presidential oath, offered “some glimmer of hope” for those supporting separation of church and state. Though the challenge by the plaintiff, an atheist opposing the prayers, was dismissed, Kavanaugh said he did have standing to sue.

Stern does not think Kavanaugh would radically shift the court. Although Kennedy was a swing vote on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, he often was reliably conservative.

“On separation [of church and state] issues, he will read the principle more narrowly than AJC would like,” Stern said. “But from what little he’s written, it doesn’t appear that he’s going to be writing in a whole different vein than where the court as a whole has been — but that’s a guess.”

  1. #1 by Staś on 07/11/2018 - 9:34

    TUT ed. right on ! a central point to the “American” problem. “Jewish religious protocols have been used in guiding US law on a myriad of issues from legalized infanticide to the billions in monetary support that Israel receives from the US every year.”

  2. #2 by Walter on 07/11/2018 - 9:34

    Everything the jews push, like separation of church & state, is the opposite in Israel, except abortion. Everything the jew says is good for the US is outlawed in Israel. I know the jew invented lying; it’s evident he also invented Hypocrisy. Lies & Hypocrisy are the marks of jewry.

  3. #3 by lobro on 07/11/2018 - 9:34

    i strongly resent denying jews the freedom of choice, all jews should be encouraged to have abortion every time they are pregnant, both jewboys and yentas.

    they are chosen and as such require special consideration and privileges denied to the gentiles, who under no circumstances should ever be allowed abortion.

  4. #4 by James Benn on 07/11/2018 - 9:34

    “Progressive groups raised flags about the pick, saying Kavanaugh’s record shows he would be a threat to reproductive rights and separation of church and state.”

    ‘Reproductive rights’, eh? Now there’s a quaint euphemism for, ahem, ‘abortion’. Calling Kavanaugh a ‘threat to reproductive rights’ sounds like he don’t want anyone to reproduce. Unlikely, given he’s a Catholic. And as Catholics know … God has a plan … and he actively WANTS humans to reproduce. And not just humans but other species as well.

    The question arises whether God approves of reproduction between different species. From a strictly scientific point of view, different species, however closely related, cannot produce viable offspring. They may produce something – e.g. a ‘mule’, a ‘liger’, or a ‘zebroid’ – but they will be sterile. I would like God might have something to say about that.

    Because when you cross a Jew with a ‘Gentile’, it is a scientific fact that they will produce sterile offspring. How do we know this? Because as the deeply revered and hugely influential Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson tells us…

    “The difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish person stems from the common expression: “Let us differentiate.” Thus, we do not have a case of profound change in which a person is merely on a superior level. Rather, we have a case of “let us differentiate” between totally different species.”

    Does this represent a ‘threat to reproductive rights’ of Jews one is compelled and indeed impelled to ask? And in such cases, should Jewish women be allowed to abort the fetuses of ‘Gentile’ men that may have inadvertently come into contact with? Particularly black ‘Gentile’ men?

    From the park you hear the happy sound of a carousel
    Mmm, you can almost taste the hot dogs and French fries they sell
    Under the boardwalk, down by the sea, yeah
    On a blanket with my baby is where I’ll be

  5. #5 by stlonginus on 07/12/2018 - 9:34

    For those who missed my earlier comment:

    Justice Brandeis and the Birth of Liberal Judicial Activism

    In addition, for those hard of thinking, Jewry is RULE BY JUDGES (pharisaical rabbis). Thus, a “supreme” court in the U.S. which rules in the place of Jesus Christ, the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: