Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, in questioning by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), attempted to explain an email published by the New York Times Thursday morning, in which Kavanaugh, during his time in the George W. Bush White House, sought to remove from an op-ed draft a claim that legal scholars views Roe v. Wade as the “settled law of the land.”
Kavanaugh on Thursday said that he was referring to views of legal scholars, and not his own views, in seeking to make the edits.
“I am always concerned with accuracy,” Kavanaugh said, in suggesting that it was not correct at the time to say that all legal scholars saw Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide, as settled law. He pointed out that Justices William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia were still on the Supreme Court.
Feinstein followed up with more questions about the judge’s views on Roe.
Kavanaugh returned to his previous rhetoric that there was “precedent on precedent” reaffirming Roe, but wouldn’t say specifically whether he thought the case was correctly decided.
Just “writing for a friend”.
Kavsplainin’.
And I call bullshit.
This is the kind of “reasoning” that demeans all lawyers, and judges.
To which my response is, in the words of that great Republican, Fiorello LaGuardia, “No matter how thin you slice it, it’s still baloney.”
That is such a crock of shit (from Kavanagh - not you, Tierney).
Kavanaugh knows exactly how he feels about whether or not Roe was correctly decided. In fact, his refusal to answer the question tells us he doesn’t think it’s settled law, and therefore not correctly decided, otherwise he’d answer the question affirmatively.
Kavanaugh’s refusal to tell the country what he thinks about Roe is self-serving cowardice, and Feinstein, or someone on the committee, should tell him so.
Locker room talk, if you will.