Tag: Court

Categories
Health

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Second Woman Supreme Court Justice, Is Celebrating 25 Years on the Bench


On August 10, 1993, Ruth Bader Ginsburg took her judicial oath at the White House, becoming the first Jewish woman and only the second woman justice ever appointed to the Supreme Court. Today she celebrates 25 years on the bench—a major milestone in a career that has turned her into a proud defender of women’s rights and one of the country’s most notorious cultural icons.

There are many reasons the nation loves Ginsburg (her intense workout included), but her work as a feminist trailblazer started way before she took a seat on the highest court in the land. Ginsburg was nominated to the court by President Bill Clinton following the retirement of former Supreme Court Justice Byron White, and she was already a force in the legal world. She had graduated at the top of her class at Cornell University and later attended Harvard Law School, where she was the first female member of the Harvard Law Review. She eventually graduated from Columbia Law, where she was also the first female professor hired on tenure track, which means her job at the institution was secure. Ginsburg also cofounded the Women’s Rights Project at the ACLU and worked there until President Jimmy Carter appointed her to the U.S. Court of Appeals in 1980.

After her Supreme Court nomination, Ginsburg gave an acceptance address on June 14, 1993, that highlighted many of the challenges she’d faced as a woman. She cited that there were less than 10 women in her 500-person law school class, and shared that not one law firm in New York City would hire her after she earned her degree. As women still fight for workplace and wage equality, it’s not hard to see how Ginsburg’s speech is just as relevant today as it was 25 years ago.

She was confirmed by the Senate in a 96–3 vote. As CNN Politics points out, her remarks following the constitutional oath ceremony shed light on the importance of diversity in the American justice system. “A system of justice will be the richer for diversity of background and experience. It will be the poorer, in terms of appreciating what is at stake and the impact of its judgments, if all of its members are cast from the same mold,” she said.

RBG has written some of the Supreme Court’s most notable decisions, including 1996’s United States v. Virginia, a case that struck down a male-only admittance policy at the Virginia Military Institute. In recent years she has fought against arbitration policies that affect workers and women in particular, as well as Trump’s travel ban on majority Muslim countries.

Despite such a historic run, many people have feared that RBG’s tenure might come to an end soon. After her colleague, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, announced his retirement, social media users went into a frenzy, pledging to protect RBG at all costs. “I’m buying Ruth Bader Ginsburg an Anytime Fitness membership, 10 years of Vitamins, and a lifetime of Smoothies…” one Twitter user wrote.

Luckily, RBG assuaged everyone’s fears last month when she said she’s not going anywhere in the near future. “I’m now 85,” she said. “My senior colleague, Justice John Paul Stevens, he stepped down when he was 90, so I think I have about at least five more years.”

That’s all we need to assure ourselves there are many more RBG milestones to come.

Related Stories:

Twitter Users Promise to Protect Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at All Costs After SCOTUS Shakeup

A Reminder That We Won’t Need a Full Repeal of Roe v. Wade for Abortion to Be Restricted



Source link

Categories
Health

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Says She Plans on Staying on the Supreme Court Until She's 90


With the makeup of the Supreme Court bench currently in limbo, there’s at least one seat we can count on to stay filled for the foreseeable future. In an interview over the weekend, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she plans on staying in her position until she’s 90—giving fans of the Notorious RBG a small but much-needed assurance of stability for the next five years, at least.

After attending a performance of The Originalist, a play about her late colleague Justice Antonin Scalia, in New York City on Sunday, Ginsburg spoke to CNN about her plans for the future. “I’m now 85,” she said. “My senior colleague, Justice John Paul Stevens, he stepped down when he was 90, so I think I have about at least five more years.” In fact, CNN reports, the prolific justice—who was appointed to her seat in 1993 by President Bill Clinton—secured her law clerks for the next two SCOTUS terms earlier this year, guaranteeing that she’ll hold her position until at least 2020. Ginsburg went on to say that there’s no way she’ll be forced from her seat before she’s ready: “You can’t set term limits, because to do that you’d have to amend the Constitution. Article 3 says…we hold our offices during good behavior,” she said, joking, “And most judges are very well behaved.”

Ginsburg also spoke to CNN about the subject of the play, saying that Scalia, a conservative foil to her more liberal viewpoint, was her favorite sparring partner before his death in February 2016. “If I had my choice of dissenters when I was writing for the court, it would be Justice Scalia,” Ginsburg said. “Sometimes it was like a Ping-Pong game,” she continued, adding that going head-to-head with Scalia helped her further refine her arguments and opinions.

Though Ginsburg is clearly still going strong after 25 years as a Supreme Court justice, the rest of the bench has recently undergone a major shake-up. Following Scalia’s death, Republicans in Congress blocked President Barack Obama’s nomination for a replacement, allowing President Donald Trump to appoint the historically conservative Neil Gorsuch in his place in early 2017.

More recently, the relatively moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy announced he’d be stepping down from his post after 30 years on the Supreme Court, allowing Trump to appoint yet another, more-conservative justice and thus, critics worry, potentially creating a clear path to rolling back reproductive rights. As many Twitter users begged after Kennedy announced his retirement, Justice Ginsburg, a staunch champion for women, must be protected at all costs.

Related: Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Fight to End Gender Discrimination



Source link

Categories
Health

I Represent Migrant Children in Immigration Court. This Is What It's Like.


The immigration judge cleared her throat and called *Layla’s name. An 8-year-old girl jumped up from her seat in the back of the courtroom and skipped up to the front. Layla was wearing shiny white shoes and a fluffy pink dress. Her long, black hair was neatly brushed into two bouncing braids. She took a seat at an empty table at the front of the courtroom. Across the aisle sat an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) attorney in a suit. He stared into his computer screen where he read information about Layla—my future client—as they began her deportation proceedings.

Layla was born in El Salvador, but fled to the United States after suffering sexual, physical, and psychological abuse in her home country. When Layla was 6 years old, her mother moved to New York in search of a higher income after years of struggling as a single mother. She left her only daughter in the care of family members in hopes of giving her a better life with the money she sent from abroad. To her horror, Layla’s mother later discovered that the girl was repeatedly raped, beaten with a broom, and forced to sleep on a towel on the floor of a closet while living with family. One day, Layla’s teacher contacted her mother in the United States and told her that her daughter showed signs of severe neglect. Layla’s mother was terrified for her daughter’s life, and knew that the treacherous journey to the United States was safer than having Layla remain with her abusive relatives.

Two weeks later, Layla left El Salvador with nothing but the clothes on her back in search of safety, stability, and a better future.

The child made the dangerous journey from Central America to the United States by car, bus, train, and on foot with a group of strangers. When she walked over the border into Texas, Layla flung herself into the arms of a border patrol officer, thinking she was finally safe, she told me later. Her mother is here in the U.S., and that’s enough for this place to be a beacon of safety. And although this is what most of our clients experience, it is actually a false sense of security considering the hurdles they face once in this country.

Because she did not have a valid visa, however, she was immediately placed in deportation proceedings. Layla was released to live with her mother in Brooklyn, pending her imminent deportation in New York immigration court. Because the U.S. government does not provide free attorneys to refugee children like Layla, they are forced to appear in immigration court alone.

On the day that I met Layla, she was wearing that pink fluffy dress and sitting at the front of the courtroom by herself. She tried to answer the judge’s questions and understand ICE’s explanation for why she is “removable as charged,” which is a difficult task for a trained immigration attorney like myself, not to mention an 8-year-old child.

I stood in the back of the courtroom and observed the hearing. While part of me was stunned by the sight of a little girl alone in court, I had also grown accustomed to this familiar scene. I am an attorney at the Safe Passage Project, a non-profit in New York City that provides free legal representation to immigrant children facing deportation. We are housed at New York Law School and, since our inception, have been located just a few blocks from the immigration court in New York. Our team of 20 people is currently providing free legal representation to over 700 children just like Layla.

Luckily, the judge granted a continuance that day in court to give Layla an opportunity to try to find an attorney. After the proceeding, Layla ran to her mother in the back of the courtroom. I approached them in the hallway and offered them a free legal screening to determine if Safe Passage could provide Layla with free legal representation. We walked down the hall and squeezed into the corner of an unoccupied courtroom where I asked Layla and her mother questions, taking notes on a worn yellow legal pad. I had only known them for five minutes, but I needed them to disclose personal and painful details about their lives in Central America in order to determine whether Safe Passage could take on Layla’s case.

A drawing created by the author and her client.

The following week, I officially became Layla’s attorney and began the process of helping her apply for asylum. Asylum is a protection for people who are afraid to return to their home country because they have faced serious harm in the past or will face serious harm in the future. In order for me to successfully represent Layla, I had to meet with her regularly to build trust and learn more details of her abuse. I worked closely with the Safe Passage social work team, who enrolled Layla in therapy and helped me navigate the difficult task of talking to a child about such sensitive matters.

Each time we met to develop her case, Layla would get a running start and greet me with an enormous hug. She brought so much energy and happiness to the office. I would set up the meeting area with paper and markers; Layla is a talented artist and it helped her tell her story. She would draw through the pain and elaborate on the details of her abuse. We would take frequent breaks and play games and little by little we were able to build her case.

Layla’s asylum hearing was one of the most difficult yet rewarding days of my life. I met Layla and her mother that morning to embark on the long train ride to the asylum office. Loretta Lopez, the bilingual case manager at Safe Passage who was going to be interpreting for the hearing, joined us as well. When we finally arrived at the building, Layla’s mother gave her a kiss and then left us to wait at another location. She is undocumented herself and was too afraid to enter this U.S. government building. Layla, Loretta and I headed inside the building without her.

When she was asked to go into more details about the incidents of the rape, Layla turned to me, looked up, and whispered, “do I have to?”

We waited for four hours before Layla’s case was called. In the meantime we drew pictures, told each other fantastical stories, and listened to Layla’s made-up songs. We kept giggling in a silent room full of nervous people who were also waiting for their case to be heard. Many of them looked in our direction and smiled at us. The asylum officer finally called Layla’s case and led us to the room for her hearing. Then Layla was instructed to stand up, raise her right hand, and swear under oath that she would tell the truth.

For the next three hours, Layla testified about the sexual, physical, and psychological abuse she suffered in El Salvador. When she was asked to go into more details about the incidents of the rape, Layla turned to me, looked up, and whispered, “do I have to?” I swallowed the lump in my throat and gently nodded yes.

After Layla’s testimony was complete, I stood up and delivered my closing argument. Out of the corner of my eye, I could see Layla staring at me. I finished my closing and suddenly Layla leapt into my arms. I caught her embrace and looked over at the asylum officer. He was smiling. I then looked at my coworker, Loretta, and she was holding back tears. Layla’s hug had transported all of us outside of the formalities and legalities of the immigration process.

KM_364e-20180726113221

A drawing created by *Layla.

Three weeks later, we received the news that Layla was granted asylum. I immediately called her mother and we cried tears of joy on the phone together. Then I told Layla, expecting to hear excitement in her voice. Instead, she asked “But what about my mom?”

There is a harsh reality in a seemingly happy ending. Layla now has legal status as an asylee, but her mother remains undocumented. There is no legal way for Layla to immediately transfer her own status to her mother. When Layla turns 18, she can become a U.S. citizen through naturalization. It won’t be until Layla turns 21 that she will be able to apply for her mother to receive legal immigration status. But 10 years is an eternity for her mother to have to live in the shadows and hope that she is not detected by immigration authorities. This is an obstacle that many of our clients face. If the caretaker is deported, then the family is faced with the impossible decision of separating the family or having the child return with them to the country that they were fleeing from. Layla’s case demonstrates how the immigration laws in this country could tear apart families, and impact children who have a legal right to be here.

Safe Passage fights for children like Layla every day. In addition to representing children who have traveled here alone, we are also representing over 30 children who were recently separated from their parents at the southern border. We believe that no child should have to face the immigration process alone and that families should not be separated.

This particular case is one that will stay with me forever. I have kept a folder with the countless drawings that Layla has made for me. My favorite one is of me, Layla, and Loretta wearing capes and standing in the Wonder Woman pose. It is children like Layla that make it possible for advocates to keep fighting the fight. She has been through unimaginable pain in her life, but she still exudes light, happiness, and hope. She hugs limitlessly, laughs without restraint, and can see the endless possibilities for her future.

She is a reminder to me that every day, we have a choice.

*Name has been changed to protect privacy

Lauren Blodgett is an immigration attorney at a non-profit in New York, where she provides free legal representation to refugee children.



Source link

Categories
Health

Here's Where Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Stands on Key Women's Issues


For opponents of President Donald Trump’s new Supreme Court nominee, conservative judge Brett Kavanaugh, the argument is clear: abortion access in this country could become even more difficult to obtain, nearly 50 years after Roe v. Wade made the procedure legal.

Granted, the landmark 1973 ruling won’t be reversed overnight, but Kavanaugh’s nomination is galvanizing those who say his judicial track record is an obvious indicator of how he’d rule in future cases surrounding abortion law and other key women’s issues, including policies affecting contraception and same-sex marriage. Here’s a rundown.

Does Kavanaugh want to protect abortion rights?

It’s complicated. But in short, critics say no.

Kavanaugh, 53, is a Yale-educated judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and has promised to keep an open mind if confirmed to the high court. But critics have been citing his position in 2017’s Garza v. Hargan as a perfect-storm example of why they’d expect him to be a Supreme Court hardliner on both abortion and immigration. (The case involved an undocumented minor who sought an abortion while in federal custody. Kavanaugh supported delaying the procedure until a sponsor could be found for the girl.)

“Brett Kavanaugh’s decisions show a disdain for immigrants and young people’s decision-making ability, as well as a lack of concern for the barriers and hurdles placed in the path of those seeking abortion,” said Diana Thu-Thao Rhodes, director of public policy for the group Advocates for Youth, via email.

Pro-life groups cheering Trump’s selection point to Kavanaugh’s argument that helping the teenager terminate her pregnancy ran against the government’s “permissible interest in favoring fetal life, protecting the best interests of a minor, and refraining from facilitating abortion.”

Here’s where it gets murky: Kavanaugh hasn’t explicitly said he’s for overturning Roe. In fact, he said in 2006 confirmation proceedings that he’d uphold it as the law of the land.

But his confirmation could change the court’s direction on abortion rights: He’s a proven conservative who would fill the seat now held by Justice Anthony Kennedy, a swing voter who sided with liberals in rulings that have defended the protections established by Roe. (Kavanaugh, incidentally, once clerked for Kennedy.)

According to Sen. Patty Murray, who represents Washington state and is the top Democrat on the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee, if Kavanaugh is confirmed, we can expect a wave of anti-abortion cases to hit the legal system—with some potentially making it to the Supreme Court. As Glamour previously reported, states are already standing to enact local laws that would make it harder to terminate a pregnancy.

Does Kavanaugh support a woman’s right to use birth control?

It’s unclear at this time, but the better question is whether Kavanaugh thinks employers who oppose birth control on moral grounds should be required to help employees obtain contraception. And that, critics say, is what gives them pause due to another high-profile Kavanaugh case: 2015’s Priests for Life v. the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which involved an employer’s religious objection to helping workers obtain insurance coverage for contraceptives.

Murray noted Kavanaugh “sided with employers on covering contraception. So it’s not just abortion … this is a judge who will not side with [workers].”

In talking about the case, Kavanaugh made reference to the famous 2014 SCOTUS ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which established that some companies could refuse to offer contraceptive coverage on religious-objection grounds. He said regulations that make employers help get their workers access to federal coverage for prevention of pregnancy (by filling out a form) “require the organizations to take an action contrary to their sincere religious beliefs.”

At the same time, Kavanaugh did also write that “Hobby Lobby strongly suggests that the Government has a compelling interest in facilitating access to contraception for the employees of these religious organizations,” but Planned Parenthood said the Priests dissent showed “Kavanaugh would have granted more employers the ability to deny women access to no-copay birth control coverage, effectively placing a woman’s boss between her and her health care provider.”

Does Kavanaugh support same-sex marriage?

Kavanaugh doesn’t have a slew of decisions on record that establish the profile of someone bent on ending legal same-sex marriage in America. However, some LGBTQ advocates are approaching his nomination with suspicion or open opposition.

In a once-over of Kavanaugh’s background, Lambda Legal, a national gay rights group, pointed to the enthusiastic support he’s gotten from conservative groups, such as the Family Research Council, that oppose gay marriage and even homosexuality itself.

Lambda Legal also highlighted past remarks Kavanaugh made that suggest a president doesn’t have to obey laws he considers unconstitutional. The group said questions about presidential powers and their limits are “at the heart of every challenge to arbitrary presidential action ranging from the separation of children from their families at the border to the declaration of a ban on military service by transgender people.”

Charlotte Clymer of the Human Rights Campaign told Glamour that LGBTQ advocates see some of Kavanaugh’s rulings as “suggesting that personal beliefs are a reasonable basis to discriminate against someone.” While “access to reproductive healthcare, alone, is deeply concerning,” Clymer said, those cases are also highly relevant to how he might handle decisions affecting LGBTQ rights.

So what’s the bottom line?

Despite debate and opposition, not everyone’s attacking Kavanaugh as a biased jurist, or one without academic, intellectual, or personal qualifications for the job.

Writing Monday in the New York Times under the headline, “A Liberal’s Case for Brett Kavanaugh,” Yale Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar, said, in part: “In 2016, I strongly supported Hillary Clinton for president as well as President Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland. But today, with the exception of the current justices and Judge Garland, it is hard to name anyone with judicial credentials as strong as those of Judge Kavanaugh.”

Still, among liberals and Democrats—at least the most vocal ones—Amar may not be in the majority.

Democrats may have a tough time blocking confirmation of Kavanaugh, who’s widely supported by Republicans who hold the Senate majority. Murray said opponents are still going to apply pressure to keep him off the court, forcing Trump to look to another Kennedy replacement who might be more moderate on social issues.

“If we defeat this, we’ve got a better shot at someone who’s not going to be an extreme jurist,” she said. “This is a court that’s going to have five men on it who will overturn Roe v. Wade. It will only be a matter of time.”

Related Stories:

These States Will Likely Ban Abortion If the Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade

How Justice Anthony Kennedy’s Retirement From the Supreme Court Could Erode Women’s Rights





Source link

Categories
Health

These States Will Likely Ban Abortion if the Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade


In June, 81-year-old Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement from the bench. The news of his departure shook the nation, not just because the retirement of a Supreme Court justice is incredibly rare, but because it also meant President Donald Trump got the chance to nominate and potentially appoint his second justice in just two years.

Appointing two justices of Trump’s approval would not only shift the court closer to the right, but it would possibly fulfill a promise the president made during the 2016 presidential election to upend abortion rights in America.

“If we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that’s really what’s going to be, that’s what will happen,” then candidate-Trump said during the final presidential debate. “And that’ll happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court.”

On Monday night, Trump announced his nomination would go to Brett Kavanaugh, a 53-year-old federal judge on the D.C. circuit and a former Kennedy clerk. And while it remains unclear if Kavanaugh will explicitly state his stance on abortion or on overturning Roe v. Wade in Senate hearings, according to Cardozo Law School Professor Kate Shaw, it’s his dissent in the dispute over whether an undocumented teen in federal custody could obtain an abortion that gives pro-choice advocates pause.

As Jennifer Dalven, director of the Reproductive Freedom Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, explained to Glamour, women in the U.S. really should be worried for their reproductive rights. “I can say this is the time I’ve been most concerned in my 20 years here about the future of access to abortions in our country,” she said.

Indeed, Justice Kennedy chose to uphold Roe v. Wade in a court decision in 1992, but a new, more aggressively right-leaning judge may not choose to do the same. And, even if Kavanaugh doesn’t go as far as overturning the law, he could decide to uphold incredibly strict abortion laws around the nation that, to date, are considered unenforceable.

“We may not know the specifics, but whether the right to legal abortion is taken away entirely or whether the court decides, ‘No, we don’t need to go quite that far, we don’t need to be that explicit about it, but we’ll simply uphold every restriction that comes this way,’ the effect will be dire for women and families in this country,” Dalven said.

Though there were literally hundreds of new abortion laws introduced across the nation in just the first quarter of 2018 alone—308 restrictions were introduced and 10 were enacted—there are a few laws that could be considered a bit more dire.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, there are four states which currently have a “trigger law” on the books that would immediately ban abortions if the Roe is overturned.

As the Institute further noted, “seven states have laws that express their intent to restrict the right to legal abortion to the maximum extent permitted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the absence of Roe,” and, as The Guardian reported, there are currently 24 states that would likely ban or “severely limit abortion upon reconvening, at earliest within seven months of the supreme court’s decision.”

Here’s what you need to know about a few of those laws.

PHOTO: Alex Wong/Getty Images

Protesters hold pro-choice signs at a demonstration.

Mississippi, Louisiana, North Dakota and South Dakota will immediate ban all abortions:

These four states, according to The Guardian, each have a trigger law on the books that would immediately ban all abortions in the state (except if the pregnancy threatens a mother’s life) if Roe were to be overturned by the Supreme Court.

As the Center for Reproductive Rights reported, North Dakota, for example, would flatly deny abortions if Roe fell. As it stands, the state already attempted to pass a six-week abortion ban, which was struck down by the courts as unconstitutional.

Mississippi, the site explained, also has both a trigger law and a highly-restrictive abortion law already in place, banning women from receiving an abortion after 20 weeks. That 20-week ban is currently in effect. South Dakota and Louisiana has similar 20-week bans.

International Women's Day Rally Celebrates Women's Rights

PHOTO: Getty Images

A protester holds a sign supporting abortion providers.

Twenty-one states would see their unconstitutional restrictions go into effect:

The Guardian explained, “Laws that ban abortion before a fetus can survive outside the womb are unconstitutional,” yet 21 states, it noted, currently ignore that fact and have bans in place based on the age of a fetus, typically at 20 weeks or less.

For example, the state of Iowa recently passed a law that would ban abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, which typically takes place at or around the sixth week of pregnancy. This, the Los Angeles Times astutely pointed out, is often before most women even know they are pregnant. The law in Iowa was set to take effect this month, however, a state judge put it on hold, the L.A. Times noted.

“States are enacting laws that say, ‘Take us to court; let this go all the way to the Supreme Court. We are confident now that it will go our way,’” Carol Sanger, a law professor at Columbia University and author of a book on the history of abortion, told the L.A. Times. “Even if they don’t strike down Roe, whittling it down is very effective. States can find new restrictions that make women pay financially, and also emotionally, by making them feel they are doing something shameful.”

Abortion Clinic Protest

PHOTO: AP Images

Clinic escorts line up in front of an health care center.

However, in some states, a woman’s right to an abortion will still be protected:

As TIME noted, in several states, including New York and California, abortion will remain a legal right even if Roe is overturned as both states have protections.

“If the court rolls back Roe vs. Wade, abortion will become front and center of every state political debate and campaign,” Patrick Egan, a political scientist at New York University, told the L.A. Times. “The extent to which states prohibit or make it more difficult to access legal abortion could become the battleground in the politics of many states for decades to come.”

And truly, it’s a subject that will divide the nation. In 2017, Pew Research Center found that 57 percent of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 40 percent said it should be illegal in all or most cases.

As Dalven noted to Glamour, the best way people can continue to protect their federal and state rights is to let their feelings be known.

“I think that the most direct thing is letting your senators know where you stand,” she said, “and that you take this issue very seriously.”





Source link

Categories
Health

What Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court Nomination Could Mean for Your Abortion Rights


President Donald Trump on Monday night nominated conservative Brett Kavanaugh to serve on the Supreme Court, tilting the top tier of the American judiciary to the right without changing its gender balance.

Kavanaugh, a 53-year-old federal judge on the D.C. circuit, is the president’s choice to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy.

“There is no one in America more qualified for this position, and no one more deserving,” Trump said before introducing Kavanaugh.

Kennedy’s departure raises new questions about the future of American abortion law. While he had a conservative record coming into the job, Kennedy went on to side with liberals in key cases that reaffirmed the legal right to abortion enshrined by the court’s watershed 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade.

“Mr. President, I am grateful to you and I’m humbled by your confidence in me,” Kavanaugh said. Trump’s new pick spoke at length about his warm relationship with his mother and his two daughters, as well as his wife, whom he met when they both worked at the White House.

Trump campaigned on a vow to tap pro-life judges for the Supreme Court. Shortly after taking office, he successfully nominated conservative Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

The president’s second SCOTUS pick is even more politically charged, coming amid a midterm election widely seen as a national referendum on how Trump is doing as president.

Trump chose Kavanaugh, of Maryland, from a roster of conservative judges that included Amy Coney Barrett, 46, who would have been the fourth woman seated on the current court and the only female conservative. He also considered, among others, Raymond Kethledge, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for the past decade who was viewed as a potential “consensus choice,” and Thomas Hardiman, a strong proponent of gun rights and a finalist for the SCOTUS berth that ultimately went to Gorsuch.

After earning undergraduate and law degrees from Yale, Kavanaugh clerked for Justice Kennedy. He later worked for Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel who famously investigated President Bill Clinton, and as a top aide to President George W. Bush.

Sally Kenney, a Tulane political science professor and an expert on the judiciary, told Glamour in an email immediately following the announcement that Trump had nominated a judge “chosen” by the conservative Federalist Society “to replace the swing justice on the Court a few months before an election while many in his administration are under investigation.”

Kenney added, “Judge Kavanaugh is no consensus candidate, but rather a Republican partisan associated with the most divisive conflicts of our times. It is hard to see how this appointment advances the rule of law, protects constitutional rights, or guarantees equal justice under law.”

Cardozo Law School Professor Kate Shaw said Kavanaugh might refuse to say in Senate hearings if he favors overturning Roe v. Wade.

Other nominees have avoided giving a position on Roe, but Shaw, a former associate White House counsel, said lawmakers would be “justified” in pressing Kavanaugh on “what confirming him could mean for reproductive rights” given the 2017 case of an undocumented teen who sought an abortion while in federal custody.

Kavanaugh’s dissent in that case sounded an alarm about giving detainees a new right to abortion “on demand”—a phrase abortion-rights advocates call “coded” language that indicates support for overturning Roe.

Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, condemned the president’s choice: “We oppose the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, and call on the Senate to do the same,” she said in a statement. “There’s no way to sugarcoat it: with this nomination, the constitutional right to access safe, legal abortion in this country is on the line.”

But some hardline abortion opponents have reportedly used the very same case to question whether Kavanaugh would truly be the kind of “solidly pro-life” justice they want on the bench.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List, praised the decision. “President Trump has made another outstanding choice in nominating Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, keeping his promise to nominate only originalist judges to the Court,” Dannenfelser said in a statement. “Judge Kavanaugh is an experienced, principled jurist with a strong record of protecting life and constitutional rights.”

Additionally, as NPR reported, Kavanaugh “also dissented in a case involving a challenge brought by religious groups to the contraception provision of the Affordable Care Act.” The rule, which “required religious groups to certify that they were exempting themselves from providing contraceptive services,” was eventually withdrawn by the Trump administration.

If confirmed, Kavanaugh promised to “keep an open mind in every case” and “always strive to preserve the Constitution of the United States and the American rule of law.”

Now that he’s made his pick, Trump’s nominee goes on to confirmation hearings held by the Senate Judiciary Committee. After that review, committee members make a recommendation on the candidate and send it to the full Senate.

Related Stories:

Trump’s Supreme Court Pick May Come From This List—Here’s Where They Stand on Women’s Issues.

Pro-Choice Organizations Launch the #OneInFour Campaign Ahead of President Trump’s Supreme Court Nomination





Source link