I enjoyed this paragraph from UI Professor of Law Richard Seamon:
“There were some 5-4 cases where Justice Kennedy would have voted with the so-called liberals, whereas a Justice Kavanaugh is going to be voting with the so-called conservatives,” Seamon said. “The whole issue of abortion and other kinds of rights that the court has recognized that aren’t actually enumerated in the Constitution is going to be a hot button issue.”
What he admits is that abortion and other “rights” that are not enumerated in the Constitution (the only “rights” that we constitutionally have) were created out of thin air by the SCOTUS.
So if the SCOTUS can create a right one day, why can they not uncreate it the next? Especially since those rights are not enumerated in the constitution.
http://dnews.com/local/ui-legal-scholars-discuss-implications-of-a-justice-kavanaugh/article_d9c2d3be-b0c2-11e8-a87f-2b67d02beaaf.html
Conservative justices typically adhere to stare decisis. Further, Roberts is likely to take Kennedy’s place as the courts swing vote. After all, he was the deciding vote upholding Obamacare.
I disagree. “A conservative judicial philosophy proposes the idea that the United States Constitution supports certain laws being made by the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government—not by the justices and judges of the Supreme Court and federal courts. This philosophy adheres to the decision that the Constitution is a fixed document that is meant to be taken literally, and the rules of lawmaking and governance are clearly defined within its context.”
Conservative judges follow what the constitution explicitly says, not what they wish it said.