I’m sure President Trump had high hopes for Brett Kavanaugh when he nominated him to be the next Supreme Court Justice of the United States.
We all had great hopes for Brett Kavanaugh, I believe. Except for the liberals who tried, and continue to try, to nail him to a cross for a lie.
There have been occasions when Kavanaugh has sided with the right side of the Supreme Court, and other times when he has sided with the left.
But it’s hypocrisy and double standards that really grate on my nerves, not just with Brett Kavanaugh, but with anyone.
Last week Brett Kavanaugh sided with the liberal justices of the Supreme Court in the decision of 6-3 that the Pentagon has the right to take into consideration vаccination records of Navy SEALs and whether or not they should be deployed.
Is this the correct or incorrect decision? I can understand both sides’ arguments. On the one hand, I can see why such status might be considered for deployment due to certain exposure and liability concerns. On the other side, I see a possible issue here because the rationale for a non-vaccination status that is not acceptable to the Pentagon is religious.
However, justice must be served. After Brett Kavanaugh decided to honor the religious rights of inmates on death row while rejecting the religious liberties of those who safeguard our country, Samuel Alito recognizes the contradiction.
Here is what Justice Alito said:
Today, the Court brushes aside respondents’ First Amendment and RFRA rights. But yesterday, the Court handed down another decision that illustrates the strong protection for religious liberty that is provided by the framework that applies under RFRA and strict scrutiny. The decision in question, Ramirez v. Collier, involved a convicted murderer awaiting execution and his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 14 Stat. 803, 42 U. S. C. §2000cc et seq., which, among other things, essentially requires prisons to comply with the RFRA standard. Ramirez argued that his exercise of religion will be burdened unless Texas allows his pastor to lay hands on him and pray aloud while he is being executed. Ramirez was less than punctilious and consistent in requesting a religious accommodation, see Ramirez, 595 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 4–5); id., at ___ (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 8), but the Court’s decision forgave all that. Texas objected to Ramirez’s request on the ground that the pastor’s conduct might interfere with the execution, but the Court held that the State failed to discharge its burden to substantiate the likelihood of such harm. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 12).
The contrast between our decision in Ramirez yesterday and the Court’s treatment of respondents today is striking. We properly went to some lengths to protect Ramirez’s rights because that is what the law demands. We should do no less for respondents.
Kavanaugh justified his decision saying: “That is because the Navy has an extraordinarily compelling interest in maintaining strategic and operational control over the assignment and deployment of all Special Warfare personnel—including control over decisions about military readiness. And no less restrictive means would satisfy that interest in this context.”