A REPORT ON SUPREME COURT NOMINEE BRETT KAVANAUGH<\/h2>\n
During the August Senate recess, leaders of Suit Up Maine (SUM) and representatives from\u00a0Maine Family Planning<\/b><\/a>,<\/b> Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project<\/b><\/a>,<\/b> Natural Resources Council of Maine<\/b><\/a>,<\/b> and States United to Prevent Gun Violence<\/b><\/a> met with Katie Brown, legislative counsel to Sen. Susan Collins (R), and Sanjay Kane, legislative assistant to Sen. Angus King (I), and other staff members. We shared our concerns about the nominee\u2019s record and judicial philosophy as they pertain to specific cases that will likely come before the court in the coming year, the outcomes of which will affect the health, civil rights, environment, and economic stability of Mainers.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The following report, prepared by the organizations above and with additional background from League of Women Voters of Maine<\/b><\/a>,<\/b> Maine Equal Justice Partners<\/b><\/a>,<\/b> Maine Consumers for Affordable Health Care<\/b><\/a>,<\/b> OUT Maine<\/b><\/a>,<\/b> Equality Maine<\/b><\/a>,<\/b> and GLAAD<\/b><\/a><\/span>, was shared with these aides, who advise the senators on all judicial nominees, including Brett Kavanaugh. Collectively, the organizations that helped prepare this report represent tens of thousands of Maine constituents. We are sharing it publicly as a resource for our members as they express their concerns to senators Collins and King, as well as for others around the country who are arranging similar meetings with their own senators and staff. <\/span>You can also <\/span>download this report as a PDF<\/b><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_blurb admin_label=”Anchor links” title=”JUMP TO A SPECIFIC ISSUE” use_icon=”on” font_icon=”%%192%%” icon_placement=”left” _builder_version=”3.12.2″ header_text_align=”left” body_text_align=”left” custom_margin=”|||” custom_padding=”|300px||”]<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_blurb][et_pb_divider color=”#00417f” show_divider=”on” divider_weight=”2″ _builder_version=”3.0.89″ \/][et_pb_text admin_label=”Reproductive rights” _builder_version=”3.0.89″ custom_padding=”30px|||” text_orientation=”left”]<\/p>\n Prepared and presented by Cait Vaughan, community organizer for Maine Family Planning<\/a>,\u00a0which operates 18 direct-service clinics and sub-contracts with Planned Parenthood to provide services in southern Maine. MFP administers the state’s Title X family planning program and serves 23,000 women, men, and teens annually.\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n Judge Kavanaugh’s rulings in several recent reproductive rights cases and a speech given just last year on Roe v. Wade raise a number of concerns about the nominee’s intentions with regard to constitutional protections for reproductive rights for women, including abortion access.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Roe v. Wade (1973)<\/span><\/em><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Our Concern:<\/strong> In a September 18, 2017 speech to the American Enterprise Institute about the legacy of Justice William Rehnquist, Judge Brett Kavanaugh stated that he agrees with Rehnquist\u2019s dissenting opinion (7-2) in the Supreme Court\u2019s 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade. We view this public pronouncement as just one of the multiple ways Judge Kavanaugh has displayed extreme hostility to abortion rights.<\/p>\n Text for Reference: <\/b>\u201cRehnquist\u2019s dissenting opinion did not suggest that the Constitution protected no rights other than those enumerated in the text of the Bill of Rights. But he stated that under the Court\u2019s precedents, any such unenumerated right had to be <\/span>rooted in the traditions in conscience of our people<\/i>. Given the prevalence of abortion regulations both historically and at the time, Rehnquist said he could not reach such a conclusion about abortion. He explained that a law prohibiting an abortion, even where the mother\u2019s life was in jeopardy, would violate the Constitution, but otherwise he stated the states had the power to legislate with regard to this matter\u2026In this context, it\u2019s fair to say that Justice Rehnquist was not successful in convincing a majority of the justices in the context of abortion either on Roe itself or in the later cases such as Casey, in the latter case perhaps because of <\/span>stare decisis<\/i>. But <\/span>he was successful in stemming the general tide of free willing judicial creation of unenumerated rights that were not rooted in the nation\u2019s history and tradition.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n Our Concern:<\/strong>\u00a0In this recent case concerning an undocumented minor\u2019s access to abortion while in Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) custody, Judge Kavanaugh dissented with majority opinion allowing Jane Doe to access an abortion. We are concerned that his views regarding an undocumented minor\u2019s rights while in U.S. government custody and on U.S. soil undermines the validity and tenets of Roe v. Wade. We are concerned that Kavanaugh\u2019s view in this case opens up a Pandora\u2019s Box with regards to the constitutional right to abortion laid out in Roe v. Wade\u2014for immigrant individuals as well as all pregnant people.<\/p>\n Text for Reference: \u00a0<\/b>Kavanaugh \u201c[characterized] the en banc majority\u2019s decision as creating <\/span>\u2018a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. Government detention to obtain immediate abortion on demand\u2019<\/span><\/a>.\u201d He said requiring the government to assist the girl in obtaining an abortion would ignore the government\u2019s <\/span>\u201c<\/span>permissible interest in favoring fetal life, protecting the best interests of a minor, and refraining from facilitating abortion.<\/span><\/a>\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Our Concern:<\/strong> Judge Kavanaugh dissented in this case concerning a mandate within the Affordable Care Act to require employers to provide contraceptive coverage to employees or to complete an opt-out form process. Judge Kavanaugh considered completing the opt-out form to be a significant burden on employers\u2019 religious rights. We are concerned about the separation of religion and government, and believe setting such a low bar for \u201csignificant burden\u201d will mean loss of birth control coverage & other essential protections under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). We are concerned about upholding the right to privacy established by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) as it applies to one\u2019s right to access birth control today, regardless of employers\u2019 personal beliefs.<\/p>\n Text for Reference: <\/b>\u201cIn a dissent, he expressed sympathy for the religious challengers. Making reference to the Supreme Court’s ruling in <\/span>Burwell v. Hobby Lobby<\/span><\/i>, he wrote that <\/span>\u2018the regulations substantially burden the religious organizations’ exercise of religion because the regulations require the organizations to take an action contrary to their sincere religious beliefs\u2019<\/span>.”<\/span><\/p>\n \n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_divider color=”#00417f” show_divider=”on” divider_weight=”4″ _builder_version=”3.0.89″]<\/p>\n \n <\/p>\n \n [\/et_pb_divider][et_pb_text admin_label=”Executive Powers” _builder_version=”3.0.89″ text_orientation=”left”]<\/p>\n Prepared and presented by Karin Leuthy, co-leader of Suit Up Maine<\/a><\/span>, an all-volunteer, statewide progressive group of more than 5,400 Mainers that seeks to create and foster a more informed and engaged electorate.<\/em><\/p>\n Among the more concerning aspects of Kavanaugh’s record\u2014on and off the bench\u2014are his opinions on powers of the executive branch. The Judiciary Committee has requested records from Kavanaugh’s time as associate counsel to Independent Prosecutor Kenneth Starr and his tenure as associate counsel in the White House Counsel’s Office under President George W. Bush. But it is his writings for various law reviews that raise the most questions.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n 1998 Starr Report<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n Kavanaugh\u2019s first-hand experience working on an independent counsel investigation of a sitting president should provide unique insight to how he would handle issues that could come before the court as a result of Special Counsel Mueller\u2019s investigation. We are interested in knowing whether he would consider it appropriate to apply the same standards to current and future presidents, and how he differentiates the role of independent versus special counsel investigations.<\/span><\/p>\n Two months before the Starr Report\u2019s publication in 1998, Kavanaugh wrote an extensive article devoted to the relationship between sitting presidents and independent\/special counsels. He would go on to repeat much of this in his 2009 Minnesota Law Review article<\/a> that is currently receiving a great deal of attention. His opinions on this matter have changed little since 1998, and the narrative that he \u201clater expressed misgivings\u201d about the nature of independent\/special counsel investigations would appear to be inaccurate. In the 1998 article, he proposes statutory language to establish that a sitting president cannot be indicted, states that no attorney general or special counsel has the credibility required to rise above accusations of political motivation, and states that a remedy to presidents attacking independent counsels they deem politically motivated is to give presidents the authority to dismiss them.<\/span> Passages of particular interest from the 1998 article include:<\/span><\/p>\n Kavanaugh describes his constitutional approach as \u201ctextualist.\u201d In this article he examines some of the most expansive powers afforded the president and argues that the president\u2019s powers to pardon or to choose to not investigate or prosecute a crime are absolute. Kavanaugh wrote,\u00a0<\/span>\u201cEveryone agrees that the pardon power gives the President absolute, unfettered, unchecked power to pardon every violator of every federal law. \u00a0Obviously, there are political checks against doing that, or against using the pardon power in an arbitrary manner. But in terms of raw constitutional power, that is the power the President has. Moreover, it is long settled that the power to pardon includes the power to pardon violations of a law at any time after commission of the act. In other words, a pardon does not need to wait for a conviction. Now if the President has the absolute discretion to pardon individuals at any time after commission of the illegal act, it necessarily seems to follow that the President has the corresponding power not to prosecute those individuals in the first place.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n \n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_divider color=”#00417f” show_divider=”on” divider_weight=”4″ _builder_version=”3.0.89″]<\/p>\n \n <\/p>\n \n [\/et_pb_divider][et_pb_text admin_label=”Environment” _builder_version=”3.0.89″ text_orientation=”left”]<\/p>\n Prepared and presented by Kristin Jackson, federal project outreach coordinator for the Natural Resources Council of Maine,<\/a><\/span>\u00a0a nonprofit organization with more than 20,000 members and supporters that seeks to protect, restore, and preserve Maine’s environment.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n\n
REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS
<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.suitupmaine.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/arrow_arrows_up_line_scroll-512.png?resize=41%2C41&ssl=1\"){kind=icon}
<\/a><\/h4>\nRETURN TO THE TOP<\/a><\/h4>\n
EXECUTIVE POWERS<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/a><\/h4>\nRETURN TO THE TOP<\/a><\/h4>\n
ENVIRONMENT<\/h2>\n
\n