After the incredible journey Judge Kavanaugh endured just to get a vote on his confirmation, the Senate still stresses over the votes he will cast as justice. As a confirmed Supreme Court Justice nominated by President Trump, many assume he may bend the court to the right. When compared to Merrick Garland, Former President Obama’s nominee, Kavanaugh is practically identical. With a 93% match in voting records, the official opinions are moderate and stray from favoring hard left or hard right ideals. That said, it is worth exploring his professional history, voting trends and recent statements regarding some of the most controversial Constitutional issues the country regularly faces. The confirmation hearings should not define Justice Kavanaugh’s success on the Supreme Court, rather the trends he has established in his career and his early participation tendencies in the Federal Circuit should be the main criteria for evaluation.

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

As a Federal Circuit judge, Brett Kavanaugh presided over 1,500 cases in varying legal concentrations. The Congressional Research Service gathered, organized and analyzed 306 of these opinions.  More than half of them were unanimous, and about a third were dissenting opinions. Although this represents only 20% of the total cases that he’s heard, it provides an indication of his tendency to remain central, rather than consistently leaning to one side. Inherently, the study shows Kavanaugh is agreeable, diplomatic and not looking to make controversial waves.

As a Supreme Court Justice, understanding the balance of power between branches granted by the Constitution is essential. Justice Kavanaugh is well versed in and has ample experience in administering written opinions on administrative law. He has the second most opinions on federal courts and civil procedures. These cases dealt with questions of legal standing, legal ethics and admission of evidence to civil cases. In the Supreme Court, all cases are civil and most propose ethical questions to the Constitution. It is preferred that the opinions on this subject matter are based on precedent and textualism since civil procedure is clearly written down, thus exemplifying the justice’s dedication to it.

According to Washington Times journalist Alex Swoyer, then Judge Kavanaugh has a 57% dissent rate of “essential” opinions on the Circuit Court. These dissents are on questions of merit, meaning the judges did not even hear the question of the case. Dissents include textual references, and the Judge Kavanaugh included his discerning opinions infrequently. When included, they summarize his conservative desire for devolution and the importance of checks and balances.

In his dissenting opinion of U.S. Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, Justice Kavanaugh cited that Congress has not authorized the FCC to issue a net neutrality rule. Therefore, their common-carrier obligation imposition was unlawful. Justice Kavanaugh went further to say it violates the First Amendment as the government restricted the “editorial discretion” of service providers. The judge showcased his in-depth understanding of the Constitution’s relevance at every judicial court level proving his ability to work constructively as a Justice.

Similarly, Kavanaugh’s dissenting opinion for Seven-Sky v. Holder 2011 holds merit with the Supreme Court at the time. However, it highlights his conservative desire to limit federal power. In response to the individual mandate, Judge Kavanaugh argued it inherently taxes those who refuse its upholding, through the guise of the IRS as a “penalty”. He held that the courts had no jurisdiction to hear the case due to the Anti-Injunction Act. Since it prevents pre-enforcement lawsuits on tax collection from being heard, the court should not issue an opinion. In his concluding remarks, the judge claimed the court should wait for Congress to revise the statue and determine if the mandate becomes legal under Congress’s constitutional taxing power. Though the Supreme Court held the opposite opinion, it did so in order to avoid Judge Kavanaugh’s caution against broadening government’s power to regulate commerce.

THE US SUPREME COURT

January marked the commencement of Justice Kavanaugh’s career of releasing opinions with his associates. The contract case dealt with the enforcement of the Federal Arbitration Act (responsible for resolving antitrust violation and monetary disputes) and considered rulings from the Texas district court and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Justice Kavanaugh, in accordance with the rest of the court, declared it impossible to allow a mandatory clause to be ignored due to an injunction claim.

Stokeling v. United States covered the definition of common law robbery, thus forcing Justice Kavanaugh to decide whether text or context should prevail. Keeping with his record, the Justice joined the majority opinion. He agreed with the Eleventh Circuit Court’s opinion that Stokeling used physical force to commit a robbery which according to Florida law is a violent felony,

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, it appears favorable to Republicans that the Court will maintain a conservative view of the Constitution. During his court debut, it’s possible Justice Kavanaugh will agree and rest with the majority for good stature. It makes tactical sense, however, his record shows a cooperative trend, so the rest of his career could proceed in a similar manner. Over time, the justice’s desire to adhere to strict textual definitions rather than interpretation will consistently keep him in a conservative majority. Justice Kavanaugh’s meritorious background defines him as a qualified member of the court, and his personal values shouldn’t impact his rationality. However, his ability to maximize definitive judgements on the Constitution may leave him in the perpetual minority while social values become increasingly progressive. In the future, the justice’s success and/or popularity might decrease when age and principles are considered. The turbulent confirmation hearings may taint US citizens attributions to Justice Kavanaugh’s success, however, his decisions as a justice will be the ultimate determinant. For now, the country gains an experienced and passionate justice.