It would be nice if people in this thread could stop expressing surprise that Justice Kavanaugh sided the way he did when these people presumably have no idea which way Kavanaugh has decided for similar cases in the past.
+ Rejected challenges to NSA authority
+ Rejected workers rights to picket
+ Opinionated diverting public funds to religion schools
+ Rejected meat labeling requirements
+ Repeatedly restricted the EPA
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/09/brett-kavanaugh-tr...
Kavanaugh is highly anti-consumer. That he's sided with consumers in this case is very surprising to me.
I think it's a bit disingenuous to assume partisanship on the basis of a <1 year voting record. That's a serious charge to levy against a judge, as it implies he/she is violating his/her judicial oath by failing to "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich".
It's rather unfortunate that courts have become the foci of partisan politics. It reflect the reality that Congress has been effectively abdicating their duty as the ones who must write the law.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I strongly agree.
To focus on preferred outcomes rather than strong first principles is a good intention on the path to hell.
Strong first principles are great when we're arguing philosophy but it's pretty bad when we're preventing millions from exercising a fundamental right. The soldier who carries out atrocities because he believes in the duty of following orders is no less guilty of the atrocity.
This doesn't mean that the end justifies the means but it means that we must judge our course of action and the actions of others with their full weight, not only intention or goal but the direct cost too.
This one is pro-consumer, not anti consumer.