U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh defended rulings deemed unpopular at the time, noting that many such decisions have gone on to become landmark judgments accepted as part of contemporary American life.
During a conference on Friday attended by judges and other court staff from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Justice Kavanaugh was asked about the Supreme Court’s divisive rulings and how courts and judges can help improve people’s confidence in the judiciary. He pointed out that some of the court decisions from the 1950s and 60s were hugely unpopular when they were issued, like the ruling that ended segregation in public schools. “The Warren court was no picnic for the justices. … They were unpopular basically from start to finish from ’53 to ’69,” he said.
“What the court kept doing is playing itself, sticking to its principles. And you know, look, a lot of those decisions [were] unpopular, and a lot of them are landmarks now that we accept as parts of the fabric of America, and the fabric of American constitutional law.”
Justice Kavanaugh believes federal judges should “stay as far away from politics as possible.”
Justice Kavanaugh currently has hired personal security that keeps his family safe 24x7.
When he was confirmed to the Supreme Court in 2018, his two daughters were in fifth and seventh grade. The children are now in high school and fully protected, he said.
“They have grown up understanding what it means and ride in the car, and at the basketball games pick out the security guy in the stands. Hopefully, you know, you pray that it’s not a long-term impact on them.”
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas gave his opinion on similar issues during another conference on Friday, where he was asked about working in a tumultuous politically charged environment.
“I think there’s challenges to that. We’re in a world and we—certainly my wife and I the last two or three years it’s been—just the nastiness and the lies, it’s just incredible,” he said.
“But you have some choices. You don’t get to prevent people from doing horrible things or saying horrible things. But one you have to understand and accept the fact that they can’t change you unless you permit that.”
He said there were “reckless” people in Washington who wanted to “bomb your reputation.”
During his tenure, Justice Thomas has faced multiple accusations against his professional integrity. He was criticized for not reporting luxury trips received from a GOP donor. He had dismissed the criticism, noting that he is not required to report trips paid for by his friends.
“They don’t bomb you necessarily, but they bomb your reputation or your good name or your honor. And that’s not a crime. But they can do as much harm that way,” he said.
Democrats Attempt to Alter Court
Amid controversy over a lack of a formal code of ethical conduct at the U.S. Supreme Court, there have been calls to create such a code.Her comments came as Democrats pushed for adopting the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act (SCERT) of 2023, legislation that would create a binding code of ethics for members of the Supreme Court.
Republicans have opposed SCERT, calling it unconstitutional. In an interview with The Epoch Times, Steven J. Allen, a distinguished senior fellow at Capital Research Center, said that Democrats are pushing the legislation to “control the Supreme Court.”
“They’re doing this to get rid of one or more Republican appointees so they can be replaced,” he said. “That’s almost the definition of ‘lawfare’—using the legal system to wage war on your opponents. You pack the court by knocking off a Republican or two.”
He predicted that the “smear campaign” against Justice Thomas, a conservative judge, would “continue as long as he’s alive.”
“Term limits and biennial appointments would make the Court more representative of the public and lower the stakes of each justice’s appointment, while preserving constitutional protections for judicial independence,” he said.
Speaking to The Epoch Times, Carrie Severino, a former clerk of Justice Thomas and president of the Judicial Crisis Network, said the legislation was an attempt to eliminate originalist judges, referring to judges who believe the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted solely according to how it was understood at the time of adoption.
“We’ve seen this movie before,” she said. “Sen. Whitehouse has been waging an intimidation campaign against the Court for years now.”
“His latest threat claims to be taking the politics out of Court nominations but his real agenda is unmistakable: to get rid of originalist justices starting with Justice Thomas.”
