The Washington PostDemocracy Dies in Darkness

Opinion Brett Kavanaugh is not a hero

Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh at his confirmation hearing in Washington on Sept. 5, 2018. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post)

Marc A. Thiessen’s homage to Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh was truly jaw-dropping [“Kavanaugh is owed a debt of gratitude,” op-ed, Jan. 20]. I understand Mr. Thiessen’s joy at the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, a ruling that blithely ignores real health consequences.

Also ignored is the fact that Justice Kavanaugh’s intemperate, petulant behavior was on full C-SPAN display. More than 2,400 law professors signed a letter urging the Senate not to confirm. These professors cited his extreme lack of “judicial temperament.” It’s very sad, and probably the reason that the public trust in the court is so broken.

Patty Thel, Princeton, N.J.

How dare Marc A. Thiessen write that Democrats “filibustered Neil M. Gorsuch’s [Supreme Court] nomination … out of anger over McConnell’s refusal to confirm … Merrick Garland”? Democrats were angry, and justifiably so, because then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) refused to permit any full Senate hearings on Mr. Garland’s qualifications, let alone allowing a confirmation vote. Mr. McConnell declared — with no precedent, no law, no Constitution to back him up — that a new justice should not be confirmed in the last year of a presidency. He upended the orderly working of our system of checks and balances.

Any other way of describing Mr. McConnell’s brazen act just adds another piece to Mr. Thiessen’s messy Jenga tower of misrepresentation and distortion.

Marc Thiessen

counterpointAs the March for Life returns, we owe Brett Kavanaugh a debt of gratitude

Joan Hartman Moore, Alexandria

Marc A. Thiessen lauded Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh as a “hero” for voting to end a woman’s right to choose an abortion. Could someone explain how stripping away a fundamental human right from Americans qualifies a person as a hero?

Mr. Thiessen claimed “a victory for the Constitution” in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision last summer. He is wrong about that. Both the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s reputation were severely damaged by the reckless Dobbs decision, and Justice Kavanaugh was a member of the gang that inflicted the damage.

Mr. Thiessen’s effusive encomium for Justice Kavanaugh revealed Mr. Thiessen as an ardent advocate of judicial activism, thrilled to see unelected justices undo both law and precedent to reshape this country to fit their own prejudices.

Mr. Thiessen apparently counts himself among those who prefer that the Supreme Court not follow the motto on the court’s own building: Equal Justice Under Law.

Robert Tiller, Silver Spring