Tonight President Trump nominated D.C. Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve on the Supreme Court. A graduate of Yale college and law school, Kavanaugh clerked for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy and teaches law at Harvard, Yale and Georgetown. Since 2006 he has served with distinction on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the second highest tribunal in the nation.

So, of course, the Democrats and their media adjunct have already deemed him to be unqualified for a position on the Supreme Court and are screaming for his scalp.

Here, courtesy of WikiLeaks, is the Democratic National Committee’s opposition research file on the nominee. For a preview of Kavanaugh’s upcoming Borking, take a look.

BRETT KAVANAUGH IS CURRENTLY A JUDGE ON THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE D.C. CIRCUIT

President George W. Bush First Nominated Kavanaugh To The U.S. Court Of Appeals For The D.C. Circuit On July 25, 2003. [CNN, 12/24/04]

The Senate Judiciary Committee Approved His Nomination By A 10-8 Vote On May 11, 2006. [National Council of Jewish Women, accessed 3/28/16]

The U.S. Senate Confirmed Kavanaugh By A Vote Of 57-36 As A Circuit Court Judge Of The D.C. Circuit On May 26, 2006. [PN 1179, Vote 159, 109th Congress, 5/26/06]

KAVANAUGH’S NOMINATION STALLED IN THE SENATE FOR THREE YEARS BECAUSE SENATE DEMOCRATS ACCUSED HIM OF BEING TOO PARTISAN AND INEXPERIENCED

Kavanaugh’s Nomination To The D.C. Circuit Stalled In The Senate For Three Years Because Senate Democrats Accused Him Of Being Too Partisan And Inexperienced. “White House aide Brett Kavanaugh won Senate confirmation as an appellate judge Friday after a three-year wait, a new victory for President Bush in a drive to place a more conservative stamp on the nation’s courts. Bush said Kavanaugh would be ‘a brilliant, thoughtful and fair-minded judge.’ Confirmed on a 57-36 vote, Kavanaugh had been warmly praised by Republicans but widely opposed by Democrats who had briefly threatened to filibuster his nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Democratic critics said the 41-year-old White House staff secretary’s record spoke of loyalty to Bush but was thin on courtroom experience. ‘Mr. Kavanaugh is a political operative,’ said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., a member of the Judiciary Committee. ‘I can say with confidence that Mr. Kavanaugh would be the youngest, least experienced and most partisan appointee to the court in decades.’ … ‘It’s clear that he is a political pick being pushed for political reasons,’ said Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat. ‘This is not a court that needs another rubber stamp for this president’s exertion of executive power.’” [Washington Post, 5/26/06]

DURING KAVANAUGH’S NOMINATION PROCESS, THE ABA DOWNGRADED ITS RATING OF HIM FROM “WELL-QUALIFIED” TO “QUALIFIED” DUE TO CONCERNS OVER “THE BREADTH OF HIS PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE” AND CONCERNS OVER WHETHER HE WAS “SO INSULATED THAT HE WILL BE UNABLE TO JUDGE FAIRLY IN THE FUTURE

During Kavanaugh’s Nomination Process, The Aba Downgraded Its Rating Of Him From “Well-Qualified” To “Qualified” Due To Concerns Over Whether He Was “So Insulated That He Will Be Unable To Judge Fairly In The Future.” “In an unusual move, the American Bar Association recently downgraded its rating of Kavanaugh from ‘well-qualified’ to ‘qualified’ after a new round of interviews with colleagues raised concerns over ‘the breadth of his professional experience.’ The ABA’s peer review panel, which rates all federal court nominees, said its new evaluation ‘raised additional concern over whether this nominee is so insulated that he will be unable to judge fairly in the future.’ The report cited his lack of courtroom experience trying cases to a verdict, especially in criminal matters. One judge cited by the panel expressed concern over Kavanaugh’s shaky oral presentation in court, labeling it ‘less than adequate.’” [CNN, 5/9/06]

KAVANAUGH WAS A SENIOR ASSISTANT TO KENNETH STARR AND WAS ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL AUTHORS OF THE “STARR REPORT,” WHICH ARGUED PRESIDENT CLINTON SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPEACHED OVER HIS CONDUCT DURING THE LEWINSKY SCANDAL

Kavanaugh Was A Senior Assistant To Kenneth Starr And Was One Of The Principal Authors Of The “Starr Report,” Which Argued President Clinton Should Have Been Impeached Over His Conduct During The Lewinsky Scandal. “Mr. Kavanaugh, at 38, would be one of the youngest members of the federal appeals bench. He is assistant to the president and staff secretary, and has been responsible for marshaling the fleet of largely conservative judicial nominees the president has sent to the Senate, resulting in angry battles with Democrats. But he is probably better known as a senior assistant to Kenneth W. Starr, the independent counsel who investigated President and Mrs. Clinton for a variety of issues. Mr. Kavanaugh was one of the principal authors of the ‘’Starr report’’ that argued that President Clinton deserved to be impeached because of how he dealt with his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky, a one-time White House intern.” [New York Times, 7/26/03]

AS A CIRCUIT JUDGE, KAVANAUGH WAS “ONE OF THE MOST POWERFUL CRITICS OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S ENVIRONMENTAL RULES”

HEADLINE: “D.C. Judge A Formidable Foe For Obama’s Environmental Agenda.” [Environment & Energy Publishing, 10/13/15]

As A Circuit Judge, Kavanaugh Was “One Of The Most Powerful Critics Of President Obama’s Environmental Rules.” “A Republican operative-turned federal judge has emerged as one of the most powerful critics of President Obama’s environmental rules. Judge Brett Kavanaugh — a 50-year-old George W. Bush administration appointee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — has pounded the administration in a series of legal opinions rebuffing some of its most high-profile air pollution rules. And because he’s widely seen as an influential voice with Supreme Court justices and a leading contender for a GOP nomination to the high court, Kavanaugh’s legal moves are being closely watched by those on both sides of the environmental debate.” [Environment & Energy Publishing, 10/13/15]

HEADLINE: “Judge Kavanaugh Hits EPA Again.” [Wall Street Journal, 8/21/12]

Kavanaugh Authored An Opinion That Struck Down The EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, Which Tried “To Stop Upwind States From Dumping Their Air Pollution Onto Downwind States.” “Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a prominent conservative on the Washington, D.C., federal appeals bench, couldn’t win over colleagues last week in an opinion denouncing the Environmental Protection Agency, but it turns out he had another arrow in his quiver. This morning, Judge Kavanaugh issued a 2-1 majority opinion throwing out the EPA’s rules limiting cross-state air pollution…The case is about the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, under which the EPA tries to stop upwind states from dumping their air pollution onto downwind states. The rule has the effect of forcing states to limit coal-fired power plants, which are the main source of sulfur dioxide and other pollutants targeted by the EPA. Judge Kavanaugh, a George W. Bush appointee on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, wrote that the EPA used the rule ‘to impose massive emissions reduction requirements on upwind States without regard to the limits imposed by the statutory text.’” [Wall Street Journal, 8/21/12]

• Washington Post: After Reading Kavanaugh’s Opinion, “You’d Have No Idea That Hundreds Of Dedicated, Highly Trained Scientists, Analysts And Statisticians At The EPA Might Have Spent More Than A Decade Devoted To The Extremely Complex Task Of Figuring Out How Much Of The Ozone Or Sulfur Dioxide In The Air In Rhode Island Originated In Indiana.” “Their latest salvo came just before Labor Day, when a divided three-judge panel threw out rules requiring states to control the air pollution that wafts over their borders into other states. These rules were first ordered up by Congress back in 1970, have been more than 20 years in the making and had already been the subject of two challenges before the D.C. Circuit. According to estimates by the Environmental Protection Agency, these regulations would prevent between 13,000 and 34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 non-fatal heart attacks, 19,000 hospital and emergency room visits and 1.8 million days of missed work or school for each year. The projected annual compliance cost is $2.4 billion, compared with the annual health benefits of anywhere from $120 billion to $280 billion. But in reading the 60-page opinion by Judge Brett Kavanaugh, you’d have no clue of this historical, political, economic or health context. You’d have no idea that hundreds of dedicated, highly trained scientists, analysts and statisticians at the EPA might have spent more than a decade devoted to the extremely complex task of figuring out how much of the ozone or sulfur dioxide in the air in Rhode Island originated in Indiana.” [Washington Post, 10/13/12]

• The Supreme Court Overturned The D.C. Circuit And Upheld The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. “In another case, Kavanaugh wrote for the majority in a 2012 ruling that tossed out EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule that aimed to rein in harmful emissions that cross state lines. ‘In this case,’ he wrote, ‘we conclude that EPA has transgressed statutory boundaries.’ The Supreme Court agreed to hear that case, too, and in 2014 dealt a blow to Kavanaugh and the D.C. Circuit when it upheld the EPA rule (Greenwire, April 29, 2014).” [Environment & Energy Publishing, 10/13/15]

KAVANAUGH AUTHORED AN OPINION THAT RULED THE “GOVERNMENT CANNOT RESTRICT INDEPENDENT POLITICAL SPENDING BY NONPROFIT GROUPS OR POLITICAL COMMITTEES”

HEADLINE: “Court Backs Outside Group’s Political Spending.” [New York Times, 9/18/09]

New York Times: In An Opinion Authored By Kavanaugh, The D.C. Circuit Ruled That “The Government Cannot Restrict Independent Political Spending By Nonprofit Groups Or Political Committees,” Which Accelerated “The Judicial Rollback Of Regulations Aimed At Curtailing The Power Of Money In Politics.” “The federal appeals court for the District of Columbia ruled Friday that the government cannot restrict independent political spending by nonprofit groups or political committees, accelerating the judicial rollback of regulations aimed at curtailing the power of money in politics. The ruling, in Emily’s List v. Federal Election Commission, broadens the field of activity open to groups known as 527s (after that section of the tax code) and other independent outfits like MoveOn.org on the left or Swift Boat Veterans for Truth on the right. Such organizations have stirred controversy in recent elections by funneling unlimited donations from a small number of wealthy donors into voter turnout efforts and campaign commercials.” [New York Times, 9/18/09]

New York Times: The D.C. Circuit Held That “Independent Groups Have A First Amendment Right To Raise And Spend Freely To Influence Elections So Long As They Do Not Coordinate Their Activities With A Candidate Or A Party.” “Following the direction of recent Supreme Court decisions, the appeals court held that independent groups have a First Amendment right to raise and spend freely to influence elections so long as they do not coordinate their activities with a candidate or a party. The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government’s only legitimate interest in restricting political donations is combating the appearance or reality of corruption that could arise from allowing unlimited contributions directly to a candidate or political party. The court has held that, on the other hand, a desire to level the playing field or limit the power of moneyed interests is not a permissible reason for the government to limit the amount a rich person might spend on independent efforts to elect or defeat a candidate. In this case, the appeals court held that nonprofit groups are essentially like rich individuals, so the government cannot restrict their independent spending either.” [New York Times, 9/18/09]

Kavanaugh Argued That “Donations To Nonprofit Groups Cannot Corrupt Candidates And Officeholders.” “As the Court has explained the anti-corruption principle, mere donations to non-profit groups cannot corrupt candidates and officeholders. In the words of the Fourth Circuit, it is ‘implausible that contributions to independent expenditure political committees are corrupting.’ And to the extent a non-profit then spends its donations on activities such as advertisements, get-out-the-vote efforts, and voter registration drives, those expenditures are not considered corrupting, even though they may generate gratitude from and influence with officeholders and candidates. Rather, under Buckley, those expenditures are constitutionally protected. Therefore, limiting donations to and spending by non-profits in order to prevent corruption of candidates and officeholders represents a kind of ‘prophylaxis-upon-prophylaxis’ regulation to which the Supreme Court has emphatically stated, ‘Enough is enough.’” [EMILY’s List v. FEC, United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 9/18/09]

Kavanaugh Argued That Donations Spent By Nonprofits “On Activities Such As Advertisements, Get-Out-The-Vote Efforts, And Voter Registration Drives…Are Not Considered Corrupting, Even Though They May Generate Gratitude From And Influence With Officeholders And Candidates.” “As the Court has explained the anti-corruption principle, mere donations to non-profit groups cannot corrupt candidates and officeholders. In the words of the Fourth Circuit, it is ‘implausible that contributions to independent expenditure political committees are corrupting.’ And to the extent a non-profit then spends its donations on activities such as advertisements, get-out-the-vote efforts, and voter registration drives, those expenditures are not considered corrupting, even though they may generate gratitude from and influence with officeholders and candidates. Rather, under Buckley, those expenditures are constitutionally protected. Therefore, limiting donations to and spending by non-profits in order to prevent corruption of candidates and officeholders represents a kind of ‘prophylaxis-upon-prophylaxis’ regulation to which the Supreme Court has emphatically stated, ‘Enough is enough.’” [EMILY’s List v. FEC, United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 9/18/09]

Fred Wertheimer, President Of Democracy 21: “This Opinion, If It Stands Up, Is Going To Make It Harder To Constrain The Role Of Influence-Seeking Money In Federal Campaigns.” [New York Times, 9/18/09]

New York Times: “In His Opinion, Judge Kavanaugh Appeared To Point The Way Toward The Further Elimination Of All The Limits On Direct Campaign Contributions First Imposed After Watergate.” “In his opinion, Judge Kavanaugh appeared to point the way toward the further elimination of all the limits on direct campaign contributions first imposed after Watergate. He noted that it might seem ‘incongruous’ to let nonprofit groups receive and spend unlimited donations — often known as ‘soft money’ — on political campaigns while parties and candidates cannot. But under Supreme Court precedents, the government cannot remove that incongruity by imposing new limits on outside groups, Judge Kavanaugh continued. It could only eliminate the limits on the other side, on parties and candidates.” [New York Times, 9/18/09]

2012: KAVANAUGH AUTHORED AN OPINION THAT BLOCKED SOUTH CAROLINA’S VOTER ID LAW FROM GOING INTO EFFECT FOR THE 2012 ELECTIONS BUT SAID THAT SINCE THE LAW WAS NOT ENACTED FOR A DISCRIMINATORY PURPOSE IT COULD GO INTO EFFECT IN 2013

Kavanaugh Authored An Opinion That Blocked South Carolina’s Voter ID Law From Going Into Effect For The 2012 Elections But Said That Since The Law Was Not Enacted For A Discriminatory Purpose It Could Go Into Effect In 2013. “In short, Act R54 allows citizens with non-photo voter registration cards to still vote without a photo ID so long as they state the reason for not having obtained one; it expands the list of qualifying photo IDs that may be used to vote; and it makes it far easier to obtain a qualifying photo ID than it was under pre-existing law. Therefore, we conclude that the new South Carolina law does not have a discriminatory retrogressive effect, as compared to the benchmark of South Carolina’s pre-existing law. We also conclude that Act R54 was not enacted for a discriminatory purpose. Act R54 as interpreted thus satisfies Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and we grant pre-clearance for South Carolina to implement Act R54 for future elections beginning with any elections in 2013. As explained below, however, given the short time left before the 2012 elections, and given the numerous steps necessary to properly implement the law – particularly the new “reasonable impediment” provision – and ensure that the law would not have discriminatory retrogressive effects on African-American voters in 2012, we do not grant pre-clearance for the 2012 elections.” [South Carolina v.Holder, United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 10/10/12]

2011: THE D.C. CIRCUIT RULED THAT CORPORATIONS ARE NOT IMMUNE FROM LIABILITY FOR ALLEGED BRUTAL CONDUCT THAT AGENTS OF THE COMPANY COMMITTED AGAINST A GROUP OF FOREIGN VILLAGERS, HOWEVER, KAVANAUGH DISSENTED CLAIMING THE LAW DID NOT REACH CONDUCT THAT OCCURRED IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY

2011: The D.C. Circuit Ruled That Corporations Are Not Immune From Liability For Alleged Brutal Conduct That Agents Of The Company Committed Overseas Against A Group Of Foreign Villagers. “Pursuant to a contract with the Indonesian government, Exxon Mobil Corporation, a United States corporation, and several of its wholly owned subsidiaries (hereinafter ‘Exxon’) operated a large natural gas extraction and processing facility in the Aceh province of Indonesia in 2000–2001. Plaintiffs-appellants are fifteen Indonesian villagers from the Aceh territory. Eleven villagers filed a complaint in 2001 alleging that Exxon’s security forces committed murder, torture, sexual assault, battery, and false imprisonment in violation of the Alien Tort Statute (‘ATS’) and the Torture Victim Protection Act (‘TVPA’), and various common law torts… For the reasons that follow, we conclude that aiding and abetting liability is well established under the ATS. We further conclude under our precedent that this court should address Exxon’s contention on appeal of corporate immunity and, contrary to its view and that of the Second Circuit, we join the Eleventh Circuit in holding that neither the text, history, nor purpose of the ATS supports corporate immunity for torts based on heinous conduct allegedly committed by its agents in violation of the law of nations.” [Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 7/8/11]

Kavanaugh Dissented, Arguing That A Corporation Could Not Be Held Accountable When It Hired People Who Engaged In Crimes Abroad Because “International Law Did Not Impose Liability Against Corporations At All.” “To support an ATS claim against a corporation, it would not be sufficient to show that customary international law prohibits torture, extrajudicial killing, and prolonged detention when committed by state actors. It likewise would not be sufficient to show that customary international law recognizes corporate liability for some violations, but not for aiding and abetting torture, extrajudicial killing, and prolonged detention. Rather, for plaintiffs to maintain their claims, customary international law must impose liability against corporations for aiding and abetting torture, extrajudicial killing, or prolonged detention.9 It does not. In fact, customary international law does not impose liability against corporations at all.” [Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 7/8/11]

KAVANAUGH HAS ARGUED THAT A PRESIDENT “MAY DECLINE TO ENFORCE A STATUTE THAT REGULATES PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS WHEN THE PRESIDENT DEEMS THE STATUTE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, EVEN IF A COURT HAS HELD OR WOULD HOLD THE STATUTE CONSTITUTIONAL”

Kavanaugh Has Argued That A President “May Decline To Enforce A Statute That Regulates Private Individuals When The President Deems The Statute Unconstitutional, Even If A Court Has Held Or Would Hold The Statute Constitutional.” “Under the Constitution, the President may decline to enforce a statute that regulates private individuals when the President deems the statute unconstitutional, even if a court has held or would hold the statute constitutional. Similarly, Congress may repeal or decline to pass a statute based on its own constitutional interpretation even if the courts have (or would have) upheld the statute as constitutional. This power does not work in reverse, either for the President or Congress. In other words, the President may not enforce a statute against a private individual when the statute is deemed unconstitutional by the courts. Nor may Congress pass a statute and have it enforced against private individuals simply because Congress disagrees with the Supreme Court. In those situations, the Judiciary has the final word on the meaning of the Constitution.” [Sevensky v. Holder, United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 11/8/11]

• Jeffrey Toobin: “In Other Words, According To Kavanaugh, Even If The Supreme Court Upholds The Law This Spring, A President Santorum, Say, Could Refuse To Enforce ACA Because He ‘Deems’ The Law Unconstitutional. That, To Put The Matter Plainly, Is Not How It Works.” “In other words, according to Kavanaugh, even if the Supreme Court upholds the law this spring, a President Santorum, say, could refuse to enforce ACA because he ‘deems’ the law unconstitutional. That, to put the matter plainly, is not how it works. Courts, not Presidents, ‘deem’ laws unconstitutional, or uphold them. ‘It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,’ Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Marbury v. Madison, in 1803, and that observation, and that case, have served as bedrocks of American constitutional law ever since. Kavanaugh, in his decision, wasn’t interpreting the Constitution; he was pandering to the base.” [New Yorker, 3/26/12]