I am genuinely surprised no one has tried any(competent)assassination attempts if they feel so much vitriol towards Trump, his administration, his cronies/sympathizers/users/manipulators, Fox News, Putin or The Federalist Society, though...
Interestingly that may have already happened:
I don't see what an attempted or successful assassination would actually gain though. All of the presidential line of succession at this point in time are republicans. And in such a divided and tense political climate it could end up setting off a power keg; protests, rioting, revenge assassinations, unrest ect.
I suppose it would also betray a fundamental aspect of the democracy - Political disputes are supposed to be resolved through the ballot box.
The key case he ruled was
Doe vs DC where it's argued whether or not people with intellectual disabilities have a choice over their decision to have surgery; Kavanaugh ruled no. This sets up alarm bells, since as someone with a developmental/cognitive disability (which is adjacent, but not the same, as intellectual) the idea that a doctor can overrule my medical choices is frightening. Also note that Kavanaugh wants to force abortion on intellectually disabled people but is supposedly against abortion. I'll leave it to the reader to reconcile those two facts.
It's an interesting case. Basically Kananaguh and the rest of the majority of the court preferred beneficence over autonomy or Self-determination, at least in relation to Fifth Amendment jurisprudence:
Facts
DC had a policy for authorising surgery for person with an intellectual disability who were in the District’s care and had never had capacity to make medical decisions for themselves. The polcy provided that
The District of Columbia authorizes surgeries for such persons when: (i) two physicians have certified that the proposed surgery is "clinically indicated to maintain the health" of the patient; (ii) D.C. caregivers have made efforts to discuss the surgery with the patient at the level of patient comprehension; and (iii) no guardian, family member, or other close relative, friend, or associate is available to otherwise consent or withhold consent.
It was made pursuant to DC’s Health Care Decisions Act.
The Act created a hierarchy of persons whom could make decisions for persons without capacity;
in order of priority: a court-appointed guardian or conservator; a spouse or domestic partner; an adult child; a parent; an adult sibling; a religious superior, if applicable; a close friend; or the nearest living relative. Id. § 21- 2210(a). The MRDDA Administrator makes healthcare decisions for an incapacitated patient only if none of the above individuals is available and willing to do so. For those who have never had the mental capacity, the decision must be based on "a good faith belief as to the best interests of the patient.
It also created two different decision making frameworks that were based on the patients history in relation to capacity:
(i) those who once possessed mental capacity, such as those in a coma or who have lost their mental capacity due to age, disease, or an accident; and (ii) those who have always lacked mental capacity, such as certain intellectually disabled persons. For patients who once had mental capacity, the decision must be based on the "known wishes of the patient" if those wishes can be "ascertained" — for example, as expressed in a durable power of attorney
For those who have never had the mental capacity, the decision must be based on "a good faith belief as to the best interests of the patient
So DC's policy was narrow in scope - If a person lacked capacity whom had never had capacity, then the persons listed in the order of priority could make decision if they were in the "bests interest" of the person.
The key case he ruled was
Doe vs DC where it's argued whether or not people with intellectual disabilities have a choice over their decision to have surgery; Kavanaugh ruled no. This sets up alarm bells, since as someone with a developmental/cognitive disability (which is adjacent, but not the same, as intellectual) the idea that a doctor can overrule my medical choices is frightening. Also note that Kavanaugh wants to force abortion on intellectually disabled people but is supposedly against abortion.
In fairness to Kavanaugh, the decision is narrower than that. DC's law and policy only applied in relation to person who did not have mental capacity to give informed consent to medical procedures not to person with "intellectual disabilities" or "developmental/cognitive disability" generally.
A person can have an intellectual or a cognitive disability and still have full capacity to give informed consent at law.
Also note that Kavanaugh wants to force abortion on intellectually disabled people but is supposedly against abortion. I'll leave it to the reader to reconcile those two facts..
With all due respect, this Kavanaugh ruling did not not involve abortion.
The relevant DC statute provided that consent to an abortion for a person who lacked capacity had to be by court order.
The issue before the court was whether the fifth amendment's due process clause required DC to consider the wishes of people lacked capacity.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kavanaugh-disabilities-elective-surgeries/
Law
The Plaintiff’s argued that the DC policy violated their right to due process under the 5thAmendment because it does not require the MRDDA Administrator to consider an intellectually disabled patient’s wishes in declining whether to authorise surgery.
They ruled that accepting the wishes of patients who lack (and have always lacked) the mental capacity to make medical decisions does not make logical sense and would cause erroneous medical decisions — with harmful or even deadly consequences to intellectually disabled persons.
Hence, consideration of the wishes of patients who are not and have never been competent is therefore not required by the Supreme Court's procedural due process cases.
The Plaintiff’s also made a substantive due process argument as well, relying on on
Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 110 S.Ct. 2841, 111 L.Ed.2d 224 (1990), which held that the Due Process Clause permits a state to require clear and convincing evidence of an incompetent patient's wishes — articulated when she was competent — as to the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment.
The court again disagreed, holding that
nothing in Cruzan supports the view that a person who has never had the capacity "to make an informed and voluntary choice" with respect to medical treatment has a constitutional right under the Due Process Clause to have his or her wishes considered.
Comparison
DC's framework isn't is dissimilar to those in other common law countries. Check out Queensland's Guardianship Legislation: It also creates a hierarchy of persons whom can make decisions for
adults whom lack capacity. Then there are a series of healthcare principals that have to applied in making the decision:
http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/qld/consol_act/gaaa2000304/sch1.html
Like DC, this also requires the consideration of whether any proposed treatment is "necessary and appropriate to maintain or promote the adult’s health or wellbeing" or is in their "best interests." However, from my reading of the act the principals do seem to put more emphasis on the patient's wishes.
