{"id":3114,"date":"2019-10-08T20:04:12","date_gmt":"2019-10-08T20:04:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/nafalaw.com\/blog\/?p=3114"},"modified":"2019-10-08T21:44:53","modified_gmt":"2019-10-08T21:44:53","slug":"nafalaw-com-is-honored-to-present-our-brief-with-our-total-support-for-our-2020-thurgood-marshall-award-nominee-justice-brett-michael-kavanaugh","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nafalaw.com\/blog\/2019\/10\/08\/nafalaw-com-is-honored-to-present-our-brief-with-our-total-support-for-our-2020-thurgood-marshall-award-nominee-justice-brett-michael-kavanaugh\/","title":{"rendered":"NAFALAW.COM is honored to present our brief with our total support for our 2020 \u201cThurgood Marshall\u201d Award nominee- Justice Brett Michael Kavanaugh."},"content":{"rendered":"<figure id=\"attachment_3115\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-3115\" style=\"width: 800px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><a href=\"http:\/\/nafalaw.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/10\/800px-Associate_Justice_Brett_Kavanaugh_Official_Portrait.jpg\"><img wpfc-lazyload-disable=\"true\" decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\" class=\"size-full wp-image-3115\" src=\"http:\/\/nafalaw.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/10\/800px-Associate_Justice_Brett_Kavanaugh_Official_Portrait.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"800\" height=\"1000\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.nafalaw.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/10\/800px-Associate_Justice_Brett_Kavanaugh_Official_Portrait.jpg 800w, https:\/\/www.nafalaw.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/10\/800px-Associate_Justice_Brett_Kavanaugh_Official_Portrait-768x960.jpg 768w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 706px) 89vw, (max-width: 767px) 82vw, 740px\" \/><\/a><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-3115\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Brett Kavanaugh<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<h3>Preamble:<\/h3>\n<h3>&#8220;Honor to honor.&#8221; This National Association for Attorneys, NAFALAW.COM is honored to present our brief with our total support for our 2020 \u201cThurgood Marshall\u201d Award nominee- Justice Brett Michael Kavanaugh.<\/h3>\n<h3>The word honor derives from the Latin honorare or honoris that specifically indicates public glorification through the exercise of public office. In this sense, it is associated with pride in the social relevance it means. Hence the term &#8220;a lot of honor.&#8221; For this reason, it is an honor for us at NAFALAW to have as our nominee the Honorable Justice Justice Brett Michael Kavanaugh in the United States Supreme Court. It is our way of showing support, respect and consideration towards our support of our 2020 \u201cThurgood Marshall&#8221; nominee.<\/h3>\n<h3>\u201cThe Bible tells us in one of the ten commandments that we must honor our parents at all times.\u201d We added, to honoring our citizens role models. In ancient Rome, during the celebration of the games, they honored said role models and were totally forbidden disputes.<\/h3>\n<h3>TO:<\/h3>\n<h3>A.B.A. Civil Rights and Social Justice &#8211; AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION.<\/h3>\n<h3>FROM:<\/h3>\n<h3>\u201cN.A.F.A.\u201dNational Association for Foreign Attorneys\u201d Florida USA. Presenting this its 2020 Thurgood Marshall Award Nominations in favor of Honorable Justice Brett Michael Kavanaugh.<\/h3>\n<h3>In compliance with the requirements attached hereto please find the following:<\/h3>\n<h3><strong>NAFALAW.COM files this RESUME is support of the<\/strong> nomination of Honorable Judge Brett Michael Kavanaugh, our nominee.<\/h3>\n<h3>This package includes a photograph, resume type curriculum vitae, describing the following:<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>\n<h3>The nominee\u2019s professional background;<\/h3>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<h3>The nominee\u2019s educational background;<\/h3>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<h3>The nominee\u2019s principal areas of practice, including the number of years of practice; and<\/h3>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<h3>The nominee\u2019s professional achievements.<\/h3>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Our nominee- Honorable Brett Michael Kavanaugh; born February 12, 1965) is an\u00a0Associate Justice\u00a0of the\u00a0Supreme Court of the United States. He was\u00a0nominated\u00a0by President\u00a0Donald Trump\u00a0to succeed\u00a0Anthony Kennedy\u00a0and took the oath of office on October 6, 2018. He previously served as a\u00a0United States Circuit Judge\u00a0of the\u00a0United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\u00a0and as a staff lawyer for various offices of the\u00a0federal government.<\/h3>\n<h3>Judge Kavanaugh graduated from\u00a0Yale University, where he joined\u00a0Delta Kappa Epsilon\u00a0fraternity. After graduating from\u00a0Yale Law School, he began his career as a law clerk and then a postgraduate fellow working under Judge\u00a0Ken Starr. After Starr left the D.C. Circuit to take the position as head of the Office of Independent Counsel, Kavanaugh followed and assisted him with various investigations concerning President\u00a0Bill Clinton, including the drafting of the\u00a0Starr Report, which urged\u00a0Clinton&#8217;s impeachment.<\/h3>\n<h3>After the\u00a02000 U.S. presidential election\u00a0(in which he worked for the\u00a0George W. Bush\u00a0campaign in the\u00a0Florida recount), he joined the administration as\u00a0White House Staff Secretary\u00a0and was a central figure in its efforts to identify and confirm judicial nominees.<\/h3>\n<h3>Judge Kavanaugh was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by President Bush in 2003. His confirmation hearings were contentious; they stalled for three years over charges of partisanship. He was ultimately confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in May 2006 after a series of negotiations between Democratic and Republican U.S. Senators.\u00a0An evaluation of Kavanaugh&#8217;s appellate court decisions in four separate public policy areas was performed by two law professors for the\u00a0Washington Post.\u00a0It found he had the most conservative overall voting record on the D.C. Court between 2003 and 2018.<\/h3>\n<h3>President Donald J. Trump nominated Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court on July 9, 2018, to fill the position vacated by retiring Associate Justice\u00a0Anthony Kennedy.<\/h3>\n<h3>When Kavanaugh&#8217;s name was on the short list of Supreme Court nominees and before his nomination, Palo Alto University Professor of Psychology\u00a0Christine Blasey Ford\u00a0contacted a\u00a0Washington Post\u00a0tip line with accusations that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her in the early 1980s while the two were in high school.<\/h3>\n<h3>Two other women also accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct.<\/h3>\n<h3>Judge\u00a0Kavanaugh denied all three accusations. The\u00a0Senate Judiciary Committee\u00a0held a supplemental hearing over Ford&#8217;s allegations, after which it voted to advance the confirmation to a full Senate vote. After delaying the vote for an additional\u00a0FBI\u00a0investigation, the Senate confirmed Kavanaugh&#8217;s nomination by a vote of 50\u201348 on October 6, 2018.<\/h3>\n<h3>Judge Kavanaugh was born on February 12, 1965, in\u00a0Washington, D.C.,\u00a0the son of Martha Gamble (n\u00e9e\u00a0Murphy) and Everett Edward Kavanaugh Jr.\u00a0He is of\u00a0Irish Catholic\u00a0descent on both sides of his family. His paternal great-grandfather immigrated to the United States in the late 19th century from\u00a0Roscommon, Ireland,\u00a0and his maternal Irish lineage goes back to his great-great-grandparents settling in New Jersey.\u00a0 Judge\u00a0Kavanaugh&#8217;s father was a lawyer and served as the president of the\u00a0Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association\u00a0for two decades.<\/h3>\n<h3>His mother was a history teacher Woodson\u00a0and\u00a0McKinley\u00a0high schools in Washington in the 1960s and 1970s. She later earned a law degree from\u00a0American University\u00a0in 1978 and served from 1995 to 2001 as a\u00a0Maryland Circuit Court\u00a0judge in\u00a0Montgomery County, Maryland.<\/h3>\n<h3>Judge Kavanaugh was raised in\u00a0Bethesda, Maryland. As a teenager, he attended\u00a0Georgetown Preparatory School, a Jesuit boys college prep school, where he was two years ahead of future U.S. Supreme Court Justice\u00a0Neil Gorsuch.<\/h3>\n<h3>He was captain of the\u00a0basketball\u00a0team and was a wide receiver and\u00a0cornerback\u00a0on the\u00a0football\u00a0team. Judg\u00a0Kavanaugh was also friends with classmate\u00a0Mark Judge; both were in the same\u00a0class\u00a0with\u00a0Maryland State Senator\u00a0Richard Madaleno.<\/h3>\n<h3>After graduating from Georgetown Prep in 1983,\u00a0Kavanaugh went to\u00a0Yale University, as had his paternal grandfather.\u00a0Several of Kavanaugh&#8217;s Yale classmates remembered him as a &#8220;serious but not showy student&#8221; who loved sports, especially basketball.\u00a0He unsuccessfully tried out for the\u00a0Yale Bulldogs men&#8217;s basketball\u00a0team and later played for two years on the\u00a0junior varsity team.\u00a0He wrote articles about basketball and other sports for the\u00a0Yale Daily News,\u00a0and was a member of the fraternity\u00a0Delta Kappa Epsilon.\u00a0He graduated from Yale in 1987 with a\u00a0Bachelor of Arts\u00a0cum laude\u00a0in\u00a0history.\u00a0In October 2018, it was reported that Kavanaugh and\u00a0Chris Dudley\u00a0were in a bar fight in September 1985 after Kavanaugh threw ice\u00a0at a man who looked like\u00a0Ali Campbell\u00a0of\u00a0UB40.<\/h3>\n<h3>Judge Kavanaugh then attended\u00a0Yale Law School, where he lived in a group house with future judge\u00a0James E. Boasberg\u00a0and played basketball with professor\u00a0George L. Priest\u00a0(sponsor of the school&#8217;s\u00a0Federalist Society).\u00a0He was a member of the\u00a0Yale Law Journal\u00a0and served as a notes editor during his third year. Kavanaugh graduated from Yale Law with a\u00a0Juris Doctor\u00a0degree in 1990.<\/h3>\n<h3>Legal career (1990\u20132006), Judge Kavanaugh (second from left) with\u00a0President\u00a0George W. Bush\u00a0and White House staffers<\/h3>\n<h3>Clerkships Judge Kavanaugh first worked as a\u00a0law clerk\u00a0for Judge\u00a0Walter King Stapleton\u00a0of the\u00a0United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.\u00a0During Kavanaugh&#8217;s clerkship, Stapleton wrote the majority opinion in\u00a0Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which the Third Circuit upheld many of Pennsylvania&#8217;s abortion restrictions.\u00a0George Priest recommended Kavanaugh to\u00a0Ninth Circuit\u00a0Judge\u00a0Alex Kozinski, who was regarded as a\u00a0feeder judge.\u00a0After clerking for Kozinski, Kavanaugh next interviewed for a clerkship with\u00a0Chief Justice\u00a0William Rehnquist\u00a0on the\u00a0U.S. Supreme Court, but was not offered a clerkship.<\/h3>\n<h3>In 1992, Judge\u00a0Kavanaugh earned a one-year fellowship with the\u00a0Solicitor General of the United States,\u00a0Ken Starr.\u00a0Also in 1992, he worked as a summer associate for\u00a0Munger, Tolles &amp; Olson.\u00a0He clerked for Supreme Court Justice\u00a0Anthony Kennedy\u00a0from 1993\u20131994,\u00a0working alongside fellow high school alumnus\u00a0Neil Gorsuch\u00a0and with future-Judge\u00a0Gary Feinerman. Ken Starr associate counsel.<\/h3>\n<h3>After his Supreme Court clerkship, Judge Kavanaugh again worked for Ken Starr until 1997 as an Associate Counsel in the Office of the\u00a0Independent Counsel\u00a0with colleagues\u00a0Rod Rosenstein\u00a0and\u00a0Alex Azar.\u00a0In that capacity, he reopened an investigation into the 1993 gunshot death of\u00a0Vincent Foster.\u00a0After three years, the investigation concluded that Foster had committed suicide. In an\u00a0op-ed,\u00a0Princeton University\u00a0history professor\u00a0Sean Wilentz\u00a0criticized Kavanaugh for investing federal money and other resources into investigating partisan\u00a0conspiracy theories\u00a0surrounding the cause of Foster&#8217;s death.<\/h3>\n<h3>After working in private practice in 1997\u20131998, he rejoined Starr as an Associate Counselor in 1998.\u00a0In\u00a0Swidler &amp; Berlin v. United States\u00a0(1998), Kavanaugh argued his first and only case before the Supreme Court. Arguing for Starr&#8217;s office, Kavanaugh asked the court to disregard\u00a0attorney-client privilege\u00a0in relation to the investigation of Foster&#8217;s death.\u00a0The court rejected Kavanaugh&#8217;s arguments by a vote of 6\u20133.<\/h3>\n<h3>Judge Kavanaugh was a principal author of the\u00a0Starr Report\u00a0to Congress, released in September 1998, on the\u00a0Bill Clinton\u2013Monica Lewinsky\u00a0sex scandal; the report argued on broad grounds for Clinton&#8217;s impeachment. Judge\u00a0Kavanaugh had urged Starr to ask Clinton sexually graphic questions,\u00a0and described Clinton as being involved in &#8220;a conspiracy to obstruct justice&#8221;, having &#8220;disgraced his office&#8221; and &#8220;lied to the American people&#8221;.<\/h3>\n<h3>The report provided extensive and explicit descriptions of each of the President&#8217;s sexual encounters with Lewinsky, a level of detail which the authors described as &#8220;essential&#8221; to the case against Clinton.<\/h3>\n<h3>In December 2000, Judge Kavanaugh joined the legal team of\u00a0George W. Bush, which was trying to stop\u00a0the ballot recount in Florida.\u00a0After Bush became president in January 2001, Kavanaugh was hired as an associate by the\u00a0White House Counsel,\u00a0Alberto Gonzales.\u00a0There, Kavanaugh worked on the\u00a0Enron scandal, the successful nomination of Chief Justice\u00a0John Roberts, and the unsuccessful nomination of\u00a0Miguel Estrada.\u00a0Starting in July 2003, he served as Assistant to the President and\u00a0White House Staff Secretary,\u00a0succeeding\u00a0Harriet Miers.\u00a0In that position he was responsible for coordinating all documents going to and from the president.<\/h3>\n<h3>Private practice From 1997 to 1998, Kavanaugh was a partner at the law firm of\u00a0Kirkland &amp; Ellis. In 1999, Kavanaugh rejoined the law firm of Kirkland &amp; Ellis as a partner.\u00a0While there in 2000, he was\u00a0pro bono\u00a0counsel of record for relatives of\u00a0Eli\u00e1n Gonz\u00e1lez, a six-year-old rescued Cuban boy. After the boy&#8217;s mother&#8217;s death at sea, relatives in the U.S. wanted to keep him from returning to the care of his sole surviving parent, his father in Cuba. Kavanaugh was among a series of lawyers who unsuccessfully sought to stop efforts to repatriate Gonzalez to Cuba.<\/h3>\n<h3>The district court, Circuit Court and Supreme Court all followed precedent, refusing to block the boy&#8217;s return to his home.<\/h3>\n<h3>While Judge Kavanaugh was at Kirkland &amp; Ellis, he authored two\u00a0amicus briefs\u00a0to the Supreme Court that supported religious activities and expressions in public places.\u00a0The first, in 2000, in\u00a0Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, argued that a student speaker at football games voted for by a majority of students should be treated as private speech in a limited public forum; the second, in\u00a0Good News Club v. Milford Central School, argued that a Christian Bible instruction program should have the same after-school access to school facilities as other non-curriculum-related student groups.<\/h3>\n<h3>Judge Kavanaugh has been a member of the\u00a0Federalist Society\u00a0since 1988.\u00a0In the administration of George W. Bush, he held a key position that involved judicial appointments. Bush judicial nominees who were Federalist Society members included\u00a0John Roberts\u00a0and\u00a0Samuel Alito, both appointed to the Supreme Court, and about half of the judges appointed to the courts of appeals.<\/h3>\n<h3>U.S. Circuit Judge (2006\u20132018). Judge Kavanaugh is sworn into the D.C. Circuit by Justice\u00a0Anthony Kennedy\u00a0as his wife holds the bible and President Bush looks on, 2006. Coincidentally, Kavanaugh would be sworn into the U.S. Supreme Court 12 years later as Kennedy&#8217;s replacement.<\/h3>\n<h3>President\u00a0George W. Bush\u00a0nominated Judge Kavanaugh to the\u00a0United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit\u00a0on July 25, 2003,\u00a0but his nomination stalled in the Senate for nearly three years. Democratic senators accused him of being too partisan, with Senator\u00a0Dick Durbin\u00a0calling him the &#8220;Forrest Gump\u00a0of Republican politics&#8221;.\u00a0In 2003, the\u00a0American Bar Association\u00a0had rated Kavanaugh as &#8220;well qualified&#8221; (its highest category), but, after doing dozens more interviews in 2006, downgraded him to &#8220;qualified&#8221;.<\/h3>\n<h3>The\u00a0Senate Judiciary Committee\u00a0recommended he be confirmed on a 10\u20138 party-line vote on May 11, 2006,\u00a0and he was confirmed by the\u00a0Senate\u00a0on May 26 by a vote of 57\u201336. Judge Kavanaugh was sworn in on June 1.\u00a0He was the fourth judge nominated to the D.C. Circuit by Bush and confirmed. Kavanaugh began hearing cases on September 11 and had his formal investiture on September 27.<\/h3>\n<h3>In July 2007, Senators\u00a0Patrick Leahy\u00a0and\u00a0Dick Durbin\u00a0accused Kavanaugh of lying to the Judiciary Committee when he denied being involved in formulating the Bush administration&#8217;s detention and interrogation policies. In 2002, Kavanaugh had told other White House lawyers that he believed Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy would not approve of denying legal counsel to prisoners detained as enemy combatants.\u00a0The issue re-emerged in July 2018 after Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court.<\/h3>\n<h3>Notable cases.\u00a0 When Judge Kavanaugh has written an opinion and the case has been considered by the Supreme Court, that court has adopted his position thirteen times while reversing his position only once. These included cases involving\u00a0environmental regulations,\u00a0criminal procedure, the separation of powers and\u00a0extraterritorial jurisdiction\u00a0in\u00a0human rights\u00a0abuse cases.\u00a0He has been regarded as a\u00a0feeder judge.<\/h3>\n<h3>In the October 2017\u00a0Garza v. Hargan\u00a0decision, Kavanaugh joined an unsigned, divided-panel of the D.C. Circuit in holding that the\u00a0Office of Refugee Resettlement\u00a0does not violate an unaccompanied alien minor&#8217;s constitutional right to an abortion by requiring that she first be appointed a sponsor before travelling to obtain the abortion, provided &#8220;the process of securing a sponsor to whom the minor is released occurs expeditiously.&#8221;<\/h3>\n<h3>Days later, the\u00a0en banc\u00a0D.C. Circuit reversed that judgment, with Judge Kavanaugh dissenting.\u00a0In his dissent, Kavanaugh criticized the majority for creating &#8220;a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. government detention to obtain immediate abortion on demand&#8221;.\u00a0The girl then obtained an abortion.\u00a0In 2018, in a follow-up petition from the\u00a0Solicitor General of the United States, the\u00a0en banc\u00a0D.C. Circuit&#8217;s judgment was\u00a0vacated\u00a0by the U.S. Supreme Court and the girl&#8217;s claim was ultimately dismissed as\u00a0moot.\u00a0Thus it does not serve as precedent.<\/h3>\n<h3>In November 2011, Kavanaugh dissented when the D.C. Circuit upheld the\u00a0Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act\u00a0(ACA), arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction in the case.\u00a0In his dissent concerning jurisdiction, he compared the individual mandate to a tax.\u00a0After a unanimous panel found that the ACA did not violate the Constitution&#8217;s\u00a0Origination Clause\u00a0in\u00a0Sissel v. United States Department of Health &amp; Human Services\u00a0(2014), Judge Kavanaugh wrote a lengthy dissent from the denial of rehearing\u00a0en banc.\u00a0In May 2015, Kavanaugh dissented from a decision that denied an en banc rehearing of the\u00a0Priests for Life v. HHS\u00a0ruling in which the panel upheld the ACA&#8217;s\u00a0contraceptive mandate\u00a0accommodations against\u00a0Priests for Life&#8217;s\u00a0Religious Freedom Restoration Act\u00a0claims.<\/h3>\n<h3>In\u00a0Zubik v. Burwell\u00a0(2016), the Supreme Court vacated the circuit&#8217;s judgment in a\u00a0per curiam decision.<\/h3>\n<h3>Appointments Clause and separation of powers. In August 2008, Kavanaugh dissented when the D.C. Circuit found that the Constitution&#8217;s\u00a0Appointments Clause\u00a0did not prevent the\u00a0Sarbanes\u2013Oxley Act\u00a0from creating a board whose members were not directly removable by the President.\u00a0In\u00a0Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversigh Board\u00a0(2010), the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court&#8217;s judgment by a vote of 5\u20134.<\/h3>\n<h3>In 2015, Judge Kavanaugh found that those directly regulated by the\u00a0Consumer Financial Protection Bureau\u00a0(CFPB) could challenge the constitutionality of its design.\u00a0In October 2016, Kavanaugh wrote for a divided panel finding that the CFPB&#8217;s design was unconstitutional, and made the CFPB Director removable by the\u00a0President of the United States.<\/h3>\n<h3>In January 2018, the\u00a0en banc\u00a0D.C. Circuit reversed that judgment by a vote of 7\u20133, over the dissent of Kavanaugh.<\/h3>\n<h3>In 2013, Kavanaugh issued an extraordinary writ of\u00a0mandamus\u00a0requiring the\u00a0Nuclear Regulatory Commission\u00a0to process the license application of the\u00a0Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, over the dissent of Judge\u00a0Merrick Garland.\u00a0In April 2014, Kavanaugh dissented when the court found that Labor Secretary\u00a0Tom Perez\u00a0could issue workplace safety citations against\u00a0SeaWorld\u00a0regarding the multiple killings of its workers by\u00a0Tilikum\u00a0the orca.<\/h3>\n<h3>After Judge Kavanaugh wrote for a divided panel striking down a\u00a0Clean Air Act\u00a0regulation, the Supreme Court reversed by a vote of 6\u20132 in\u00a0EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P.\u00a0(2014).<\/h3>\n<h3>Judge\u00a0Kavanaugh dissented from the denial of rehearing\u00a0en banc\u00a0of a unanimous panel opinion upholding the agency&#8217;s regulation of\u00a0greenhouse gas\u00a0emissions and a fractured Supreme Court reversed by a vote of 5\u20134 in\u00a0Utility Air Regulatory Group, v. Enviromental Protection Agency\u00a0(2014).\u00a0After Judge Kavanaugh dissented from a\u00a0per curiam\u00a0decision\u00a0allowing the agency to disregard\u00a0cost\u2013benefit analysis, the Supreme Court reversed by a vote of 5\u20134 in\u00a0Michigan v. EPA\u00a0(2015).<\/h3>\n<h3>In\u00a0Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp.\u00a0(2007), Kavanaugh dissented when the circuit court allowed a lawsuit making\u00a0accusations of ExxonMobil human rights violations in Indonesia\u00a0to proceed, arguing in his dissent that the claims were not\u00a0justiciable. Judge\u00a0Kavanaugh dissented again when the circuit court later found that the corporation could be sued under the\u00a0Alien Tort Statute\u00a0of 1789.<\/h3>\n<h3>First Amendment and free speech Judge Kavanaugh wrote for unanimous three-judge district courts when they held that the\u00a0Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act\u00a0could restrict\u00a0soft money\u00a0donations to political parties and could forbid campaign contributions by foreign citizens.\u00a0Those judgments were both summarily affirmed on direct appeal by the Supreme Court.<\/h3>\n<h3>In 2014, Judge Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment when the\u00a0en banc\u00a0D.C. Circuit found that the\u00a0Free Speech Clause\u00a0did not forbid the government from requiring meatpackers to include a country of origin label on their products.\u00a0In\u00a0United States Telecom Ass&#8217;n v. FCC\u00a0(2016), Kavanaugh dissented when the\u00a0en banc\u00a0circuit refused to rehear a rejected challenge to the\u00a0net neutrality\u00a0rule, writing, &#8220;Congress did not clearly authorize the FCC to issue the net neutrality rule&#8221;.<\/h3>\n<h3>In November 2010, Judge Kavanaugh dissented from the denial of rehearing\u00a0en banc\u00a0after the circuit found that attaching a\u00a0Global Positioning System\u00a0tracking device to a vehicle violated the\u00a0Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.\u00a0The circuit&#8217;s judgment was then affirmed by the Supreme Court in\u00a0United States v. Jones\u00a0(2012).\u00a0In February 2016, Kavanaugh dissented when the\u00a0en banc\u00a0circuit refused to rehear police officers&#8217; rejected claims of\u00a0qualified immunity\u00a0for arresting partygoers in a vacant house.\u00a0In\u00a0District of Columbia v. Wesby\u00a0(2018), the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the circuit&#8217;s judgment.<\/h3>\n<h3>In\u00a0Klayman v. Obama\u00a0(2015), Kavanaugh concurred when the circuit court denied an\u00a0en banc\u00a0rehearing of its decision to vacate a district court order blocking the\u00a0National Security Agency&#8217;s warrantless bulk collection of telephony metadata.\u00a0In his concurrence, Kavanaugh wrote that the metadata collection was not a search, and, even if it were, no\u00a0reasonable suspicion\u00a0would be required because of the government&#8217;s special need to prevent terrorist attacks.<\/h3>\n<h3>Judge Kavanaugh holds his daughter while greeting British Prime Minister\u00a0Tony Blair\u00a0and President\u00a0George W. Bush.<\/h3>\n<h3>In April 2009, Kavanaugh wrote a lengthy concurrence when the court found that detainees at the\u00a0Guantanamo Bay detention camp\u00a0had no right to advanced notice before being transferred to another country.<\/h3>\n<h3>In\u00a0Kiyemba v. Obama\u00a0(2010), the Supreme Court vacated that judgment while refusing to review the matter.\u00a0In June 2010, Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence in judgment when the\u00a0en banc\u00a0D.C. Circuit found that the\u00a0Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory\u00a0owners could not bring a\u00a0defamation\u00a0suit regarding the government&#8217;s allegations that they were terrorists.\u00a0In October 2012, he wrote for a unanimous court when it found that the Constitution&#8217;s\u00a0Ex Post Facto Clause\u00a0made it unlawful for the government to prosecute\u00a0Salim Hamdan\u00a0under the\u00a0Military Commissions Act of 2006\u00a0on charges of\u00a0providing material support for terrorism.<\/h3>\n<h3>In August 2010, Judge Kavanaugh wrote a lengthy concurrence when the\u00a0en banc\u00a0circuit refused to rehear\u00a0Ghaleb Nassar Al Bihani&#8217;s rejected claims that the international\u00a0law of war\u00a0limits the\u00a0Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists.\u00a0In 2014, Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment when the\u00a0en banc\u00a0circuit found that\u00a0Ali al-Bahlul\u00a0could be retroactively convicted of\u00a0war crimes, provided existing statute already made it a crime &#8220;because it does not alter the definition of the crime, the defenses or the punishment&#8221;.\u00a0In October 2016, Judge Kavanaugh wrote the\u00a0plurality opinion\u00a0when the\u00a0en banc\u00a0circuit found al-Bahlul could be convicted by a military commission even if his offenses are not internationally recognized as war crimes under the law of war.<\/h3>\n<h3>In\u00a0Meshal v. Higgenbotham\u00a0(2016), Kavanaugh concurred when the divided panel threw out a claim by an American that he had been\u00a0disappeared\u00a0by the\u00a0FBI\u00a0in a Kenyan black site.<\/h3>\n<h3>Second Amendment and gun ownership.\u00a0In October 2011, Kavanaugh dissented when the circuit court found that a ban on the sale of\u00a0semi-automatic rifles\u00a0was permissible under the\u00a0Second Amendment. This case followed the landmark Supreme Court ruling in\u00a0District of Columbia v. Heller\u00a0(2008).<\/h3>\n<h3>Twenty-five of Kavanaugh&#8217;s forty-eight law clerks have been women, and thirteen have been people of color.\u00a0A number have been children of other judges and high-profile legal figures, including Clayton Kozinski (son of former federal Judge\u00a0Alex Kozinski), Porter Wilkinson (daughter of Judge\u00a0J. Harvie Wilkinson III), Philip Alito (son of\u00a0Justice Samuel Alito), Sophia Chua-Rubenfeld (daughter of Yale Law Professor\u00a0Amy Chua), and Emily Chertoff (daughter of former DHS Secretary\u00a0Michael Chertoff).<\/h3>\n<h3>On September 20, 2018,\u00a0The Guardian\u00a0reported that two Yale professors had advised female law students at Yale that their physical attractiveness and femininity could play a role in securing a clerkship with Kavanaugh. Chua was reported by unnamed sources as having stated that female applicants should exude &#8220;model-like&#8221; femininity and &#8220;dress outgoing&#8221; in their job interview with Kavanaugh. Responding to the report, Chua denied that Kavanaugh&#8217;s hiring decisions were affected by female applicants&#8217; attractiveness, stating, &#8220;Judge Kavanaugh&#8217;s first and only litmus test in hiring has been excellence.&#8221;<\/h3>\n<h3>Jed Rubenfeld\u00a0stated that Kavanaugh &#8220;hires women with a certain look&#8221;, although the source stated, Rubenfeld did not say what that look was.\u00a0Yale Law School Dean Heather Gerken called the allegations &#8220;of enormous concern to me and the school&#8221;, which she said is investigating the matter.<\/h3>\n<h3>Nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States<\/h3>\n<h3>On July 2, 2018, Kavanaugh was one of four U.S. Court of Appeals judges to receive a personal 45-minute interview by President\u00a0Donald J. Trump\u00a0as a potential replacement for Justice\u00a0Anthony Kennedy.<\/h3>\n<h3>On July 9, Trump nominated Kavanaugh for a seat on the Supreme Court.\u00a0In his first public speech after the nomination, Kavanaugh said, &#8220;No president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.&#8221;<\/h3>\n<h3>A statistical analysis by\u00a0The Washington Post\u00a0estimated that Kavanaugh was more conservative than\u00a0Neil Gorsuch\u00a0and less conservative than\u00a0Samuel Alito.\u00a0Jonathan Turley of\u00a0George Washington University\u00a0has stated that among the judges considered by Trump, &#8220;Kavanaugh has the most robust view of presidential powers and immunities&#8221;.\u00a0Brian Bennett writing for\u00a0Time\u00a0magazine cites Kavanaugh&#8217;s 2009\u00a0Minnesota Law Review\u00a0article as defending the privilege of the President to immunity from prosecution during tenure in office.\u00a0In a 2017 speech at the\u00a0American Enterprise Institute\u00a0about former Chief Justice, William Rehnquist, he praised his opinions in\u00a0Roe v. Wade\u00a0and\u00a0Furman v. Georgia, where Rehnquist dissented in rulings that overturned the ban against abortion and the statutes which supported the death penalty.<\/h3>\n<h3>An evaluation of Judge Kavanaugh&#8217;s appellate court decisions was performed by two law professors for the\u00a0Washington Post,\u00a0They rated his decisions in four areas: rights of criminal defendants; support for rules regarding stricter enforcement of environmental protection; upholding the rights of labor unions; and siding with those bringing suits alleging discrimination. They found he had the most conservative voting record on the D.C. Court in three of those policy areas, and the second-most in the fourth, between 2003 and 2018.<\/h3>\n<h3>During his hearing, Kavanaugh said that he had repeatedly described the four greatest moments in Supreme Court history as being the cases\u00a0Brown v. Board of Education,\u00a0Marbury v. Madison,\u00a0Youngstown Steel, and\u00a0United States v. Nixon, with\u00a0Brown\u00a0being the single greatest.<\/h3>\n<h3>According to the Judicial Common Space scores, a score based on the ideology scores of the home state senators and the president who nominated the judge to the\u00a0federal bench,\u00a0Clarence Thomas\u00a0is the only justice more conservative than Kavanaugh. According to this metric, Kavanaugh&#8217;s\u00a0confirmation\u00a0would mean the composition of the court would shift to the right.\u00a0Had\u00a0Merrick Garland\u00a0been confirmed,\u00a0Stephen Breyer\u00a0would have become the median\u00a0swing vote\u00a0when Justice Kennedy retired. However, since Scalia was replaced by another conservative (Gorsuch), it was expected that Chief Justice\u00a0John Roberts\u00a0would become the median swing vote on the Supreme Court upon Kavanaugh&#8217;s confirmation.<\/h3>\n<h3>Senate Judiciary Committee public hearings. The\u00a0Senate Judiciary Committee\u00a0scheduled three or four days of public hearings on Kavanaugh&#8217;s nomination, commencing on September 4, 2018. The hearings were at the onset delayed with objections from the Democratic members, concerning the absence of records during the nominee&#8217;s time in the George W. Bush administration, prior to his service as a federal circuit court judge. The Democrats also complained that 42,000 pages of documents had been received at the 11th hour, the night before the first day of hearings.<\/h3>\n<h3>Repeated statements from the Republicans included the assertion that the volume of documents available on this nominee equaled that of the previous five nominees for the court; the Democrats responded with their repeated contention that only 15% of demanded documents about the nominee had been obtained. Numerous motions by the Democrats to adjourn or suspend the hearings were ruled to be out of order by Chairman\u00a0Chuck Grassley, who argued that Judge Kavanaugh had written over 300 legal opinions available for review. The first day&#8217;s session closed after statements from each senator and the nominee, with question and answer periods to begin the following day.<\/h3>\n<h3>During the first round of questions from senators on September 5, 2018, Kavanaugh held to his earlier stated position that he would not express an opinion on matters that might come before the court. He thus refused to promise to\u00a0recuse\u00a0himself from any case, including any that might involve President Trump. He also declined to comment on coverage of pre-existing healthcare conditions, semiautomatic rifle possession, the precedent of\u00a0Roe v. Wade, or the President&#8217;s power to issue a self-pardon. The nominee was given the opportunity and expounded at length upon various Constitutional amendments,\u00a0stare decisis\u00a0(the role of legal precedent in shaping subsequent judicial rulings), and the President&#8217;s power to dismiss federal employees. As in the prior session, there were frequent outbursts of protest in the audience, requiring security intervention and removal, as well as repeated procedural objections from Democrats.<\/h3>\n<h3>The Committee&#8217;s third day of hearings began with a furor over the release of emails of Judge Kavanaugh that related to concern about potential racial profiling in security screenings. The day continued with Kavanaugh&#8217;s attempts to articulate his jurisprudence, including refusing direct questions to opine on matters that he characterized as hypothetical.\u00a0Senator\u00a0Chris Coons\u00a0had tendered Judge Kavanaugh written questions about any knowledge of inappropriate behavior on the part of judge\u00a0Alex Kozinski, for whom Kavanaugh had clerked for, including his circulations of sexually explicit emails via his &#8220;Easy Rider Gag List&#8221;. According to\u00a0The Intercept, though Coons had asked him to review his emails from the judge, Kavanaugh instead replied: &#8220;I do not remember&#8221;.<\/h3>\n<h3>Some time during his testimony, Judge Kavanaugh stated that the 2017 exposure of his mentor, judge Alex Kozinski, as an alleged prolific sexual harasser, was a surprising &#8220;gut punch&#8221;.The Guardian\u00a0reported that their sources disputed Kavanaugh&#8217;s account because Kozinski&#8217;s alleged behavior was reportedly widely known among those in the judiciary system and its exposure culminated in his abrupt resignation from the bench.<\/h3>\n<h3>The Committee released a 2003 email in which Kavanaugh said, &#8220;I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to [Roe v. Wade] as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the Court would do so.&#8221; Judge\u00a0Kavanaugh stressed that he was commenting on the views of legal scholars at the time, not his own views, and noted that the case had been reaffirmed on a number of occasions since the time of the statement.<\/h3>\n<h3>Sen. Susan Collins, a key but undeclared vote in the confirmation, indicated the statement did not contradict Kavanaugh&#8217;s personal assurance to her that\u00a0Roe\u00a0is settled law. Judge\u00a0Kavanaugh noted that\u00a0Planned Parenthood v. Casey\u00a0(1992), which reaffirmed\u00a0Roe v. Wade, was &#8220;precedent on precedent&#8221;. According to Kavanaugh,\u00a0Casey\u00a0is a key decision about when the Court&#8217;s precedent may be overturned.<\/h3>\n<h3>On September 27, the Committee held an additional day of public hearings to discuss allegations that Kavanaugh engaged in sexual misconduct while in high school. The only witnesses were Kavanaugh and\u00a0Christine Blasey Ford, who had accused him.<\/h3>\n<h3>Republican members of the committee did not question Ford directly; questioning on their behalf was done by\u00a0Rachel Mitchell, a career prosecutor from Maricopa County, Arizona.\u00a0Her questioning of Kavanaugh was cut short by Grassley, after which the Republican members of the committee questioned him themselves.<\/h3>\n<h3>Alternating with their questions, Democratic members of the committee questioned Ford and Judge Kavanaugh themselves.\u00a0Ford repeated and expanded upon her earlier allegations, saying that Kavanaugh and Judge, both \u201cvisibly drunk\u201d, had locked her into a bedroom, where Kavanaugh groped her and tried to take off her clothes while Judge watched. She said she \u201cbelieved he was going to rape me\u201d and feared for her life when he held his hand over her mouth.<\/h3>\n<h3>In his opening statement, Judge Kavanaugh claimed the accusations were a &#8220;political hit&#8221; by\u00a0left-wing activists\u00a0and\u00a0Democrats, saying he faced retaliation &#8220;on behalf of the Clintons&#8221; for his work on the\u00a0Starr Report\u00a0against\u00a0Bill Clinton.\u00a0Leland Keyser, Ford&#8217;s friend who Ford said was present during the alleged attack has denied that such an event took place, and questioned certain aspects of the story. Keyser also stated she felt pressured by people to support Ford&#8217;s story, something she told the FBI about.<\/h3>\n<h3>In response to his testimony, more than 2400 law professors signed a letter saying that the Senate should not confirm him because &#8220;he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land.&#8221;<\/h3>\n<h3>At the conclusion of the hearing the Republican leadership of the committee indicated that they planned to hold a committee vote on the nomination the next day, September 28, with a procedural vote on the Senate floor on September 29.<\/h3>\n<h3>On September 28, the committee voted along party lines to advance the nomination to the full Senate; Senator\u00a0Jeff Flake&#8217;s vote in support was conditioned on the vote in the full Senate being delayed for a week to allow investigation of the current claims by the FBI. Later, Senators\u00a0Joe Manchin\u00a0and\u00a0Lisa Murkowski\u00a0also said they would not vote to confirm without an FBI investigation.<\/h3>\n<h3>On this request from the Judiciary Committee, Trump ordered a &#8220;supplemental investigation to update Judge Kavanaugh&#8217;s file&#8221;, to be limited in scope and completed within one week.<\/h3>\n<h3>The report was transmitted to the White House on October 3 and from there to the Senate on October 4, where Senators were permitted one at a time to review the report in secrecy. Majority Leader McConnell said the Senate would vote on the confirmation on October 6.\u00a0Democrats criticized the FBI investigation as incomplete, a &#8220;farce&#8221;, a &#8220;sham&#8221; and &#8220;a horrific cover-up&#8221; that omitted key witnesses at the White House&#8217;s direction.<\/h3>\n<h3>According to\u00a0The Washington Post, the White House stopped the FBI from investigating possible falsehoods in Kavanaugh&#8217;s testimony to Congress about his drinking habits during his youth.<\/h3>\n<h3>Eighty-three ethics complaints were brought against Judge Kavanaugh in regard to his conduct during his U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Chief Justice John Roberts appointed a special federal panel of judges to investigate the complaints. In December 2018, the judicial panel dismissed all 83 ethics complaints, concluding that while the complaints &#8220;are serious,&#8221; there is no existing authority that allows lower court judges to investigate or discipline Supreme Court justices.<\/h3>\n<h3>On October 5, the Senate voted 51\u201349 to invoke\u00a0cloture, advancing the nomination to a final floor vote expected on October 6. This was enabled through the application of the so-called &#8220;nuclear option&#8221;, or a simple majority vote, rather than the historical three-fifths\u00a0super majority\u00a0in place before April 2017.<\/h3>\n<h3>The vote was along party lines, with the exception of Democrat\u00a0Joe Manchin\u00a0voting yes and Republican\u00a0Lisa Murkowski\u00a0voting no.<\/h3>\n<h3>On October 6, the Senate confirmed Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court with a 50\u201348 vote.\u00a0One senator, Republican\u00a0Steve Daines, who supported the nomination, was absent during the vote due to his attendance at the wedding of his daughter that day, and Murkowski voted &#8220;present&#8221; despite her opposition, so that their two votes would be canceled out and the balance of the vote would be retained \u2013 a rarely used traditional courtesy known as a &#8220;pair between senators&#8221;.<\/h3>\n<h3>All Republicans except Daines and Murkowski voted to approve the nomination, and all Democrats voted in opposition, except\u00a0Joe Manchin\u00a0who voted to approve the nomination.<\/h3>\n<h3>Judge\u00a0Kavanaugh&#8217;s confirmation vote was historically close. In terms of actual votes, the only Supreme Court confirmation vote that was closer was the vote on\u00a0Stanley Matthews, nominated by President\u00a0James A. Garfield\u00a0in 1881. Matthews was confirmed by the margin of a single vote, 24-23; no other justice has been confirmed by a single vote.<\/h3>\n<h3>However, in\u00a0percentage\u00a0terms, Judge Kavanaugh&#8217;s vote was even closer than Matthews&#8217;. Matthews was supported by 51.06% of the senators voting, but Kavanaugh only got 51.02% of the vote.<\/h3>\n<h3>Judge Justice Brett Michael Kavanaugh was sworn in as the 114th Justice of the Supreme Court on the evening of October 6, 2018.<\/h3>\n<h3>The Constitutional Oath was administered by Chief Justice Roberts and the Judicial Oath was administered by retired Associate Justice Kennedy, whom Kavanaugh succeeded on the Court. This private ceremony was followed by a public ceremony at the White House on October 8.<\/h3>\n<h3>Upon joining the court, Kavanaugh became the first Supreme Court justice to hire an all-female team of law clerks.<\/h3>\n<h3>Justice Kavanaugh being sworn in to succeed Anthony Kennedy as an Associate Justice on October 8, 2018<\/h3>\n<h3>Justice Kavanaugh began his tenure as Supreme Court Justice on October 9, 2018, hearing arguments for\u00a0Stokeling v. United States\u00a0and\u00a0United States v. Stitt.\u00a0He authored his first opinion on January 8, 2019, in the case of\u00a0Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer &amp; White Sales, Inc., in which a unanimous Court reversed the appeals court opinion that had allowed a court to decide whether an issue in a contract between a dental equipment manufacturer and distributor should be decided by arbitration.<\/h3>\n<h3>On February 27, Justice Kavanaugh once again joined Chief Justice Roberts and the court&#8217;s liberal justices in\u00a0Garza v. Idaho, a\u00a0Sixth Amendment\u00a0case in which the court held that the Sixth Amendment&#8217;s presumption of prejudice of ineffective counsel applies to situations in which an attorney declines to file an appeal because an appeal waiver was signed as part of a plea agreement.<\/h3>\n<h3>Conclusion:<\/h3>\n<h3>Abraham Lincoln. The intensity of the illustrious president&#8217;s life, as well as the political and social accidents and the tragic accusations, many false ones that surrounded his life, have been evident in our history, and some are described by Emil Ludwig.<\/h3>\n<h3>The full character and humorous sense of President Lincoln were the basis for his strong personality, acquired through the circumstances he lived. The citizen and political exemplarity that surrounds the life of the so-called Father of the Nation, he was slandered and accused for achieving his most fervent longing by abolishing the slavery of blacks in the United States.<\/h3>\n<h3>Social justice issues can occur in relation to practically any aspect of society where inequality can arise as a result of unjust prejudices or policies. This judge\u00a0 has covered, from bench since 2003 when he was \u00a0nominated to the U.S.\u00a0Court\u00a0of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by President Bush, a wide viriarity of Social justice issues in his legal practice, first as an attorney and later as a judge Justice Honorable Brett Michael Kavanaugh.<\/h3>\n<h3>We can be delineated into two categories, although they are often co-dependent: Inter-Social Treatment and Unequal Government Regulation.<\/h3>\n<h3>Inter-Social Treatment\u00a0involves treatment of a group(s) of other people based on personally-held biases and prejudices. These prejudices most often manifest in sociological categories such as:<\/h3>\n<h3>Race<\/h3>\n<h3>Gender<\/h3>\n<h3>Age<\/h3>\n<h3>Sexual Orientation<\/h3>\n<h3>Religion<\/h3>\n<h3>Nationality<\/h3>\n<h3>Education<\/h3>\n<h3>Mental or Physical Ability<\/h3>\n<h3>Unequal Government Regulation\u00a0involves laws and regulations that purposefully or otherwise create conditions that obstruct, limit, or deny a group(s) access to the same opportunities and resources, relative to the rest of society.<\/h3>\n<h3>These laws can intentionally (explicitly) or unintentionally (implicitly) create the conditions for social injustice. Areas in which government policy often gives rise to social inequality and injustice include:<\/h3>\n<h3>Voting Laws (i.e. redistricting and voter ID)<\/h3>\n<h3>Policing Laws (i.e. traffic, search and seizure, and drug scheduling)<\/h3>\n<h3>Environmental Laws (i.e. clean water and air, industrial waste disposal)<\/h3>\n<h3>Health Care Laws (i.e. insurance mandates and coverage eligibility) (<\/h3>\n<h3>Education Laws (i.e. public school segregation and integration)<\/h3>\n<h3>Labor Laws (i.e. worker\u2019s rights, occupational health and safety)<\/h3>\n<h3>Invitation from: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.americanbar.org\/groups\/crsj\/awards\/crsj-thurgood-marshall-award\/2020-tmad-nominations\/\">https:\/\/www.americanbar.org\/groups\/crsj\/awards\/crsj-thurgood-marshall-award\/2020-tmad-nominations\/<\/a><\/h3>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><a href=\"http:\/\/nafalaw.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/10\/ABA-NOMINATION-e1570568485876.jpg\"><img wpfc-lazyload-disable=\"true\" decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\" class=\"aligncenter size-full wp-image-3117\" src=\"http:\/\/nafalaw.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/10\/ABA-NOMINATION-e1570568485876.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2552\" height=\"3508\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.nafalaw.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/10\/ABA-NOMINATION-e1570568485876.jpg 2552w, https:\/\/www.nafalaw.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/10\/ABA-NOMINATION-e1570568485876-768x1056.jpg 768w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 706px) 89vw, (max-width: 767px) 82vw, 740px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Preamble: &#8220;Honor to honor.&#8221; This National Association for Attorneys, NAFALAW.COM is honored to present our brief with our total support for our 2020 \u201cThurgood Marshall\u201d Award nominee- Justice Brett Michael Kavanaugh. The word honor derives from the Latin honorare or honoris that specifically indicates public glorification through the exercise of public office. In this sense, &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nafalaw.com\/blog\/2019\/10\/08\/nafalaw-com-is-honored-to-present-our-brief-with-our-total-support-for-our-2020-thurgood-marshall-award-nominee-justice-brett-michael-kavanaugh\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;NAFALAW.COM is honored to present our brief with our total support for our 2020 \u201cThurgood Marshall\u201d Award nominee- Justice Brett Michael Kavanaugh.&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3114","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nafalaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3114","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nafalaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nafalaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nafalaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nafalaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3114"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.nafalaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3114\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3121,"href":"https:\/\/www.nafalaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3114\/revisions\/3121"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nafalaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3114"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nafalaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3114"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nafalaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3114"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}