As the chief law enforcement officer of Nevada, I suppose it is only natural that I care passionately about judges and their judicial philosophy. But recently I have been pleased to learn how many others, from all walks of life, share that concern. Indeed, many Americans said that it was their biggest concern in the last presidential election—electing a president who would nominate federal judges who follow and apply the law as written, not according to their own personal preferences.
Now President Trump has nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve as our next Supreme Court justice. I enthusiastically support the president’s choice. Kavanaugh has already served as a federal appeals judge for over a decade, and has a strong record of judging according to the rule of law. Instead of merely trying to reach the result he wants in any given case, Kavanaugh has let the law and constitution dictate the result. That is what we expect from our judges, but too often it isn’t what we get.
It might be easy for those of us here in Nevada to think that it doesn’t matter much who serves on a court clear across the country in Washington, D.C. But that would be wrong. Who serves on our nation’s highest court directly impacts Nevada and Nevadans in many ways, as I’ve experienced firsthand.
Take, for example, Nevada’s challenge to the federal Waters of the United States rule. After federal agencies interpreted that obscure federal rule so broadly that it might require Nevada’s mud puddles to be subject to federal regulation, I had no choice but to join with a majority of our sister states in challenging that absurd interpretation in federal court. We got the rule stopped, but then an intermediate court of appeals, by a narrow majority of one judge, threatened our injunction. It took the Supreme Court stepping in earlier this year to vindicate Nevada’s lawsuit.
In another case, after the 9th Circuit issued a ruling undermining Nevada’s criminal convictions, I had my office take the lead writing a bipartisan brief on behalf of 30 states asking the Supreme Court to reject the 9th Circuit’s judicial activism. The Supreme Court accepted our arguments by the narrowest of margins: 5-4. One justice made all the difference for Nevada.
When Nevada’s new school choice program was challenged, my office successfully argued to the Nevada Supreme Court that Nevada’s Constitution does not require discrimination against religious organizations. For good measure, we then led an 18-state coalition asking the Supreme Court to explain that the First Amendment does not allow such discrimination. In a split decision, the court agreed with Nevada.
These examples, and many more like them, show what is at stake for Nevada in this nomination. Over the next weeks and months we will hear a lot about various issues, but ultimately what matters across all of the issues is how a judge judges. Does the judge apply the law and constitution as it was written and decided by the people, or is the judge merely applying his own personal preferences masked in legalese? If the latter, then we do need to be very worried about how a judge will rule on every single issue. But if the former, then we can leave those issues to the political process, where they belong, secure in the knowledge that the judge will faithfully apply the law that has been passed by the people.
Ultimately, our senators shouldn’t be supporting or opposing judicial nominees based on whether they agree with the nominee on this or that issue. Our senators should be supporting nominees based on whether they will faithfully apply the law. Kavanaugh has repeatedly demonstrated his commitment to do just that, which is why I wholeheartedly support his nomination. I encourage the Senate to fairly and quickly confirm Judge Kavanaugh as our next Supreme Court justice.
Adam Laxalt is the 33rd Attorney General of Nevada and the 2018 Republican nominee for Governor of Nevada.
