Will McCaskill side with Missouri or extremist Democrats on Kavanaugh?

President Donald Trump has nominated another terrific, highly-qualified judge to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. But Sen. Claire McCaskill’s party is launching a full-scale attack on the tremendous character and qualifications of Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

Can we count on McCaskill to resist the extremism of the Democratic Party and vote for the best candidate for the job? Don’t bet on it.

If her past behavior is any indication, McCaskill will side with the extremist elements in her own party rather than with good sense. McCaskill opposed the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch last year and has cast numerous votes against Trump’s nominations to lower federal courts. At the time of the Gorsuch confirmation fight, McCaskill was happy to brag that she played politics with such an important vote.

“There is a desire in the base of our party to take a scalp for Merrick Garland,” McCaskill said, according to Roll Call. “I completely get it. So I am very comfortable voting against him (Gorsuch).”

No doubt she will relish voting against Kavanaugh, too. Her extremist colleagues in the Democratic Party certainly are.

The Democrats were launching rhetorical attacks against Kavanaugh before Trump even announced his selection, going so far as to claim that the respected jurist literally threatens Americans’ lives.

Contrary to the hysteria from the Democrats, Kavanaugh is eminently qualified for the job.

A graduate of Yale Law School, Kavanaugh has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit since 2006. The circuit court judge is a widely-respected legal scholar, and his record reveals a strong and consistent desire to defend and uphold the Constitution and to protect Americans’ rights.

On immigration, Kavanaugh opposed granting work visas to immigrants at the expense of U.S. workers and blocked illegal immigrants from voting in unions. In Priests for Life v. HHS, Kavanaugh declared that Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate violated Americans’ constitutional rights to religious liberty. In 2011, he dissented from a decision that upheld Washington, D.C.’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” and the city’s requirement that guns be registered. This ruling was later overturned by the Supreme Court, validating Kavanaugh’s position

Kavanaugh has also demonstrated a persistent opposition to oppressive government regulations. He opposed government control of the internet, dissenting when the court upheld President Barack Obama’s net neutrality regulations. He authored the majority opinion in a case involving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which found the basic structure of the agency unconstitutional. He also resisted Obama’s radical, activist Environmental Protection Agency on multiple occasions.

Many of Kavanaugh’s colleagues and clerks consider him a terrific pick for the job. Thirty-four of his former law clerks have signed a letter praising the president’s nominee as fair and extremely diligent in his rulings. Liberal Yale Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar argued in The New York Times that Kavanaugh was an excellent choice for the Supreme Court and that the judge follows the “Constitution’s original meaning.”

Kavanaugh will clearly act in the name of the law and in the interests of Missourians and Americans everywhere. There is absolutely no reason for McCaskill to oppose his confirmation.

The only question is, will McCaskill do the right thing, or will she continue to march lockstep to the beat of Sen. Chuck Schumer’s obstructionist drum?