Lisa Blatt is a “superstar” lawyer. Her career is “liberal” and “feminist” by the standards of today—conservative standards. She supports Roe v. Wade, and at this point in the development of our country’s political culture, that is enough to make one a “wild-eyed liberal.” In fact, at the beginning of August, Blatt penned an op-ed that appeared in Politico Magazine, titled “I’m a Liberal Feminist Lawyer. Here’s Why Democrats Should Support Judge Kavanaugh.” After giving her credentials—she’s argued 35 cases in front of the Supreme Court, more than any other woman—she went on to say that she knew Kavanaugh and liked him; and even though what happened with Merrick Garland’s nomination and subsequent non-hearing was “a disgrace,” Democrats should vote for Kavanaugh because he is “the most qualified conservative for the job.”
The fact of the matter is that, like Merrick Garland, Blatt’s liberal credentials include mostly being pro-Roe and pro-gay-rights. These are not small things; but as we have seen, being “pro-gay-rights” can get obfuscated when the Supreme Court is willing to narrow the scope of their decisions.
Blatt, a former clerk for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has shown over the years that she is very pro-business, not very pro-consumer, and definitely on the wrong side of the liberal/conservative divide when it comes to pharmaceuticals and the health of the public.
Blatt was also the architect of the Washington Red$kins trademark registration case in 2015.
Despite the litany of vulgar trademarks cited in her brief, Blatt makes a serious argument against the government’s contention that federal trademark registrations are forms of government speech and are therefore exempt from First Amendment scrutiny. In essence, she argues: Do customers of the Take Yo Panties Off clothing line really think that the government endorses the product simply because it has a trademark registration? Or do members of the public think Take Yo Panties Off has a federal trademark registration simply to protect itself against competitors?
Corporations’ free speech rights have been something conservatives have used over the last decade to protect big business from being taken to task for their bad behaviors in regard to the public. Whether it’s health—and it is frequently health—or fraud, any and all attempts to discover what corporations have known or not known about their own bad behaviors have run into this kind of argument.
Another of Blatt’s more recent victories in front of the Supreme Court was her successful argument that an American Indian father could not invoke the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act in a custody trial after his biological child was put up for adoption by her mother. The three dissenting opinions on the court were justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. You can read a bit more about the case here. But Justice Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion pointed out that the argument Blatt used amounted to a decision that an American Indian man with less money has fewer rights to his child than does a white couple with means. Now this is not exactly what Blatt argued, but it is a big part of Justice Alito’s takeaway on the matter. And it was his takeaway that won the day.
So, while Blatt writes that, besides Ruth Bader Ginsburg, she “know[s] of no other judge [besides Kavanaugh] who stands out for hiring female law clerks,” the fact remains that most women are not at all happy about Kavanaugh’s nomination. A big reason why is that about half the population of the United States is not at all interested in letting men decide what they can and cannot do with their bodies. Especially when the standards they use in deciding are discussed, argued, and applied only to women.