Legal minds I respect assure us that his track record of appellate-court decisions reflect an originalist bent. (David French at NRO has some concerns with how he arrived at two of them, but he still is pleased overall.) The fact that he coaches his daughter's parochial-school basketball team is a plus.
And the idiotic leftist howling and machinations? I think Steven Hayward at Power Line has it about right:
Needless to say, the left is going to throw everything they have at Judge Brett Kavanaugh, but the incoherence and contradictions of the left during the first news cycle suggests it is going to be a rout, and that the left will only succeed in embarrassing themselves.
From the reaction of the left, you’d think that the Supreme Court gets up every morning and simply decides what laws it wants to change. It’s as though five justices can meet over breakfast and decide, “Hey—why don’t we strike downtoday? Sounds neat!” That’s not how it works, of course. The Supreme Court can only decide a question that is presented in a case brought to it. And that takes a while, even in the clearest controversies.
I suppose we can forgive the left for thinking the Supreme Court has this plenipotentiary power. After all, most leftists don’t understand the separation of powers, or if they do, they’re against it, and see the judiciary as a primary engine of “progress.” The left has been arguing since Woodrow Wilson for the Supreme Court to haveI have a feeling the current president will get at least one more pick, so there's still hope for Barrett. power to govern the country. As Wilson wrote in (1890), progress can be accomplished “only by wresting the Constitution to strange and as yet unimagined uses.” And who will do all this “wresting”?