I bet liberal senators are kicking themselves.  It would just look too suspicious if they raised some long lost unsubstantiated allegations against the next appointment, so they've pretty much wasted the effort...

" suspicious " is not a problem in politics.

wait just  second there Tim...."It would look too stupid"...remember these are same bunch that have slush fund to pay off their prostitutes with our tax money while at the same time saying the WH is in peril because Trump paid his own women with his own money.....there is no place our political bunch will not go

What Does It Mean That the Supreme Court — and Brett Kavanaugh — Sided With Planned Parenthood?

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/why-did-brett-kavanaugh-side-with-planned-parenthood.html

"Accusing the Court of a “refusal to do its job,” archconversative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his dissent from the order: “I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named ‘Planned Parenthood.’ That makes the Court’s decision particularly troubling.” An order that elicits a dyspeptic dissent from Thomas, co-signed by Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, and accusing his colleagues of cowardice has got to be a good one for liberal policy priorities, right?"

Bret Kavanaugh just barely survived  the most tumultous politically charged confirmation in history.............with one side insisting that they would repeal his confirmation if they get the chance. 

The objection, entirely from one side, was based entirely on his philosophy, which lined up with Trumps.......or else Trump would not have picked him. So expectations..........built into us, were for him to be one of the most conservative judges.

My thinking is that he clearly has a conservative bias but is capable of being objective. And judges, can use reasoning to go either way on many cases............this one is a good example. 

I would venture to guess, ,that  in this particular case, because it involved Planned Parenthood, he clearly knew that all eyes would be watching HIS vote. The new judge, rejected completely by one side(that trashed him for weeks) and now this particular case.........with him under the microscope. 

There was plenty of room for him to go the other way based on his past/philosophy. However, the best way to disarm his vehement critics was to do something that stole their ammunition and maybe garnered a bit of respect from those that expected a different decision?

Bret Kavanaugh despises the labels that were pinned on him during the confirmation hearings..........including that he is biased to one side. He loves his job and intends to work hard for justice of all Americans but wants all Americans to respect and accept him, not just the half that supported him a couple of months ago.

A decision like this, may have been giving that alot of weight.

I haven't taken the time to get familiar with the case/ruling yet. It's on my to do list.

But if Kavanaugh based his ruling on "not angering the people who treated him like crap",  that's very bad news. His rulings are supposed to be based on a strict interpretation of the constitution.

I have serious questions on the constitutionality/legality of federal funding of planned parenthood.  The organization makes large political campaign contributions across the country essentially forcing the taxpayers to subsidize campaigns, whether or not they agree with the candidate(s). 

I've reviewed the case, and while I am no legal expert, I have to agree with Kavanaugh, Roberts.

Essentially, the case was an attempt to prevent PP from receiving compensation from Medicaid.  This is based on the charge that PP is not a legitimate provider due to charges that, among other things,  they illegally sold aborted fetal organs. While there is evidence supporting these charges, the charges have not been proven and can't be used to disqualify PP as a legitimate medical provider per Medicaid guidelines.

Whether the case could be heard is certainly debatable,  but without established proof of the above charges, there is little doubt of the outcome. Until such time, there is no legal argument against PP as an approved medicaid provider.

This was just me speculating Tim and no worth anything.

All judges are supposed to use the Constitution.................but we have a lot of split decisions, like this one. This tells us that there are different ways to see things when applying the Constitution.

With that being the case, it allows judges to apply the Constitution as they deem appropriate. They always provide good reasoning for their decisions but often go in the opposite direction as another judge(s).