Alliance for Justice Rallies Law Profs Against Brett Kavanaugh

The Alliance for Justice is circulating a law professors letter opposing the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.  I have signed it.  The AFJ has issued a statement and gathered materials:
SCOTUS Nominee: Brett Kavanaugh - Alliance for Justice

My concerns are particularly focused on the basis for his opposition to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  He mainly focuses his 2011 dissent in Seven Sky v. Holder.  His attack on the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.  It marks him  as an ideological opponent of the huge body law upholding New Deal and civil rights precedent such as the 1964 decision United States v. Heart of Atlanta Motel.

Below is an excerpt from Kavanaugh's dissent which I think is self evidently alarming.
- GWC

To uphold the Affordable Care Act's mandatory-purchase requirement under the Commerce Clause, we would have to uphold a law that is unprecedented on the federal level in American history. That fact alone counsels the Judiciary to exercise great caution. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 580, 583, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring) ("The statute before us upsets the federal balance to a degree that renders it an unconstitutional assertion of the commerce power, and our intervention is required.... If Congress attempts that extension, then at the least we must inquire whether the exercise of national power seeks to intrude upon an area of traditional state concern.... The statute now before us forecloses the States from experimenting and exercising their own judgment in an area to which States lay claim by right of history and expertise, and it does so by regulating an activity beyond the realm of commerce in the ordinary and usual sense of that term."); see also Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 905, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997) ("[I]f, as petitioners contend, earlier Congresses avoided use of this highly attractive power, we would have reason to believe that the power was thought not to exist.").In addition, the Government's position on the Commerce Clause carries broad implications—far broader than its position on the Taxing Clause. Under the Government's Commerce Clause theory, as it freely acknowledged at oral argument, the Government could impose imprisonment or other criminal punishment on citizens who do not have health insurance. That is a rather jarring prospect. The Affordable Care Act does not impose such criminal penalties. But if we approve the Affordable Care Act's mandate under the Commerce Clause, we would necessarily be approving criminal punishment—including imprisonment—for failure to comply not only with this Act but also with future mandatory-purchase requirements.