Let's put the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination hearings in perspective.

It's an election year and the Democratic Party is torn apart by leftists who disregard analysis exposing the unemployment and underemployment caused by artificially increasing the minimum wage, oversimplifying "Medicare for All,"  "free" college for everyone, and, generally, promising all sorts of goodies paid for by the presumably unlimited resources of the government.

Such leftist primary successes in New York and Nebraska have given socialists an emotional boost and incumbent Democrats ulcers.

That and the presidential aspirations of Kamala Harris and Cory Booker add reason to why Democrats tried "Borking" a candidate who will likely be another swing vote just like Justice Anthony Kennedy, for whom he clerked.

Plus the fact that he worked in a leadership role under Ken Starr in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.

Kavanaugh wrote in a 1998 memo to Starr, "The President has disgraced his Office, the legal system, and the American people. … He should be forced to account for all of that and to defend his actions. It may not be our job to impose sanctions on him, but it is our job to make his pattern of revolting behavior clear — piece by painful piece."

In 2009, during the Obama administration, Kavanaugh confided he had since come to believe that his 33-year-old self was wrong and the Democratic president should not have been hamstrung from his duties by such investigations.

Democrats are trying everything they can to prove their "progressive" creds by ruining Kavanaugh's chances, piece by painful piece.

The first attack is that Kavanaugh presents a clear and present danger to overturning Roe v. Wade.

Let's take a look at his "dangerous" thinking:  He calls Justice Kennedy, who believed same-sex marriage and abortion are constitutional rights, "a mentor, a friend, and a hero."

In both dissent and in leading judicial decisions, he has written in no uncertain terms that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, two landmark decisions supporting abortion rights, are "settled law."

The first, Garza v. Hargan, involved a 17-year-old illegal immigrant seeking an abortion. Kavanaugh wrote, in no uncertain terms, "under the Government's arguments in this case and the Supreme Court's precedents, the unlawful immigrant minor is assumed to have a right under precedent to an abortion."

These are not the words of an antiabortion judicial activist.

Kavanaugh had another opportunity to really impugn Roe v. Wade in Mahoney v. Doe when a priest came to the court complaining that police took away his chalk after he wrote slogans criticizing Roe v. Wade on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House.

Kavanaugh ruled against the priest, saying prohibiting someone from defacing public property does not create a burden on one's religious free speech.

Wait! There's one more!

Imagine a conservative judge having the opportunity to crush the pro-choice lobbyists EMILY's List as effectively as Obama's IRS crushed tea party groups!

In EMILY's List v. Federal Election Commission he ruled in favor of EMILY's List, striking down the FEC's regulation prohibiting unauthorized political committees from using candidates' names in the titles of their web sites and social-media pages.

Despite all of this proof, Democrats scream Kavanaugh will not protect women's constitutional rights.

But if they truly care about constitutional rights, why did they allow Kavanaugh to sidestep his belief that warrantless spying on Americans is just a peachy fine activity for government authorities?

The question they should have repeated en masse is:

Why do you, Mr. Kavanaugh, believe the NSA's secretly collecting every American's digital communication without a warrant is supported by the Fourth Amendment, which obviously contradicts that illegal activity?

Do Democrats really care about constitutional rights or are they just pandering for midterm election votes?

Rick Jensen is an award-winning talk-show host on 101.7 FM and 1150 AM WDEL in Wilmington.