I hear what you're saying, but the issue here isn't his dishonesty or any aspect of his personality. It's his approach to jurisprudence and the expansion of state authority, which I mentioned also a couple pages ago in an article where he misrepresented his role in deliberations over President Bush's use of torture.
He's 1 of 9, but it does matter a great deal what one justice says. The final ruling is where the public usually interacts with decisions, but in the context of subsequent litigation and even legislation that gets written, the perspectives and opinions of individual justices writing for the majority or dissenting opinion count for quite a bit in our judicial system. Also, everything they say that litigators get access to helps shape legal arguments and judges decisions throughout the courts. Kavanaugh saying the state should have indefinite powers of detention can now be cited as a guiding principle as the executive branch tests the limits of what is acceptable. The justices don't always vote as a political bloc, but they do predictably enough. So if 5 find in favor of a particular point of view, then the individual sentiments of the justices become especially relevant as their views represent the perspective of the majority ruling. Kav is probably more socially liberal than some of his detractors have implied, but on issues of the state use of power, his record isn't great and it seems to be continuing.
