Kavanaugh has probably set a record for the number of times he says "precedent" as a basis
for his rulings.
But he's a cherry picking snake.
I refer you to the Agri Processor v. NLRB case of 2008, in which he dissented, against the union bargaining rights of undocumented immigrant workers, even when a similar case had been settled in 1976 (Sure Tan v. NLRB) in favor of undocumented laborers by a 7-2 majority. He even had the nerve to cite the DISSENT in that case as a basis for his own dissent in the newer one.
He claims that the IRCA of 1986 changed the bargaining rights of those workers, inasmuch as that act made it illegal for companies to hire undocumented immigrants... so they were no longer "employees" entitled to labor protections. But the majority in the Agri Processor case rebutted his logic, including with the fact that Congress never expressly nor implicitly indicated that it intended with IRCA to end labor protections.
But there's another curious thing about that matter... Kavanaugh would have protected Agri Processor against having to provide fair labor practices to its workers by illegally hiring them in the first place! That can only seem fair, appropriate, and legally intended by a SNAKE, in my view.