For instance, abortion, gun control, and religious liberty were all traditionally considered exclusive domains of the states; Judge Kavanaugh should not be attacked for questioning (however timidly) the federal government's jurisdiction in such areas. But where you should have been hitting him harder was on his civil liberties record. You mention his history of deference to the executive branch, but your examples somehow only cover those cases where he appears to support less executive power such as subsidizing health care or regulating the environment. You would have made a stronger argument by challenging him on cases like Meshal vs Higginbotham, where a U.S. citizen's rights were violated by harsh interrogations while overseas. Judge Kavanaugh appears to think that rights stop at the borders of the country and our officials can do whatever they like abroad.
The Fourth and Fifth Amendments, like all the others, restrict the government itself wherever it may act. In other areas, too, Mr. Kavanaugh appears to be a friend of big government. Conservative and libertarian opponents of Obamacare are already noting that he never challenged the basic constitutionality of the law or of the individual mandate to buy health care. Really, though, the main lesson you and other liberals ought to be taking from this is that your conservative opponents had a point when complaining of judicial overreach. I suppose it's to be expected that you only notice this when the justices happen to oppose your preferred policies, but just maybe this will prompt you to adopt a more critical attitude to the power wielded by nine life appointees.