Confirm Amy Coney Barrett and Reelect Donald J. Trump

On September 26, 2020, President Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg on the Supreme Court. At first, I was a bit unsure about Republicans holding a vote on Judge Barrett, given the appearance of hypocrisy of the Republican-controlled Senate not having voted on Obama’s nominee Merritt Garland in 2016.

Precedent and History Are On the Republicans’ Side

However, that was before I heard about the actual precedents of Supreme Court presidential election year vacancies. Those precedents are detailed in an article in National Review titled “History Is on the Side of Republicans Filling a Supreme Court Vacancy in 2020.” I first heard about this article on Sean Hannity’s radio show, then Dan Bongino talked about it was well.

The raw statistics are as follows: There have been 29 Supreme Court vacancies in a presidential election year. Those 29 vacancies occurred for 22 different Presidents or fully half of all Presidents prior to Trump. Out of those 29 vacancies, the President nominated a replacement 29 times. Yes, 29 times. 100% of the time there has been an election year vacancy, the President made a nomination. As such, President Trump was clearly following precedent in nominating Judge Barrett.

Out of those 29 vacancies, 19 times the President was of the same party as the majority in the Senate, as is the case today. Out of those 19 times, 17 times the Senate voted to confirm the nominee. Thus, 89% of the time, the nominee gets confirmed when both the Presidency and the Senate are controlled by the same party. Thus, McConnell and the Republican-controlled Senate would be following precedent by confirming Judge Barrett.

However, in the ten instances where the Presidency and the Senate were controlled by different parties, only twice, or 20% of the time, did the nominee get confirmed. Thus, McConnell and the Republican-controlled Senate were also following precedent by not confirming Merritt Garland, Obama’s nominee in 2016.

What this all means, history is on the side of Republicans both in 2016 and now in 2020.

Hypocrisy

As for hypocrisy, there is plenty of that on both sides. You can easily find comments by Repubs and Dems from 2016 where each was saying the exact opposite of what they are saying today. The situation is similar to the Trump/ Ukraine impeachment that I detail in my three-volume set Dems Cannot Beat Trump, So They Impeach Trump.

In that trilogy, I mention that congresspeople from both sides had flipped positions from the Clinton impeachment in 1998. Back then, Dems opposed impeachment, while Repubs supported it. But for Trump’s impeachment, it was the exact opposite. And each side had a field day playing clips from 1998 contradicting what the other side was saying today while supporting what their side was now saying.

I did not cover that hypocrisy in too much detail, as it went both ways, so in my mind, it canceled each other out. But what struck me most was how many people who were involved in the Clinton impeachment were still in Washington today. Some were even involved with the Nixon impeachment back in 1974.

To me, that is the definition of “swamp creature.” I explain that term and why I despise lifetime politicians and bureaucrats in my trilogy. It was in fact unelected swamp creatures that were responsible for the whole impeachment fiasco, due to them thinking they knew better than the duly elected President. I detail all of that in my trilogy.

Amy’s Background and Addressing the Religion Question

Amy Coney Barrett is eminently qualified to be a Justice. Dems cannot deny that fact. She is also an incredible woman overall. Along with being a legal expert, she is a mother of seven. Two of those children were adopted from Haiti. With Amy obviously being a woman and her having two black adopted children, that removes two arrows out of the Dems’ playbook, that of calling a conservative a sexist or a racist.

Amy’s youngest biological child has Down’s Syndrome. That shows she is consistent in her pro-life position in that she did not abort that child. That will keep Dems from accusing her of hypocrisy in regard to abortion.

However, with those possible lines of attack removed, they will attack Amy on her religion, as they did in 2017 when she was confirmed to her current position as a circuit court judge. But to do so is unconstitutional, “but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” (US Constitution, Article VI. Section Three).

Every time Dems bring up her being Catholic or a member of a allegedly “radical” religious group, she should repeat, “but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Just keep saying this over and over again until it sinks into the Dems’ thick heads.

As for Amy’s religious group, “People of Praise,” it is not some “radical” group, and it most definitely is not a “cult” as Dems are saying. And it has no relationship to the “Handmaid’s Tale” as some are claiming. It is a mostly Catholic, charismatic group. That is a viewpoint shared by millions of Catholics worldwide. The People of Paris is also fully accepted by the Pope. In fact, Pope Francis appointed a member of People of Praise as an auxiliary bishop of Portland, OR in 2014.

To be clear, I have many disagreements with both Catholicism and the charismatic movement, so I would probably disagree with many of the doctrines of this group. But these would be mostly secondary issues, not issues related to the essentials of the Christian faith. And from what I have read, I do not see the characteristics of a cult in this group. I address all of this on my Christian Darkness to Light website.

However, to try to explain all of this to the religion-hating Dems on the Senate Judiciary Committee would be an exercise in futility. They do not understand people who are committed to their Christian faith. They are okay with nominal Christians like the Catholic Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi. But they cannot tolerate serious Christians. That is because a true Christian faith contradicts tenants of the leftist “religion” as will be seen in a moment. As such, it would be better if Judge Barrett just followed my approach of repeating the aforementioned Constitutional provision.

Not So Fast

I wrote the preceding section shortly after Judge Barret was nominated. But in the next few days, I found out that Dems would indeed attack her on each of these issues. They are calling her a “white colonialist” for adopting two black children. To do so is now somehow racist, never mind that liberal celebrities have been adopting black children for years, such as Madonna. But now doing so is somehow wrong. If that is not hypocrisy and racism, then I don’t know what is.

Then they are saying she cannot possibly focus on her duties as a Justice with seven kids. Never mind we’ve been told by feminists for decades that a woman can do it all, be a wife, a mother, and have a successful career. That point was emphasized by a old song that had a woman singing, “I can bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, and never ever let you forget you’re a man.” Then there was Helen Reddy’s song, “I am woman, hear me roar.” But now, feminists are going back on that mantra and saying a woman really is not capable of doing it all. If that is not sexism, then I don’t know what is.

But most of all, there is abortion. Do not miss that “a woman’s right to choose” is what this is all about, just it was in the Kavanaugh proceedings. Protecting that imaginary “right” is what these attacks on Republican Supreme Court nominees ever since Robert Bork are all about, on through to Clarence Thomas, to Kavanaugh, and now Barrett.

That is why they are okay with nominal Catholics such as Joe and Nancy, as they do not let their Catholic faith interfere with their support of abortion. But let a Catholic actually accept the Catholic Church’s official and emphatic teaching that abortion is wrong, and that they cannot tolerate, since again, it contradicts the tenants of their real religion, that of leftism.

Moreover, Dems know that Roe v. Wade was a horrible constitutional decision. Nowhere, but nowhere, does the Constitution grant the federal government any power over the issue of abortion. It cannot support it nor outlaw it, and it cannot prevent states from supporting or outlawing it. Such in fact is a “reserved right” of the states, in accordance with the Tenth Amendment.

I discuss this whole issue of abortion, Supreme Court nominees, and the Constitution in my book Tearing the USA Apart, so I will not pursue it further here. I also discuss abortion at length in regards to what the Bible and science have to say about it and the legal issues involved in my two-volume set God‘s Sex Plan.

Obamacare

In addition to abortion, another issue Dems will attack Judge Barrett on is her alleged disapproval of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, aka, “Obamacare”). The ACA is the last remaining vestige of Obama’s horrid presidency that Trump has not undone. But Trump did eliminate its worst part, that of the individual mandate. But Dems are still determined to hang onto the rest of the ACA at all costs.

The ACA was upheld as Constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2012, but only by Chief Justice John Roberts magically transforming that individual mandate into a tax, even though Obama’s own lawyers argued it was not a tax. In essence, Roberts rewrote the law in order to uphold it. That a Justice cannot do, yet he did it anyway.

Judge Barrett wrote comments criticizing Roberts in that regard. And she was right to criticize him for going beyond the duties of a Justice and becoming a legislator. It is because of those comments that Dems claim a Justice Barrett will vote to repeal the ACA. A case about it is set to come before the Court in in its next season, to begin later this month (October 2020). Dems are shaking in their boots that she will be the swing vote to end it.

However, since the individual mandate was eliminated by Trump, then Barrett’s comments about Roberts’ decision have no bearing on the new case. As such, there is no way to know how a Justice Barrett would vote on the upcoming ACA case. But try as you might, you cannot explain that to Dems.

I say that as Brit Hume was substituting for Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday on September 27, 2020. He had just had the late Justice Antony Scalia’s son, US Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia, on the show. He explained this situation carefully.

Brit’s next guest was Senator Debbie Stabenow (D. MI). She said she was opposed to Barrett’s nomination because Barrett would rescind the ACA. Brit tried to explain to her what Scalia had just explained, but it seemed to go over Debbie’s head. She just muttered something about Trump wanting to take away people’s healthcare and that’s why he nominated Barrett, as he knew she would do that.

However, Trump issued an executive order on Thursday, September 24, 2020 that protected pre-exiting conditions, while Dems are still saying he would eliminate that protection of Obamacare. That lie is their whole basis for saying Trump wants to take way people’s healthcare. As such, Debbie’s position, and that of Dems in general, is based on lies and misunderstanding, but such is par for the course for radical Dems.

Radical Dem Plays

In my Tearing Apart book, I also discuss the Dems plan to pack the Supreme Court, to increase the number of Justices from nine to fifteen. That book was published in December 2018, so do not fall for the lie Dems and the media are now trying to push that they are only talking about packing the Curt due to Barrett’s nomination. This has been their plan for at least the past two years.

In that book, I discuss the deceptive “fair” manner in which Dems were saying back then they would do their Court packing. But now, they have shed any pretense of being fair. They just want to load up the Court with as many liberal Justices as they can, to keep it from ever having a conservative majority again.

During the first presidential debate on September 29, 2020, Democrat presidential candidate, former Vice President Joe Biden refused to answer Chris Wallace’s question as to if he would pack the Supreme Court. Biden’s running mate, Senator Kamala Harris, has also refused to answer that question. The reason they are refusing to do so is they know if they answer “no” they will upset their radical base. If they answer “yes” they will upset more moderate voters.

But packing the court is not the radical Dems’ most extreme plan. That relates to my Impeach trilogy. In it, I detail three basic Republican talking points against the Trump/ Ukraine impeachment that occurred last fall through winter (2019-20).

The first is that Dems had so lowered the bar for impeachment that it would be used as a political weapon anytime the House and the Presidency were of different parties. I also discuss that Dems were saying they could impeach Trump again and again.

Second, the Dem talking point in the impeachment was that you do not need for the President to break an actual statutory law, to commit a crime, for him to be impeached. Anything the House deemed improper could be impeachable. Repubs warned that such a low standard would lead to the USA having a parliamentary system of government, where the President serves at the pleasure of Congress. I discuss the problems with such a system in my trilogy.

Third, Repubs also repeatedly said that the impeachment proceedings were keeping Congress from doing the business of the people. That was especially the case in the Senate, where all 100 Senators were required to sit in on the Senate trial.

Where this concerns us now is House Speaker Nancy has talked about having “arrows in her quiver” to stop Judge Barrett from being confirmed. However, constitutionally, the House has no part in the process to fill a Supreme Court seat. The Constitution makes it clear that the President nominates someone with the “advise and consent” of the Senate, not the House.

But Nancy seems to think she can impeach Trump on some bogus charge. It does not matter what it is. Anything, say having sex with a porn star will do. Though that is highly immoral, as I discuss in my God’s Sex Plan set, even if it did happen, it is not a crime.

However, the Trump/ Ukraine impeachment so lowered the bar for impeachment, that a crime is not needed. And the House would not need to do any investigative work to prove if in fact Trump and Stormy Daniels had sex, with again, the precedent being set in the Ukraine impeachment that the House can just make allegations and demand the Senate do the investigative work, as discussed at length in my trilogy.

The whole idea now will be to demand the Senate investigate those allegations and drag on the Senate trial, so that the Senate is tied with that and cannot vote on Judge Barrett before the election. That is the danger Repubs warned about throughout the Ukraine impeachment, that impeachment would now be used as a political weapon rather than to remove a truly corrupt politician.

The point is, without the Ukraine impeachment, and its lowering of the bar for impeachment and its seeing the House doing a shoddy job then demanding the Senate finish its incomplete job, you could not have this threat from the Speaker now.

Timetable and Reputations

The Senate is scheduled to hold hearings on October 12-14, 2020. It will probably then vote on the nominee in late October. Though personally, I don’t think they should hold any hearings. All they will do is give Dems a chance to ruin the reputation of Amy Barrett, just as they did with Brett Kavanaugh.

Both Brett and Amy have stellar characters, with no questions every raised against them their entire careers. They are also faithful Christians, just the type people Christians claim they want in not just Justices but also in their President. Since President Trump does not have such a stellar reputation, many Christians are saying they will not vote for him in the current election.

However, in Volume Two of my Impeach trilogy, I have an extended chapter addressing this very question. I point out that if a Republican presidential candidate had a stellar character, he or she would be vilified for that very reason. But it took a candidate then now President Trump to withstand those attacks.

That such attacks would occur with a “perfect” evangelical candidate can be seen with Kavanaugh and now with Barrett. As a result of the bogus sexual allegations against Kavanaugh, millions now think he is a “rapist.” And millions will believe whatever lies are told about Barrett.

Their reputations are and will be ruined, but Brett already has and Amy will have a lifetime appointment, so they do not have to worry about running for reelection. But Trump does, and only a President Trump can withstand the nonstop attacks against him. The type of “nice guy” evangelicals say they want would crumble from those constant attacks.

Again, I detail how Kavanaugh was vilified in my Tearing Apart book, and I detail these unjustified attacks against Trump in my Impeach trilogy.

Noah Feldman on Amy Coney Barrett

Before closing this article, I want to present some excerpts from an editorial Noah Feldman wrote for the website for my local newspaper in support of Judge Barrett being confirmed. Don’t know who Noah Feldman is? Well, you would if you had read Volume Two of my Impeach trilogy. He figured prominently in the “Legal Experts Hearing” detailed in Chapter Two.

What you need to know here is Noah is a liberal legal scholar, yet he writes as follows:

Regardless of what you or I may think of the circumstances of this nomination, Barrett is highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

I disagree with much of her judicial philosophy and expect to disagree with many, maybe even most, of her future votes and opinions. Yet despite this disagreement, I know her to be a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith, applying the jurisprudential principles to which she is committed. Those are the basic criteria for being a good justice. Barrett meets and exceeds them….

To add to her merits, Barrett is a sincere, lovely person. I never heard her utter a word that wasn’t thoughtful and kind — including in the heat of real disagreement about important subjects. She will be an ideal colleague. I don’t really believe in “judicial temperament,” because some of the greatest justices were irascible, difficult and mercurial. But if you do believe in an ideal judicial temperament of calm and decorum, rest assured that Barrett has it.

This combination of smart and nice will be scary for liberals (Trib Live. Noah).

Conclusion

There is no reason not to confirm Justice Barrett and every reason to do so, and yes, that means before the election. Confirm Amy Coney Barrett!

And there is no reason for Christians to not vote for Donald Trump. He is in fact the best man for the job of President at this time. His over 200 federal judge appointees and now three Supreme Court Justice nominees are the just the tip of the iceberg of his many accomplishments that bettered the lives of all Americans by pushing a conservative, Christian-based agenda. I detail those many accomplishments in my Tearing Apart book and Impeach trilogy.

In addition, all that is happening now with regard to Amy Coney Barrett and the upcoming presidential election was foreshadowed in my Tearing Apart book and in my Impeach trilogy. Readers of those book will better understand what is happening now by being informed about what happened then. That is why these books are so important and will remain so for a long time to come. The precedents set during those times were dangerous and had far-reaching implications that are playing out now.

Impeach Trilogy Update

Volume One and Volume Two of my three-volume set Dems Cannot Beat Trump, So They Impeach Trump are already available, as are my book Tearing the USA Apart and my two-volume set God’s Sex Plan. Following the preceding links for details on each book. But I am still working on Volume Three of the Impeach trilogy.

I was hoping to have Volume Three done before the election. But I have gotten behind for personal reasons, so I am still working on it. But that works for the best anyways. With voting already underway, I think it would be best at this point to wait until the election results to finish it. That way, I can include those results at the end of the book, as a fitting end to the trilogy.

If you haven’t voted yet and are unsure of how you’re going to vote, the first two volumes would be imperative to read before you do. They detail much more about President Trump than just the impeachment, and they discuss the corruption of Joe Biden.

In addition, as indicted in this article, all three volumes will have relevance for a long time to come, regardless of the outcome of the election. I will update the Preface to Volume Three in that regard prior to publication.

References:

Quotes from the US Constitution from: Roosevelt, Franklin. 15 Documents and Speeches That Built America (Unique Classics) (Declaration of Independence, US Constitution and Amendments, Articles of Confederation, Magna Carta, Gettysburg Address, Four Freedoms) (Kindle edition).

America. The Jesuit Review. Explainer: Amy Coney Barrett’s relationship with People of Praise.

Breitbart. What We Know About Amy Coney Barrett’s Family and Adopted Children from Haiti.

Catholic World Report. Judge Amy Barrett’s charismatic Catholicism- Who are the People of Praise?

Daily Caller. ‘SCOTUScare’: Here’s What Amy Coney Barrett Has Said About Obamacare In The Past.

Daily Wire. ‘Anti-Racist’ Author Claims ‘White Colonizer’ Amy Coney Barrett Adopted Children To Shield Herself From Accusations Of Racism.

Federalist, The. Anticapitalist Sponsored By Twitter CEO Accuses Amy Coney Barrett Of ‘Colonialism’ For Adopting From Haiti.

Fox News. Dems threaten to pack Supreme Court if Trump gets nominee confirmed.

Fox News. Gingrich: Dems’ Supreme Court battle response makes ‘two big gambles.’

Fox News. Markey threatens to pack Supreme Court, abolish filibuster if Trump fills seat.

Hill, The. Biden refuses to take position on packing Supreme Court.

Life News. President Trump Signs Executive Order Protecting Americans With Pre-Existing Conditions.

Moms. Who Are Amy Coney Barrett's Children?

National Review. Get Ready to Hear A Lot about People of Praise.

National Review. History Is on the Side of Republicans Filling a Supreme Court Vacancy in 2020.

New York Post. Amy Coney Barrett: Mother of 7, woman of faith, who says religion has no place in rulings.

New York Post. Trump unveils health care plan, signs order protecting pre-existing conditions.

Newsweek. What Amy Coney Barrett Has Said About ACA.

NPR. Amy Coney Barrett: A Dream For The Right, Nightmare For The Left.

People of Praise Christian Community.

Trib Live. How Amy Coney Barrett rose from law professor to high court in 4 years.

Trib Live. Noah Feldman: Amy Coney Barrett deserves to be on Supreme Court.

WhiteHouse.gov. Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Exceptional Legal Experience, Expertise, and Judicial Record Make Her the Right Choice to Serve on the Supreme Court.

The 2020 Election, the January 6 “Insurrection,” and Their Aftermath

Five books cover every aspect of the 2020 Election, the January 6 “insurrection,” and their aftermath. Starting with claims of fraud and irregularities in that election, to the tragic events of January 6, 2021 (J6; the so-called insurrection), the subsequent second impeachment of Donald J. Trump, to the public hearings of the J6 Commission in the summer and fall of 2022. Also reproduced in these books is all Trump had to say about all of these and related matters during this time period.

The above article was posted on this website October 2, 2020.

Articles 2020 Articles

Alphabetical List of Pages Contact Information

Text Search Biblical and Constitutional Politics

Books by the Director