westernjournal--2020-10-14--Was Amy Coney Barrett Trolling Liberals with Her Wardrobe Choice?

The topic of Amy Coney Barrett ’ s wardrobe choice came up during the first day of her Supreme Court confirmation hearing on Monday , with the suggestion she should be wearing a suit jacket , as previous female nominees did , rather than a dress .
Barrett showed up to day two of the hearing in what appeared to be a red dress suit , perhaps trolling those liberals trying to link her to the Hulu television series “ The Handmaid ’ s Tale ” about a dystopian male-dominated society Attorney Leslie McAdoo Gordon scolded Barrett on Monday for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many responses , including from Fox News contributor Katie Pavlich .
“ Women lawyers & judges wear suits , including dresses with jackets , for work .
It is not a great look that ACB consistently does not .
No male judge would be dressed in less than correct courtroom attire .
It ’ s inappropriately casual , ” McAdoo Gordon wrote .
“ Actually it ’ s a wonderful look .
And , she ’ ll be wearing a black robe for the rest of her career , nice to mix it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Sexist attacks on the sharp , beautiful & elegantly dressed # AmyConeyBarrett forget the women of Congress ’ ‘ right to bare arms , ’ ” she tweeted .
In 2017 , congresswomen protested the fact that the dress code in the Speaker ’ s Lobby requires sleeves , according to CNN .
McAdoo Gordon shot back : “ It ’ s for sure there won ’ t be bare arms in the Supreme Court courtroom .
Nor male advocates w/o ties.
” “ I support Judge Coney Barrett ’ s nomination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t sexism or beauty .
It ’ s what degree of formality is appropriate in the setting of the Court & the Senate , ” she added .
RELATED : MSNBC Hosts Praise Judge Amy Coney Barrett for Her Answer on George Floyd Question McAdoo Gordon ’ s observation is certainly based in precedent : All the women appointed to the Supreme Court before Barrett wore suit jackets at their confirmation hearings , including Sandra Day O ’ Connor , Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan .
On day two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though this time it appeared to be a dress suit .
Her choice of a red dress on Tuesday seems curious , given the mocking “ Handmaid ’ s Tale ” comparisons Barrett has endured , based on her Catholic faith .
The satire site The Babylon Bee had some fun with the controversy .
It seems possible that that Barrett herself is making light of it too .
If so , what a perfect response to liberals , who , lacking any sound reason to oppose this very qualified jurist ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tried to make a caricature of her — and failed .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

The topic of Amy Coney Barrett’s wardrobe choice came up during the first day of her Supreme Court confirmation hearing on Monday, with the suggestion she should be wearing a suit jacket, as previous female nominees did, rather than a dress.
Barrett showed up to day two of the hearing in what appeared to be a red dress suit, perhaps trolling those liberals trying to link her to the Hulu television series “The Handmaid’s Tale” about a dystopian male-dominated society
Attorney Leslie McAdoo Gordon scolded Barrett on Monday for not wearing a suit, which prompted many responses, including from Fox News contributor Katie Pavlich.
“Women lawyers & judges wear suits, including dresses with jackets, for work. It is not a great look that ACB consistently does not. No male judge would be dressed in less than correct courtroom attire. It’s inappropriately casual,” McAdoo Gordon wrote.
“Actually it’s a wonderful look. And, she’ll be wearing a black robe for the rest of her career, nice to mix it up beforehand,” Pavlich replied.
Actually it’s a wonderful look. And, she’ll be wearing a black robe for the rest of her career, nice to mix it up beforehand. https://t.co/2ED2XYrRHM — Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) October 12, 2020
Former senior White House adviser Kellyanne Conway defended Barrett’s choice.
“Sexist attacks on the sharp, beautiful & elegantly dressed #AmyConeyBarrett forget the women of Congress’ ‘right to bare arms,’” she tweeted.
In 2017, congresswomen protested the fact that the dress code in the Speaker’s Lobby requires sleeves, according to CNN.
McAdoo Gordon shot back: “It’s for sure there won’t be bare arms in the Supreme Court courtroom. Nor male advocates w/o ties.”
It’s for sure there won’t be bare arms in the Supreme Court courtroom. Nor male advocates w/o ties. I support Judge Coney Barrett’s nomination & confirmation. The issue isn’t sexism or beauty. It’s what degree of formality is appropriate in the setting of the Court & the Senate. https://t.co/qpSYWSH9Ie — Leslie McAdoo Gordon (@McAdooGordon) October 13, 2020
“I support Judge Coney Barrett’s nomination & confirmation. The issue isn’t sexism or beauty. It’s what degree of formality is appropriate in the setting of the Court & the Senate,” she added.
McAdoo Gordon’s observation is certainly based in precedent: All the women appointed to the Supreme Court before Barrett wore suit jackets at their confirmation hearings, including Sandra Day O’Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
On day two, the nominee again wore a dress, though this time it appeared to be a dress suit.
WATCH: Sen. @LindseyGrahamSC asks Judge Amy Coney Barrett how it feels for her to be nominated for the United States Supreme Court. pic.twitter.com/rvHxdrMTir — Townhall.com (@townhallcom) October 13, 2020
Her choice of a red dress on Tuesday seems curious, given the mocking “Handmaid’s Tale” comparisons Barrett has endured, based on her Catholic faith.
Women in Handmaid’s Tale habits protest ahead of Barrett confirmation hearings https://t.co/y8IBuoVIh0 pic.twitter.com/zqfe8I0HoO — The Hill (@thehill) October 13, 2020
The satire site The Babylon Bee had some fun with the controversy.
Amy Coney Barrett Holds Press Conference In Handmaid’s Tale Costume Just To Mess With Liberals https://t.co/sK0q6zONxC — The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) October 13, 2020
It seems possible that that Barrett herself is making light of it too.
If so, what a perfect response to liberals, who, lacking any sound reason to oppose this very qualified jurist’s elevation to the Supreme Court, tried to make a caricature of her — and failed.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-10-14--Amy Coney Barrett Corrects Amy Klobuchar: ‘I Don’t Attack People, Just Ideas’

Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit set the record straight Tuesday with regard to questions of character and judicial partiality , telling Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar that she does not “ attack people , just ideas.
” The remark came during the second day of Barrett ’ s Supreme Court confirmation hearing held before the Senate Judiciary Committee , when Klobuchar accused the judge of having previously criticized Chief Justice John Roberts for his majority decision in the 2012 case that saw the Affordable Care Act ’ s individual mandate upheld @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ?
That [ Roberts ] pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute ?
” Klobuchar asked .
“ One thing I want to clarify is you said that I criticized Chief Justice Roberts , ” Barrett responded .
“ And I don ’ t attack people , just ideas.
” “ That was just designed to make a comment about his reasoning in that case — which , as I ’ ve said before , is consistent with the way the majority opinion characterized it as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Barrett added .
It was not the first time a high-profile Democrat had raised concerns regarding the continued safety of the Affordable Care Act under a more conservative Supreme Court .
Democratic Sens .
Cory Booker of New Jersey and Kamala Harris of California , as well as 2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden , have all suggested that Barrett ’ s personal stance on the case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius is proof she would vote in favor of overturning the ruling and dissolving the ACA , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These allegations stem largely from the existence of publicly available 2017 legal review published by Notre Dame Law School , in which Barrett argued the grounds upon which the Roberts court had ruled the ACA ’ s individual mandate constitutional were contrived .
“ Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute , ” Barrett wrote .
“ He construed the penalty imposed on those without health insurance as a tax , which permitted him to sustain the statute as a valid exercise of the taxing power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the statute did — as a penalty — he would have had to invalidate the statute as lying beyond Congress ’ s commerce power.
” Barrett is in no way guaranteed to rule in favor of overturning Sebelius , however , with her originalist judicial philosophy and firm support for stare decisis suggesting she is likely to uphold personally unfavorable precedents unless absolutely necessary .
The judge ’ s Tuesday response to Klobuchar seems to have been something of a nod to her personal mentor , the late Justice Antonin Scalia .
Another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have fostered a deep and long-lasting friendship with the recently deceased Democrat-appointed justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
Asked by CBS News in 2008 to explain such relationships given his penchant for frequent — and often aggressive — legal dissents , Scalia said , “ I attack ideas , I don ’ t attack people.
” “ Some very good people have some very bad ideas , ” he added .
“ If you can ’ t separate the two , you got to get another day job.
” We are committed to truth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Read our editorial standards .

Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit set the record straight Tuesday with regard to questions of character and judicial partiality, telling Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar that she does not “attack people, just ideas.”
The remark came during the second day of Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing held before the Senate Judiciary Committee, when Klobuchar accused the judge of having previously criticized Chief Justice John Roberts for his majority decision in the 2012 case that saw the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate upheld as constitutional.
“Did you say that? That [Roberts] pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute?” Klobuchar asked.
“One thing I want to clarify is you said that I criticized Chief Justice Roberts,” Barrett responded. “And I don’t attack people, just ideas.”
“OK,” Klobuchar replied.
“That was just designed to make a comment about his reasoning in that case — which, as I’ve said before, is consistent with the way the majority opinion characterized it as the less plausible reading of the statute,” Barrett added.
Amy Coney Barrett to @amyklobuchar: “I don’t attack people, just ideas.” pic.twitter.com/7Tq5Pv2fCg — Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) October 13, 2020
It was not the first time a high-profile Democrat had raised concerns regarding the continued safety of the Affordable Care Act under a more conservative Supreme Court.
Do you think Barrett will be elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 100% (3617 Votes) No: 0% (12 Votes)
Democratic Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Kamala Harris of California, as well as 2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, have all suggested that Barrett’s personal stance on the case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius is proof she would vote in favor of overturning the ruling and dissolving the ACA, if elevated to the Supreme Court.
These allegations stem largely from the existence of publicly available 2017 legal review published by Notre Dame Law School, in which Barrett argued the grounds upon which the Roberts court had ruled the ACA’s individual mandate constitutional were contrived.
“Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute,” Barrett wrote. “He construed the penalty imposed on those without health insurance as a tax, which permitted him to sustain the statute as a valid exercise of the taxing power; had he treated the payment as the statute did — as a penalty — he would have had to invalidate the statute as lying beyond Congress’s commerce power.”
Barrett is in no way guaranteed to rule in favor of overturning Sebelius, however, with her originalist judicial philosophy and firm support for stare decisis suggesting she is likely to uphold personally unfavorable precedents unless absolutely necessary.
The judge’s Tuesday response to Klobuchar seems to have been something of a nod to her personal mentor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Another stalwart originalist, Scalia was known to have fostered a deep and long-lasting friendship with the recently deceased Democrat-appointed justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
During a memorial service for Antonin Scalia in 2016, Ruth Bader Ginsburg shared this: “Once asked how we could be friends, given our disagreement on lots of things, Justice Scalia answered: ‘I attack ideas. I don’t attack people. Some very good people have some very bad ideas'” pic.twitter.com/SM3HZI6eZy — PBS NewsHour (@NewsHour) September 25, 2020
Asked by CBS News in 2008 to explain such relationships given his penchant for frequent — and often aggressive — legal dissents, Scalia said, “I attack ideas, I don’t attack people.”
“Some very good people have some very bad ideas,” he added.
“If you can’t separate the two, you got to get another day job.”
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-10-13--12 Suspected MS-13 Gang Members Arrested in Connection with String of Heinous Crimes

Twelve gang members linked to the MS-13 gang have been arrested in Virginia in connection with four killings last year .
The deaths of Milton Beltran Lopez , 40 ; Jairo Geremeas Mayorga , 39 ; Eric Lanier Tate , II , 25 ; and Antonio Kaoul Smith , 37 , were part of the year-long investigation into “ Sitios Locos Salvatruchas , ” a group within MS-13 , according to Robert E. Bornstein , Acting Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Washington Field Office Criminal Division .
The victims “ were killed in cold blood for no apparent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said Prince William County Police Acting Chief Jarad Phelps , according to WUSA-TV .
Police say five members of the gang are charged with killing Smith in 2019 to advance their status in the gang .
“ They were random and done at the benefit of the gang , ” Phelps said of the murders , according to Fox News .
“ That is unacceptable .
Any murder is unacceptable .
This criminal enterprise is unacceptable.
” TRENDING : ATF Reversal Immediately Puts Millions of Gun Owners in Danger of Prison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human ’ s life to be a gang ?
” said Joan Lewis , Antonio Smith ’ s mother .
“ I ’ m happy with the murderers being caught , but … I ’ ll never get to hold my son .
I ’ ll never get to see his face , I ’ ll never get to see him smile , ” she said .
Police filed 50 charges against the 12 people arrested , and another 80 charges against them and other suspected members of Sitios Locos Salvatruchas that include @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crimes .
Fighting MS-13 has been a priority of the Trump administration .
RELATED : ICE Arrests Violent Gang Leader at Large Under New York Sanctuary Policies Police say members of Sitios Locos Salvatruchas were involved in drug trafficking that brought drugs from New York to northern Virginia .
“ They were a danger to our public , ” Phelps said , according to ABC News .
“ The criminal enterprises of this gang are far-reaching , ” he also said , according to The Washington Post .
“ They were involved in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ Traditionally , when we deal with gang crime it ’ s generally gang-on-gang .
They are attacking each other , ” said Jay Lanham , executive director of the Northern Virginia Gang Task Force .
“ This case has proved to be very unusual in that they were randomly targeted individuals.
” “ This joint investigation is the culmination of many man-hours of hard work to remove violent gang members from the streets of Northern Virginia , ” he said .
“ The men and women involved in this investigation are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ region.
” We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Twelve gang members linked to the MS-13 gang have been arrested in Virginia in connection with four killings last year.
The deaths of Milton Beltran Lopez, 40; Jairo Geremeas Mayorga, 39; Eric Lanier Tate, II, 25; and Antonio Kaoul Smith, 37, were part of the year-long investigation into “Sitios Locos Salvatruchas,” a group within MS-13, according to Robert E. Bornstein, Acting Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Washington Field Office Criminal Division.
The victims “were killed in cold blood for no apparent reason. They were randomly targeted individuals,” said Prince William County Police Acting Chief Jarad Phelps, according to WUSA-TV.
Police say five members of the gang are charged with killing Smith in 2019 to advance their status in the gang.
“They were random and done at the benefit of the gang,” Phelps said of the murders, according to Fox News. “That is unacceptable. Any murder is unacceptable. This criminal enterprise is unacceptable.”
“How do you take another human’s life to be a gang?” said Joan Lewis, Antonio Smith’s mother.
“I’m happy with the murderers being caught, but … I’ll never get to hold my son. I’ll never get to see his face, I’ll never get to see him smile,” she said.
Thank you to the Northern Virginia Gang Task Force and the FBI for working hard to keep our communities safe! I will stand with law enforcement and will ensure that officers and first responders have the resources necessary to keep us safe. #VA10 #Wexit https://t.co/c2VNpzQqt8 — Aliscia Andrews (@alisciaandrews) October 13, 2020
Police filed 50 charges against the 12 people arrested, and another 80 charges against them and other suspected members of Sitios Locos Salvatruchas that include gang participation, narcotics distribution and weapon-related crimes.
Fighting MS-13 has been a priority of the Trump administration.
Reason #21: Designated MS-13 as a Priority for the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force@realDonaldTrump will restore LAW & ORDER in this country. Be sure to like, comment & retweet to get the message out: America needs #FourMoreYears of President Trump! ?? pic.twitter.com/eHbjeLuyY7 — Trump Victory North Central FL (@TrumpVNCFL) October 13, 2020
We are getting MS-13 gang members, and many other people that shouldn’t be here, out of our Country! https://t.co/Cfk4iIBVTQ — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 20, 2019
Police say members of Sitios Locos Salvatruchas were involved in drug trafficking that brought drugs from New York to northern Virginia.
“They were a danger to our public,” Phelps said, according to ABC News.
Should gang members convicted of crimes be deported? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 96% (78 Votes) No: 4% (3 Votes)
“The criminal enterprises of this gang are far-reaching,” he also said, according to The Washington Post. “They were involved in a lot more than we probably uncovered.”
“Traditionally, when we deal with gang crime it’s generally gang-on-gang. They are attacking each other,” said Jay Lanham, executive director of the Northern Virginia Gang Task Force. “This case has proved to be very unusual in that they were randomly targeted individuals.”
“This joint investigation is the culmination of many man-hours of hard work to remove violent gang members from the streets of Northern Virginia,” he said. “The men and women involved in this investigation are dedicated to eradicating gang crime throughout the region.”
Did you know that The Western Journal now publishes some content in Spanish as well as English, for international audiences? Click here to read this article on The Western Journal en Español!
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-10-13--Watch: Amy Coney Barrett Flips Script, Uses RBG’s Words To Silence Dems

Judge Amy Coney Barrett brilliantly used the words of late associate Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg while keeping Democrats at arm ’ s length during Tuesday ’ s confirmation hearing .
Senate Democrats are foaming at the mouth to use any and every method to discredit Barrett .
Unfortunately for them , they showed all of their cards in 2018 when they subjected then-high court nominee Brett Kavanaugh to a public and humiliating witch hunt .
This time around , the Democrats have been reduced to using a more subtle approach , attacking Barrett with veiled swipes disguised as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this disgusting display from Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii .
TRENDING : ATF Reversal Immediately Puts Millions of Gun Owners in Danger of Prison Time For the most part , though , attacks on Barrett and her faith have been tame , and there haven ’ t been any high school yearbook references .
But Democrats are desperate as they seek to diminish Barrett in the eyes of the public .
Thus far , they seem unable to mount an effective smear campaign to explain why President Donald Trump ’ s third Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Not only did they fail to count on Barrett being well prepared to answer their “ gotcha ” questions , but they also apparently underestimated her knowledge of both the history of the court , and of the woman she will likely replace .
Barrett was hit with a barrage of questions Tuesday with regard to where she stands on a number of hot button issues , including abortion , the upcoming election , same-sex marriage and the Affordable Care Act .
During one such exchange with Sen. Dianne Feinstein , Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ colleagues .
Feinstein asked Barrett if she shares the view of late Justice Antonin Scalia , who she clerked for , that there is a constitutional guarantee for a right to same-sex marriage .
RELATED : MSNBC Hosts Praise Judge Amy Coney Barrett for Her Answer on George Floyd Question Barrett hit her with the so-called “ Ginsburg rule.
” “ I ’ m not going to express a view on whether I agree or disagree with Justice Scalia for the same reasons that I ’ ve been giving , ” Barrett explained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with her characteristic pithiness , used this to describe how a nominee should comport herself at a hearing : no hints , no previews , no forecasts .
That had been the practice of nominees before her , but everybody calls it the ‘ Ginsburg Rule ’ because she stated it so concisely and it ’ s been the practice of every nominee since.
” Democrats are unable to stump Barrett , who is obviously more qualified to do the job she ’ s been tapped for than they are to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set such a president in 1993 .
In an excerpt of a 1993 confirmation hearing , shared online by C-SPAN , Ginsburg said , “ A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts , no hints , for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case , it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.
” How can Democrats argue with the words of Ginsburg ?
Sure , Barrett ’ s presence in the Senate is violating the nonexistent “ dying wish ” clause used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but apparently , Barrett knows more about the liberal icon ’ s place in the judiciary than the party which championed Ginsburg as its hero .
Barrett is supremely qualified for the high court , using that metric alone .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Judge Amy Coney Barrett brilliantly used the words of late associate Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg while keeping Democrats at arm’s length during Tuesday’s confirmation hearing.
Senate Democrats are foaming at the mouth to use any and every method to discredit Barrett.
Unfortunately for them, they showed all of their cards in 2018 when they subjected then-high court nominee Brett Kavanaugh to a public and humiliating witch hunt.
This time around, the Democrats have been reduced to using a more subtle approach, attacking Barrett with veiled swipes disguised as harmless and relevant inquiries.
Look at this disgusting display from Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii.
Sen. Mazie Hirono asks ACB “since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?” pic.twitter.com/6JgLkoIXIF — Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) October 13, 2020
For the most part, though, attacks on Barrett and her faith have been tame, and there haven’t been any high school yearbook references.
But Democrats are desperate as they seek to diminish Barrett in the eyes of the public.
Do you think Amy Coney Barrett will be confirmed by the Senate? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 100% (4714 Votes) No: 0% (14 Votes)
Thus far, they seem unable to mount an effective smear campaign to explain why President Donald Trump’s third Supreme Court nominee shouldn’t be confirmed.
Not only did they fail to count on Barrett being well prepared to answer their “gotcha” questions, but they also apparently underestimated her knowledge of both the history of the court, and of the woman she will likely replace.
Barrett was hit with a barrage of questions Tuesday with regard to where she stands on a number of hot button issues, including abortion, the upcoming election, same-sex marriage and the Affordable Care Act.
During one such exchange with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Barrett schooled the California Democrat and her left-leaning colleagues.
Feinstein asked Barrett if she shares the view of late Justice Antonin Scalia, who she clerked for, that there is a constitutional guarantee for a right to same-sex marriage.
Barrett hit her with the so-called “Ginsburg rule.”
“I’m not going to express a view on whether I agree or disagree with Justice Scalia for the same reasons that I’ve been giving,” Barrett explained.
She continued, “Justice Ginsburg, with her characteristic pithiness, used this to describe how a nominee should comport herself at a hearing: no hints, no previews, no forecasts. That had been the practice of nominees before her, but everybody calls it the ‘Ginsburg Rule’ because she stated it so concisely and it’s been the practice of every nominee since.”
As @SenFeinstein continues to ask Judge Amy Coney Barrett how she’ll rule on potential cases before the Supreme Court and if she agrees or disagrees with certain opinions written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Judge Barrett quotes the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. pic.twitter.com/SYQOKHwCz1 — Townhall.com (@townhallcom) October 13, 2020
Checkmate!
Democrats are unable to stump Barrett, who is obviously more qualified to do the job she’s been tapped for than they are to do their jobs.
Indeed, Ginsburg did set such a precedent in 1993.
In an excerpt of a 1993 confirmation hearing, shared online by C-SPAN, Ginsburg said, “A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”
From 1993 confirmation hearing, Judge Ginsburg: “A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”#SCOTUS pic.twitter.com/NnfapLTFit — CSPAN (@cspan) October 13, 2020
How can Democrats argue with the words of Ginsburg?
Sure, Barrett’s presence in the Senate is violating the nonexistent “dying wish” clause used by Democrats to oppose her nomination, but apparently, Barrett knows more about the liberal icon’s place in the judiciary than the party which championed Ginsburg as its hero.
Barrett is supremely qualified for the high court, using that metric alone.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-10-13--In 1925 The KKK Tried To Stop a Columbus Statue from Being Constructed, Now the Left Wants the Same

In 1925 The KKK Tried To Stop a Columbus Statue from Being Constructed, Now the Left Wants the Same Thing

Fall foliage , pumpkin picking and attacks on the legacy of Christopher Columbus : It must be autumn in America .
The perennial onslaught against the Italian explorer credited with discovering America is as reliable as the rising of the harvest moon to mark the changing season .
But this year , hatred for the country and its founding had already reached a fever pitch by the time the holiday rolled around , with the sight of public monuments being desecrated by angry mobs becoming routine in places like Portland , Oregon .
Under the guise of an “ Indigenous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of antifa expressed hatred for a man who lived more than half a millennium before they were even born by toppling the statue of Abraham Lincoln as well as one of Theodore Roosevelt .
Like the rest of the pointless violence they ’ ve committed in that city and beyond , the useful idiots ignorant of history have used supposed “ anti-racism ” as their ideological weapon of choice to justify their destructive behavior .
TRENDING : ATF Reversal Immediately Puts Millions of Gun Owners in Danger of Prison Time What they don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Columbus in particular is that they have taken on the agenda of another equally repugnant organization : the Ku Klux Klan .
In the early 20th century , the KKK was opposed to Christopher Columbus , even attempting to block one statue from being erected in his honor in Richmond , Virginia .
They objected to him because he was “ a foreigner , a Roman Catholic , and wrongly credited as finding the New World , ” a 2014 piece about the statue in Richmond Magazine said .
That statue , located @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , met its end like many monuments this year .
“ Anti-racism protesters in Virginia tore down a statue of Christopher Columbus on Tuesday night in Byrd park in Richmond , then draped it in a burning flag and dumped it in a lake , images of the incident posted on social media showed , ” Yahoo News tweeted with photos of the wreckage in June .
“ In 1925 , the KKK tried to stop a Christopher Columbus statue from being displayed in Richmond , Virginia , ” Greg Price of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Today , the left is attempting to finish what the Klan started .
Happy Columbus Day !
” RELATED : Austin : The Biden-Harris Ticket 's Goal of 'Equity ' Is Illogical , Discriminatory and Totalitarian It wasn ’ t just in a previously Confederate state where the Klan sought to block a Columbus monument .
Up north in Easton , Pennsylvania , the KKK attempted to bar the city ’ s Italian immigrants , who raised the money from among their own community , from erecting a monument to their countryman , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wanted the statue placed in front of the local high school but were met with the same arguments against the Columbus statue as antifa use today .
“ At a recent meeting , ” the Morning Call quoted from a Klan letter in 1925 at the time of the proposal , “ Easton Klan , Knights of the Ku Klux Klan , went on record as opposed to the action of the members of the Easton School Board … and [ will ] use any honorable method to prevent the placing of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially one who never set foot on the soil of this country of ours , and never did anything for the benefit of the country or any public school.
” In other places like New York City , Time reported that police were stationed in a perimeter around a statue in Columbus Circle , while in Philadelphia , they covered the monument with a crate .
“ Inside this box is Christopher Columbus , ” former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani tweeted with a photo of the monument .
“ This is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history .
This is not just anti-Catholic , this is anti-Italian , ” he wrote .
“ The position of JOE BIDEN : YOU ‘ DON ’ T DESERVE TO KNOW ! '
” Giuliani , who serves as one of President Donald Trump ’ s personal attorneys , was in the city on Columbus Day to rally for the president .
To anyone paying attention to the left , the Black Lives Matter movement and their comrades in antifa , the comparison to the KKK doesn ’ t just stop at monuments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ white privilege , ” segregation — this time imposed against whites in favor of black students — is back on college campuses .
They have distorted values such as hard work , delayed gratification and the nuclear family as hallmarks of “ whiteness ” rather than a way of living that encourages individual success ( what can be more racist than assuming those things are the territory of only whites ? )
.
They assert that one race is inferior to another , such as when black comedian Nick Cannon said white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deficiency so the only way they can act is evil ” and called them “ savages , ” as if the amount of pigment in one ’ s skin had anything to do with their level of humanity .
These are the same recycled arguments the KKK was making a century ago in favor of their own prejudice , complete with the left ’ s anti-Catholic bias bubbling up against one of Trump ’ s judicial appointments .
The sins of yesteryear that supposedly justify this hatred against Columbus were committed by and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ discovery set in motion the events that would give birth to a nation that truly believes and behaves like all men are created equal — for the first time in the whole of human history .
When these statues are toppled and great men are denigrated , it isn ’ t just Columbus or any other historical figure they are protesting , but the very nation their work created .
Racism and division are ugly and wrong , regardless of the political affiliation or color of the person perpetuating it .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Fall foliage, pumpkin picking and attacks on the legacy of Christopher Columbus: It must be autumn in America.
The perennial onslaught against the Italian explorer credited with discovering America is as reliable as the rising of the harvest moon to mark the changing season.
But this year, hatred for the country and its founding had already reached a fever pitch by the time the holiday rolled around, with the sight of public monuments being desecrated by angry mobs becoming routine in places like Portland, Oregon.
Under the guise of an “Indigenous Peoples Day of Rage,” members of antifa expressed hatred for a man who lived more than half a millennium before they were even born by toppling the statue of Abraham Lincoln as well as one of Theodore Roosevelt.
Like the rest of the pointless violence they’ve committed in that city and beyond, the useful idiots ignorant of history have used supposed “anti-racism” as their ideological weapon of choice to justify their destructive behavior.
What they don’t realize about their hatred for Columbus in particular is that they have taken on the agenda of another equally repugnant organization: the Ku Klux Klan.
In the early 20th century, the KKK was opposed to Christopher Columbus, even attempting to block one statue from being erected in his honor in Richmond, Virginia.
They objected to him because he was “a foreigner, a Roman Catholic, and wrongly credited as finding the New World,” a 2014 piece about the statue in Richmond Magazine said.
That statue, located in Byrd Park for nearly a century, met its end like many monuments this year.
“Anti-racism protesters in Virginia tore down a statue of Christopher Columbus on Tuesday night in Byrd park in Richmond, then draped it in a burning flag and dumped it in a lake, images of the incident posted on social media showed,” Yahoo News tweeted with photos of the wreckage in June.
Anti-racism protesters in Virginia tore down a statue of Christopher Columbus on Tuesday night in Byrd park in Richmond, then draped it in a burning flag and dumped it in a lake, images of the incident posted on social media showed https://t.co/bYxMjr8k3f pic.twitter.com/P5vuQzHTZp — Yahoo News (@YahooNews) June 10, 2020
“In 1925, the KKK tried to stop a Christopher Columbus statue from being displayed in Richmond, Virginia,” Greg Price of the Daily Caller tweeted in reaction.
“Today, the left is attempting to finish what the Klan started. Happy Columbus Day!”
In 1925, the KKK tried to stop a Christopher Columbus statue from being displayed in Richmond, Virginia. Today, the left is attempting to finish what the klan started. Happy Columbus Day! — Greg Price (@greg_price11) October 12, 2020
It wasn’t just in a previously Confederate state where the Klan sought to block a Columbus monument.
Up north in Easton, Pennsylvania, the KKK attempted to bar the city’s Italian immigrants, who raised the money from among their own community, from erecting a monument to their countryman, according to The Morning Call.
They wanted the statue placed in front of the local high school but were met with the same arguments against the Columbus statue as antifa use today.
Do you think leftists care their arguments align with the Ku Klux Klan? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 3% (2 Votes) No: 97% (58 Votes)
“At a recent meeting,” the Morning Call quoted from a Klan letter in 1925 at the time of the proposal, “Easton Klan, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, went on record as opposed to the action of the members of the Easton School Board … and [will] use any honorable method to prevent the placing of a monument or statue of any alien, especially one who never set foot on the soil of this country of ours, and never did anything for the benefit of the country or any public school.”
(Surprisingly, the city’s Democratic mayor, Sal Panto, has refused to acquiesce to an online petition for its removal initiated this summer, according to WFMZ-TV.)
In other places like New York City, Time reported that police were stationed in a perimeter around a statue in Columbus Circle, while in Philadelphia, they covered the monument with a crate.
“Inside this box is Christopher Columbus,” former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani tweeted with a photo of the monument.
“This is the Democrats attempt to rob us of our history. This is not just anti-Catholic, this is anti-Italian,” he wrote.
“The position of JOE BIDEN: YOU ‘DON’T DESERVE TO KNOW!'”
Inside this box is Christopher Columbus. This is the Democrats attempt to rob us of our history. This is not just anti-Catholic, this is anti-Italian. The position of JOE BIDEN: YOU “DON’T DESERVE TO KNOW!” pic.twitter.com/Bl3oNrWHZl — Rudy W. Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) October 12, 2020
Giuliani, who serves as one of President Donald Trump’s personal attorneys, was in the city on Columbus Day to rally for the president.
To anyone paying attention to the left, the Black Lives Matter movement and their comrades in antifa, the comparison to the KKK doesn’t just stop at monuments.
Wielding the power of the phrase “white privilege,” segregation — this time imposed against whites in favor of black students — is back on college campuses.
They have distorted values such as hard work, delayed gratification and the nuclear family as hallmarks of “whiteness” rather than a way of living that encourages individual success (what can be more racist than assuming those things are the territory of only whites?).
They assert that one race is inferior to another, such as when black comedian Nick Cannon said white people were “acting out of a deficiency so the only way they can act is evil” and called them “savages,” as if the amount of pigment in one’s skin had anything to do with their level of humanity.
These are the same recycled arguments the KKK was making a century ago in favor of their own prejudice, complete with the left’s anti-Catholic bias bubbling up against one of Trump’s judicial appointments.
The sins of yesteryear that supposedly justify this hatred against Columbus were committed by and against all peoples.
However, Columbus’ discovery set in motion the events that would give birth to a nation that truly believes and behaves like all men are created equal — for the first time in the whole of human history.
When these statues are toppled and great men are denigrated, it isn’t just Columbus or any other historical figure they are protesting, but the very nation their work created.
Racism and division are ugly and wrong, regardless of the political affiliation or color of the person perpetuating it.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-10-13--Sex Assault Comment Rocks Amy Coney Barrett Hearing – Dem Goes Brett Kavanaugh

It only took Democrats two days into the confirmation hearings of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to bring up the subject of sexual assault on Tuesday .
Democrats of course paraded around an unreliable accuser in Christine Blasey Ford during the confirmation hearings of Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 .
Ford , with a hazy memory , no corroborative evidence and the backing of the entire establishment media , Hollywood and Democrats , accused Kavanaugh of sexual improprieties while he was in high school .
On top of offering nothing more than a vague story about Kavanaugh being an alleged teen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirmation into a circus .
Kavanaugh went on to be confirmed , but not until after his name and family were dragged through the mud .
The saga was outlandish and really hurt Democrats , and they know that .
Barrett is a woman , so naturally , sexual assault allegations would be taken off of the Senate Democrats ’ Supreme Court nominee accusation bingo card , you ’ d think .
That assumption would be wrong .
Democrats have thrown a lot at Barrett in two days , but she ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman of moral fortitude .
Still , Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii proved Tuesday afternoon that Democrats have absolutely no shame or dignity when she dragged the proceeding into the gutter .
“ I ask each nominee … since you became a legal adult , have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature ?
” Hirono asked .
RELATED : MSNBC Hosts Praise Judge Amy Coney Barrett for Her Answer on George Floyd Question Hirono added , “ Have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a settlement related to this kind of comment ?
” Do Senate Democrats know that Barrett is a mother of seven and a devout Catholic ?
Of course they do , but they ’ re growing desperate in their search for an opportunity to smear her .
That question was unbecoming of a sitting U.S. senator , and was only asked to make Barrett uncomfortable .
Someone should ask Hirono that question .
While they ’ re at it , maybe they could ask every Democrat in both the House and Senate the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

It only took Democrats two days into the confirmation hearings of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to bring up the subject of sexual assault on Tuesday.
Democrats of course paraded around an unreliable accuser in Christine Blasey Ford during the confirmation hearings of Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018.
Ford, with a hazy memory, no corroborative evidence and the backing of the entire establishment media, Hollywood and Democrats, accused Kavanaugh of sexual improprieties while he was in high school.
On top of offering nothing more than a vague story about Kavanaugh being an alleged teen predator, Ford helped Democrats turn the confirmation into a circus.
Kavanaugh went on to be confirmed, but not until after his name and family were dragged through the mud.
The saga was outlandish and really hurt Democrats, and they know that.
Barrett is a woman, so naturally, sexual assault allegations would be taken off of the Senate Democrats’ Supreme Court nominee accusation bingo card, you’d think.
That assumption would be wrong.
Democrats have thrown a lot at Barrett in two days, but she’s a calm, intelligent and bright young woman of moral fortitude.
Still, Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii proved Tuesday afternoon that Democrats have absolutely no shame or dignity when she dragged the proceeding into the gutter.
Sen. Mazie Hirono asks ACB “since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?” pic.twitter.com/6JgLkoIXIF — Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) October 13, 2020
“I ask each nominee … since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?” Hirono asked.
“No, Sen. Hirono,” Barrett answered.
Hirono added, “Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement related to this kind of comment?”
Barrrett again answered, “No, senator.”
Now, it is worth noting — as Hirono herself did — that in January 2018, the Hawaii Democrat pledged to start “asking nominees to our courts, under oath, whether or not they have a history of sexual assault or harassment.”
Starting today, I’m asking nominees to our courts, under oath, whether or not they have a history of sexual assault or harassment. Like in other industries, our judges are in positions of power & #TimesUp. pic.twitter.com/Jk0NcTBi3h — Senator Mazie Hirono (@maziehirono) January 10, 2018
“Like in other industries, our judges are in positions of power & #TimesUp,” she tweeted at the time.
So her line of questioning was not unique to Barrett.
But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a disgraceful question.
Do Senate Democrats know that Barrett is a mother of seven and a devout Catholic?
Of course they do, but they’re growing desperate in their search for an opportunity to smear her.
That question was unbecoming of a sitting U.S. senator, and was only asked to make Barrett — and the other nominees who Hirono has pursued that line of questioning with — uncomfortable.
Someone should ask Hirono that question.
While they’re at it, maybe they could ask every Democrat in both the House and Senate the very same question.
UPDATE, Oct. 14, 2020: This story has been updated to note that Hirono’s line of questioning was not unique to Barrett, as the Hawaii Democrat pledged in January 2018 to start “asking nominees to our courts, under oath, whether or not they have a history of sexual assault or harassment.”
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-10-13--‘Two and a Half Men’ Actress, Conchata Ferrell, Dead at Age 77

On Monday afternoon , Conchata Ferrell of “ Two and a Half Men ” fame passed away from complications following a cardiac arrest .
She was 77 .
Several months prior , she went into a long-term care facility after experiencing cardiac arrest , and passed away at Sherman Oaks Hospital in Sherman Oaks , California , according to Deadline .
The actress was born in Charleston , West Virginia , on March 28 , 1943 , as Conchata Galen Ferrell .
She attended both West Virginia University and Marshall University , where she received a social studies in education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she may be best known for playing Berta , the housekeeper on CBS ’ “ Two and a Half Men , ” she appeared in a variety of other productions , both on the screen and on the stage .
She had parts in many television shows , including “ Good Times , ” “ Grace and Frankie , ” “ E/R ” and “ Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
” She also appeared in films such as “ Mystic Pizza , ” “ Heartland , ” “ Erin Brockovich , ” “ Edward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work earned her a total of three Emmy nominations , two of which were for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series ( 2005 and 2007 ) , and one for the role she played on “ L.A .
Law ” ( 1992 ) .
Ferrell enjoyed a variety of awards for her presence on stage , as well .
She was the proud holder of a Drama Desk Award , an Obie Award for Best Actress and a Theatre World Award .
For several years , Ferrell taught about acting for television @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Angeles .
Her passing has elicited some beautiful words from her fellow actors who took some time to remember her character and friendship .
“ She was a beautiful human , ” Jon Cryer , also from “ Two and a Half Men , ” tweeted .
“ Berta ’ s gruff exterior was an invention of the writers.
” “ Chatty ’ s warmth and vulnerability were her real strengths .
I ’ m crying for the woman I ’ ll miss , and the joy she brought so many.
” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … a genuine friend , ” Charlie Sheen tweeted .
“ Berta , your housekeeping was a tad suspect , your ‘ people ’ keeping was perfect.
” “ Conchata Ferrell was exactly the kind of artist for whom we created our theater — a deeply honest performer who would inspire our playwrights to create roles for her , ” said Marshall W. Mason , founding artistic director of Circle Repertory Theatre , where Ferrell was an original member , according to Deadline .
“ She was our first home-grown star.
” Ferrell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arnie Anderson , and her daughter , Samantha .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

On Monday afternoon, Conchata Ferrell of “Two and a Half Men” fame passed away from complications following a cardiac arrest. She was 77.
Several months prior, she went into a long-term care facility after experiencing cardiac arrest, and passed away at Sherman Oaks Hospital in Sherman Oaks, California, according to Deadline.
The actress was born in Charleston, West Virginia, on March 28, 1943, as Conchata Galen Ferrell. She attended both West Virginia University and Marshall University, where she received a social studies in education degree, according to IMDb.
While she may be best known for playing Berta, the housekeeper on CBS’ “Two and a Half Men,” she appeared in a variety of other productions, both on the screen and on the stage.
She had parts in many television shows, including “Good Times,” “Grace and Frankie,” “E/R” and “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.” She also appeared in films such as “Mystic Pizza,” “Heartland,” “Erin Brockovich,” “Edward Scissorhands” and “Network.”
Her work earned her a total of three Emmy nominations, two of which were for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series (2005 and 2007), and one for the role she played on “L.A. Law” (1992).
Ferrell enjoyed a variety of awards for her presence on stage, as well. She was the proud holder of a Drama Desk Award, an Obie Award for Best Actress and a Theatre World Award.
For several years, Ferrell taught about acting for television at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Her passing has elicited some beautiful words from her fellow actors who took some time to remember her character and friendship.
She was a beautiful human Berta’s gruff exterior was an invention of the writers. Chatty’s warmth and vulnerability were her real strengths. I’m crying for the woman I’ll miss, and the joy she brought so many. https://t.co/SucL6gFaAR — Jon Cryer (@MrJonCryer) October 13, 2020
“She was a beautiful human,” Jon Cryer, also from “Two and a Half Men,” tweeted. “Berta’s gruff exterior was an invention of the writers.”
“Chatty’s warmth and vulnerability were her real strengths. I’m crying for the woman I’ll miss, and the joy she brought so many.”
an absolute sweetheart
a consummate pro
a genuine friend
a shocking and painful loss. Berta,
your housekeeping
was a tad suspect,
your “people”keeping was perfect. ?©? pic.twitter.com/cJMK8APgQV — Charlie Sheen (@charliesheen) October 13, 2020
“An absolute sweetheart … a consummate pro … a genuine friend,” Charlie Sheen tweeted. “Berta, your housekeeping was a tad suspect, your ‘people’ keeping was perfect.”
“Conchata Ferrell was exactly the kind of artist for whom we created our theater — a deeply honest performer who would inspire our playwrights to create roles for her,” said Marshall W. Mason, founding artistic director of Circle Repertory Theatre, where Ferrell was an original member, according to Deadline.
“She was our first home-grown star.”
Ferrell is survived by both her husband, Arnie Anderson, and her daughter, Samantha.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-10-13--School District Tries To Get Away with Silencing Pro-Trump Student, Federal Judge Steps In

We ’ ve reached a point in American society where expressing support for the sitting president of our country is considered “ too political ” for some people .
That ’ s the excuse a school district gave for painting over a portrait of President Donald Trump painted on a student ’ s parking spot .
Thankfully , a federal judge stepped in to uphold the student ’ s right to free speech .
As part of what sounds like a very cool tradition , seniors at a Louisiana high school in Washington Parish can pay $ 25 to paint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must get approval for their paintings , but the school ’ s policy appears to ban only lewd images and language and using other students ’ names , as reported by The New Orleans Advocate .
This year , however , Washington schools Superintendent Frances Varnado also tried to exclude a painting of President Trump .
Ned Thomas , a senior at Pine Junior-Senior High School , commissioned for his parking spot a portrait of President Trump wearing a stars-and-stripes bandana and sunglasses .
He was originally granted approval for the portrait by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ painted , Superintendent Varnado — with the backing of the school board — deemed the portrait “ too political ” and covered it with gray paint .
Again , it was a portrait of the sitting U.S. president wearing sunglasses and a bandana decorated like the American flag .
I wonder if the school board would have considered a portrait of Obama “ too political ” during his presidency .
Varnado claimed she was trying to avoid controversy , but her actions had the opposite effect .
In addition to angry emails , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeking an injunction .
U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon — who happened to be appointed by President Bill Clinton — ruled in favor of Thomas and free speech .
“ The painting of President Trump can not reasonably be described as obscene or plainly offensive on its face , nor can it be construed as school-sponsored speech , ” Fallon wrote .
The painting , he continued , “ depicts the sitting President of the United States .
This is not a case involving a symbol such as a Confederate flag , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ symbol of racism and intolerance , regardless of whatever other meanings may be associated with it.
” Judge Fallon recognized that the school acted in the name of avoiding controversy , but found that didn ’ t abrogate Thomas ’ right to free speech .
As Jonathan Turley has pointed out , the 1969 Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District determined that students “ do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.
” RELATED : Pastor of Church Targeted by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While courts often try to limit or ignore this decision , Fallon actually relied on that case and found that the school had violated Thomas ’ constitutional rights .
The portrait of President Trump will be repainted on Thomas ’ parking spot soon .
This is a straightforward freedom-of-speech case being decided correctly .
Political speech is a primary form of speech that must be allowed pursuant to the First Amendment .
One of the hallmarks of American free speech is the right to voice political opinions — even unpopular political opinions — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the president is clearly political speech , protected by the First Amendment .
Good on Judge Fallon for upholding the Constitution .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

We’ve reached a point in American society where expressing support for the sitting president of our country is considered “too political” for some people.
That’s the excuse a school district gave for painting over a portrait of President Donald Trump painted on a student’s parking spot. Thankfully, a federal judge stepped in to uphold the student’s right to free speech.
As part of what sounds like a very cool tradition, seniors at a Louisiana high school in Washington Parish can pay $25 to paint their assigned parking spaces. The students must get approval for their paintings, but the school’s policy appears to ban only lewd images and language and using other students’ names, as reported by The New Orleans Advocate.
This year, however, Washington schools Superintendent Frances Varnado also tried to exclude a painting of President Trump.
Ned Thomas, a senior at Pine Junior-Senior High School, commissioned for his parking spot a portrait of President Trump wearing a stars-and-stripes bandana and sunglasses.
He was originally granted approval for the portrait by the principal, but after it was painted, Superintendent Varnado — with the backing of the school board — deemed the portrait “too political” and covered it with gray paint.
Again, it was a portrait of the sitting U.S. president wearing sunglasses and a bandana decorated like the American flag.
I wonder if the school board would have considered a portrait of Obama “too political” during his presidency.
Varnado claimed she was trying to avoid controversy, but her actions had the opposite effect. In addition to angry emails, Thomas’ parents filed a federal lawsuit seeking an injunction.
Do you agree with Judge Fallon's decision? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 98% (1460 Votes) No: 2% (33 Votes)
U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon — who happened to be appointed by President Bill Clinton — ruled in favor of Thomas and free speech.
“The painting of President Trump cannot reasonably be described as obscene or plainly offensive on its face, nor can it be construed as school-sponsored speech,” Fallon wrote.
The painting, he continued, “depicts the sitting President of the United States. This is not a case involving a symbol such as a Confederate flag, which has an established meaning as a ‘symbol of racism and intolerance, regardless of whatever other meanings may be associated with it.”
Judge Fallon recognized that the school acted in the name of avoiding controversy, but found that didn’t abrogate Thomas’ right to free speech.
As Jonathan Turley has pointed out, the 1969 Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District determined that students “do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
While courts often try to limit or ignore this decision, Fallon actually relied on that case and found that the school had violated Thomas’ constitutional rights.
The portrait of President Trump will be repainted on Thomas’ parking spot soon.
This is a straightforward freedom-of-speech case being decided correctly. Political speech is a primary form of speech that must be allowed pursuant to the First Amendment.
One of the hallmarks of American free speech is the right to voice political opinions — even unpopular political opinions — without fear of punishment.
A portrait of the president is clearly political speech, protected by the First Amendment.
Good on Judge Fallon for upholding the Constitution.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-10-13--Planned Parenthood Gets Hostile Over Amy Coney Barrett Quoting Legendary President at Hearing

If this is the best her opponents can come up with , Amy Coney Barrett is a lock for the Supreme Court .
Of all the vested interests with an eye on the Barrett confirmation hearings that entered their second day on Tuesday , the abortionists at Planned Parenthood have to be one of the most vigilant , considering their business model is basically built on providing the murderous service leftists are terrified Barrett ’ s presence on the court would endanger .
An attack on Barrett from that direction isn ’ t only expected , it ’ s practically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the moment .
What wasn ’ t expected was the astounding ignorance that attack would unveil .
In a Twitter post published Tuesday , Planned Parenthood Action , the political arm of the nation ’ s largest abortion provider , decided to imply Barrett is some kind of bigot for quoting John Adams , the second president of the United States and one of the most brilliant of the brilliant minds among the Founding Fathers .
“ Fun fact : The phrase that Barrett used ‘ we are a government of laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Scalia used often and was also used in Chief Justice Roberts ’ s opinion disagreeing that the Constitution protects marriage equality ( Obergefell ) , which Scalia joined , ” the tweet stated .
Yes , well , Barrett did use the phrase in her opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee ( CNN has the transcript here ) .
And Chief Justice John Roberts did use it in dissenting in the Obergefell decision — the 2015 ruling that legalized homosexual marriage pretty much on the grounds that then-Justice Anthony Kennedy felt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s liberal wing was behaving with its typical lawlessness ) .
“ Government of laws… ” is also one of the most common phrases in American politics .
While it was originally coined for the Massachusetts state constitution , according to the Cato Institute , it has applied traditionally to the country as a whole , since it perfectly describes a nation that is dedicated to a society built on laws that apply to all , not the whims of a royal class ( or even celebrity elites with huge Twitter followings ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is worse : That Planned Parenthood appeared ignorant of a staple of American political discussions , or that it considered belief in the supremacy of law to be somehow disqualifying in a candidate for the highest court in the land .
Either way , the response on social media had to be pure torture for the liberal sacred cow .
RELATED : MSNBC Hosts Praise Judge Amy Coney Barrett for Her Answer on George Floyd Question It ’ s also — and this should be important even to the infanticidal mob at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the nation the United States is intended to be that it ’ s frequently used by politicians of both parties .
One of the more troubling aspects of social media during the Trump years is that just about any idiocy displayed by liberals will find its defenders among the Twitterati , just as literally anything President Donald Trump or a prominent Republican says or does will be subject to scurrilous attacks .
But Planned Parenthood ’ s tweet apparently left even the group ’ s most ardent , bloodthirsty defenders speechless .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Twitter users mocked Planned Parenthood ’ s ethics , morality and intelligence .
There are plenty of brains behind Planned Parenthood — an organization built so obviously on evil can ’ t embed its way into American culture without a certain amount of intellectual ability .
But as far as ethics and morality goes , it would be tough to name a more bankrupt group .
In that regard , it has a lot in common with the modern Democratic Party , which has spent the Trump years attempting to make a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American government , perverting every institution of American life in a relentless attack on the man who happens to occupy the presidency at the moment .
But it collapsed on itself in the “ Russia collusion ” hoax ( and the fallout continues to this day ) , it failed to stop the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination , it disgraced the Congress of the United States with a sham impeachment attempt and now it ’ s trying to stop an eminently qualified Amy Coney Barrett from a seat on the high court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do better than this , or any of the other empty attacks they ’ ve thrown up so far , Barrett is a lock for the court – and this country of laws will be better for it .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

If this is the best her opponents can come up with, Amy Coney Barrett is a lock for the Supreme Court.
Of all the vested interests with an eye on the Barrett confirmation hearings that entered their second day on Tuesday, the abortionists at Planned Parenthood have to be one of the most vigilant, considering their business model is basically built on providing the murderous service leftists are terrified Barrett’s presence on the court would endanger.
An attack on Barrett from that direction isn’t only expected, it’s practically demanded by the knee-jerk politics of progressives at the moment. What wasn’t expected was the astounding ignorance that attack would unveil.
In a Twitter post published Tuesday, Planned Parenthood Action, the political arm of the nation’s largest abortion provider, decided to imply Barrett is some kind of bigot for quoting John Adams, the second president of the United States and one of the most brilliant of the brilliant minds among the Founding Fathers.
“Fun fact: The phrase that Barrett used ‘we are a government of laws, not of men’ is one that Scalia used often and was also used in Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion disagreeing that the Constitution protects marriage equality (Obergefell), which Scalia joined,” the tweet stated.
Yes, well, Barrett did use the phrase in her opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee (CNN has the transcript here).
And Chief Justice John Roberts did use it in dissenting in the Obergefell decision — the 2015 ruling that legalized homosexual marriage pretty much on the grounds that then-Justice Anthony Kennedy felt like it (and the court’s liberal wing was behaving with its typical lawlessness).
“Government of laws…” is also one of the most common phrases in American politics. While it was originally coined for the Massachusetts state constitution, according to the Cato Institute, it has applied traditionally to the country as a whole, since it perfectly describes a nation that is dedicated to a society built on laws that apply to all, not the whims of a royal class (or even celebrity elites with huge Twitter followings).
It’s a John Adams quote, you godless monstrosities. pic.twitter.com/GxaMR6BtHA — Miguel de la Cruz (@DiablitoDeOro) October 13, 2020
It’s tough to tell which is worse: That Planned Parenthood appeared ignorant of a staple of American political discussions, or that it considered belief in the supremacy of law to be somehow disqualifying in a candidate for the highest court in the land.
Either way, the response on social media had to be pure torture for the liberal sacred cow.
Fun fact: Planned Parenthood doesn’t recognize a fairly common quote from one of the Founding Fathers when they see one. Also, they kill babies for money. — Maggie (@TheBigMRanch) October 13, 2020
It is attributed to The Deacon’s son from Braintree, Massachusetts in 1780. One of our best VP’s (and most impactful founders) without whom we would still have a Queen, Idiots. — Wayward Fisherman ? (@no_1_special__) October 13, 2020
It must be exhausting the non stop looking for thing to be offended by instead of, oh I don’t know…. living life. Oh sorry planned parenthood, really poor choice of words on my part — Andrews Dad (@Andrew_Dad) October 13, 2020
It’s also — and this should be important even to the infanticidal mob at Planned Parenthood — such an apt description of the nation the United States is intended to be that it’s frequently used by politicians of both parties.
Fun facts: This is a quote from John Adams, our nation’s second president. Senator Dick Durbin said it in 2007. Senator Chuck Schumer said it earlier this year. President Obama quoted it in 2009. Joe Biden quoted it in 1986 and 1989 and 2007. You’re embarrassing yourselves. pic.twitter.com/MEdsD2Le06 — Matt Wolking (Text TRUMP to 88022) (@MattWolking) October 13, 2020
So you will no longer endorse Joe Biden? pic.twitter.com/rkguSrY6Jp — @Flkittie 2??♂??♂ (@KittieGianelli) October 13, 2020
One of the more troubling aspects of social media during the Trump years is that just about any idiocy displayed by liberals will find its defenders among the Twitterati, just as literally anything President Donald Trump or a prominent Republican says or does will be subject to scurrilous attacks.
But Planned Parenthood’s tweet apparently left even the group’s most ardent, bloodthirsty defenders speechless.
Do you think Amy Coney Barrett is going to be confirmed? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 100% (839 Votes) No: 0% (1 Votes)
Through post after scornful post on Tuesday, Twitter users mocked Planned Parenthood’s ethics, morality and intelligence.
There are plenty of brains behind Planned Parenthood — an organization built so obviously on evil can’t embed its way into American culture without a certain amount of intellectual ability. But as far as ethics and morality goes, it would be tough to name a more bankrupt group.
In that regard, it has a lot in common with the modern Democratic Party, which has spent the Trump years attempting to make a mockery of Adams’ basic formulation of American government, perverting every institution of American life in a relentless attack on the man who happens to occupy the presidency at the moment.
But it collapsed on itself in the “Russia collusion” hoax (and the fallout continues to this day), it failed to stop the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination, it disgraced the Congress of the United States with a sham impeachment attempt and now it’s trying to stop an eminently qualified Amy Coney Barrett from a seat on the high court.
But if Democrats can’t do better than this, or any of the other empty attacks they’ve thrown up so far, Barrett is a lock for the court – and this country of laws will be better for it.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-10-13--GOP Rep Introduces Resolution To Push for the End of Pelosi’s Career

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is at it again with her partisan , anti-Trump antics — but this time , Republican Rep. Doug Collins is giving her a taste of her own medicine .
On Friday , the California Democrat announced a bill that would create the “ Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of the Office , ” a body of 17 members established by Congress who would be given the power — along with the sitting vice president — to determine whether the president “ is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vice president can become the acting president if both the vice president and either a majority of the Cabinet or “ such other body as Congress may by law provide ” determines the commander in chief “ is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.
” The commission created under the bill would work with the vice president to determine if the president has become physically or mentally incapacitated and is thus “ unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.
” Pelosi ’ s botched attempt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ via impeachment apparently wasn ’ t enough to get her to finally focus on her job as speaker of the House .
Expectedly , the president gave her a piece of his mind when he got word of her latest move .
“ Crazy Nancy is the one who should be under observation , ” Trump tweeted .
“ They don ’ t call her Crazy for nothing !
” But Collins has decided to turn the tables on Pelosi , putting her on the examination table regarding her own “ capacity ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s clear that Nancy Pelosi does not have the mental fitness to serve as Speaker of the House of Representatives , ” the Georgia Republican said in a tweet Sunday .
“ I ’ m introducing a resolution to push for her removal.
” “ Speaker Nancy Pelosi ’ s unwillingness to abide by the Constitution , combined with her recent actions , call into question her own mental fitness , which is why it ’ s critical that the House of Representatives demand her removal from the line of succession , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News .
The outlet acquired a copy of the resolution ’ s draft , which says Pelosi “ is unable to adequately serve as Speaker of the House of Representatives and should therefore be removed from her position.
” His argument cites Pelosi ’ s ongoing behavior as speaker over the course of Trump ’ s presidency , saying she “ has spent the majority of the House of Representative ’ s time pursuing baseless and fruitless investigations , ” including last year ’ s impeachment inquiry .
The resolution explicitly calls out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she led : “ On October 31 , 2019 , Speaker Nancy Pelosi oversaw the first party-line vote to begin an impeachment inquiry into a president in the history of our country.
” Also cited is the speaker ’ s lack of decorum after Trump ’ s State of the Union address in February , when she ripped apart her printed copy of the speech “ before the American people ” after his final remarks .
Another viral moment presented as evidence of her mental decline is Pelosi ’ s hypocritical and ungrateful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ salon where she “ received a blow-out without wearing a mask in violation of San Francisco ’ s laws concerning the coronavirus ” and , when called out by the media , attempted to “ cast blame on the salon ’ s owner for ‘ setting her up . '
” And who could forget Pelosi ’ s awkward interview with ABC News last month where , according to Collins ’ resolution , she “ appeared confused and exhibited bizarre behavior ” by “ blurting out randomly ‘ Good Morning , Sunday morning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behavior , the resolution states , “ Over her tenure of her speakership , Speaker Nancy Pelosi has started to demonstrate a decline in mental fitness , calling into question her ability to adequately serve the House of Representatives and the American people.
” Satire or not , Collins ’ resolution has more evidence backing it than anything Pelosi has ever tried to pull over Trump , and it ’ s all in plain sight before the American people .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
@ @ @ @ @

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is at it again with her partisan, anti-Trump antics — but this time, Republican Rep. Doug Collins is giving her a taste of her own medicine.
On Friday, the California Democrat announced a bill that would create the “Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of the Office,” a body of 17 members established by Congress who would be given the power — along with the sitting vice president — to determine whether the president “is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”
Under the 25th Amendment, the vice president can become the acting president if both the vice president and either a majority of the Cabinet or “such other body as Congress may by law provide” determines the commander in chief “is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”
The commission created under the bill would work with the vice president to determine if the president has become physically or mentally incapacitated and is thus “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”
Pelosi’s botched attempt to remove President Donald Trump from office via impeachment apparently wasn’t enough to get her to finally focus on her job as speaker of the House.
Expectedly, the president gave her a piece of his mind when he got word of her latest move.
“Crazy Nancy is the one who should be under observation,” Trump tweeted. “They don’t call her Crazy for nothing!”
Crazy Nancy is the one who should be under observation. They don’t call her Crazy for nothing! https://t.co/7vE0Jvq0dM — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 8, 2020
But Collins has decided to turn the tables on Pelosi, putting her on the examination table regarding her own “capacity” for her position.
“It’s clear that Nancy Pelosi does not have the mental fitness to serve as Speaker of the House of Representatives,” the Georgia Republican said in a tweet Sunday. “I’m introducing a resolution to push for her removal.”
It’s clear that Nancy Pelosi does not have the mental fitness to serve as Speaker of the House of Representatives. I’m introducing a resolution to push for her removal. — Rep. Doug Collins (@RepDougCollins) October 12, 2020
“Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s unwillingness to abide by the Constitution, combined with her recent actions, call into question her own mental fitness, which is why it’s critical that the House of Representatives demand her removal from the line of succession,” Collins said in a statement to Fox News.
The outlet acquired a copy of the resolution’s draft, which says Pelosi “is unable to adequately serve as Speaker of the House of Representatives and should therefore be removed from her position.”
His argument cites Pelosi’s ongoing behavior as speaker over the course of Trump’s presidency, saying she “has spent the majority of the House of Representative’s time pursuing baseless and fruitless investigations,” including last year’s impeachment inquiry.
Nancy Pelosi has trampled over historical precedent and the Constitution time and time again in an effort to remove @realDonaldTrump from office. It’s past time we remove her as Speaker.https://t.co/I5KQtUnioi — Rep. Doug Collins (@RepDougCollins) October 13, 2020
The resolution explicitly calls out the partisan nature of the impeachment investigation she led: “On October 31, 2019, Speaker Nancy Pelosi oversaw the first party-line vote to begin an impeachment inquiry into a president in the history of our country.”
Also cited is the speaker’s lack of decorum after Trump’s State of the Union address in February, when she ripped apart her printed copy of the speech “before the American people” after his final remarks.
Another viral moment presented as evidence of her mental decline is Pelosi’s hypocritical and ungrateful visit to a “shuttered” hair salon where she “received a blow-out without wearing a mask in violation of San Francisco’s laws concerning the coronavirus” and, when called out by the media, attempted to “cast blame on the salon’s owner for ‘setting her up.'”
And who could forget Pelosi’s awkward interview with ABC News last month where, according to Collins’ resolution, she “appeared confused and exhibited bizarre behavior” by “blurting out randomly ‘Good Morning, Sunday morning.'”
Speaking to her odd behavior, the resolution states, “Over her tenure of her speakership, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has started to demonstrate a decline in mental fitness, calling into question her ability to adequately serve the House of Representatives and the American people.”
Satire or not, Collins’ resolution has more evidence backing it than anything Pelosi has ever tried to pull over Trump, and it’s all in plain sight before the American people.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-10-13--Dennis Prager: If Dems Pack the Court, We’ll Face a 31-Justice SCOTUS by 2040

Exponential growth .
It ’ s why plagues are so dangerous and compound interest is so wonderful .
It ’ s also why the Democrats ’ flirting with court packing could destroy the Supreme Court and , with it , America as we know it .
The following is a reasonable scenario : Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court , which gives conservatives a 6-3 advantage ( or 5-4 , given that Chief Justice John Roberts has essentially become a swing vote ) .
Then , in January , having retained the Democrat-majority House , a President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decide to undo the advantage .
Congress passes and Biden signs a new law expanding the court to 15 members .
Biden appoints six new liberal justices , handing the left a 9-6 majority — a 60 percent advantage .
What happens when the Republicans regain power and they want a 60 percent conservative advantage ?
As a bit of algebra shows , to reverse the Democrats ’ 9-6 advantage , they ’ d have to expand the court by 7.5 members .
Of course , they can ’ t nominate half a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ round up to eight .
Regardless , the Republicans , to gain a 60 percent advantage , must expand the court by more than the Democrats did — by eight , as opposed to six .
The parties would surely continue to insist upon a 60 percent advantage , meaning that , with each switch in power , they ’ d have to expand the court ’ s size by 50 percent .
The key thing to note is that they would have to expand the court not by a constant number but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what would cause exponential growth .
If , for example , one side insisted on a 65 percent advantage and the other followed suit , they ’ d have to expand the court by 86 percent at each switch in power .
How often would such switches in power occur ?
One occurred in 1992 , when Democrats won the House , Senate and presidency .
Others occurred in 2000 , 2008 and 2016 .
And if the polls are right , another will occur in 2020 .
Such power switches occur about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frequently .
Let ’ s err on the side of being less alarmist and assume that the switch would only occur every 10 years .
Let ’ s similarly assume that the parties would only insist upon a 60 percent advantage .
Under these minimal parameters , the court would expand by 50 percent every 10 years .
That means that in 2030 , the SCOTUS would comprise 20 justices and by 2040 it would comprise 31 justices .
In 100 years , the court would grow by a factor of approximately 58 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 ) , and instead of nine justices , the Supreme Court would consist of 522 justices .
Surely , one would be tempted to think , voters and the two parties would see these problems , and accordingly , such growth wouldn ’ t continue .
But why not ?
Imagine the following scenario : In the year 2120 , the court comprises 522 justices ( 313 conservatives and 209 liberals ) .
That November , the Democrats retake the House , Senate and presidency .
Following precedent , they decide to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 783 justices ( 470 liberals and 313 conservatives ) .
Some voters might say , “ Enough is enough.
” However , Democrats could reasonably counter that ( 1 ) “ It ’ s what the Republicans did last time .
It ’ s our turn now ” ; ( 2 ) “ Is 783 really that much larger than 522 ?
” ; ( 3 ) “ Only by expanding the court can we do things such as guarantee a woman ’ s right to choose and ensure racial and social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sacrifice those goals just to keep the Court a smaller size ?
” Further , in such a scenario , no voter would be able to remember when the court was smaller than 40 justices , much less just nine .
Would they really care if it were expanded a little more ?
Of course , the scenario would continue to repeat .
In other words , if the Democrats do as many of their leading members want them to do ( including Gov .
Jay Inslee , Sen. Elizabeth Warren , Rep. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as The Atlantic urges them to do , as vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris told The New York Times she is “ absolutely open to ” and as at least one New York Times columnist advocates , we will no longer have a legislature and a supreme judicial branch .
We will essentially have two legislatures ( at least when Democratic appointees — justices willing to read left-wing political and social goals into the Constitution — hold the majority of seats ) .
It will be the end of the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the balance of power among the three branches of government and , therefore , the end of America as we know it .
Would the Democrats do it ?
Given the left ’ s record of destroying whatever it touches — most obviously , the universities , high schools and journalism , and most recently , sports and the sciences — if you are a betting person , you should bet on it .
This is yet another reason everything is at stake in this election .
The views expressed in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website .
If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal , you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Exponential growth. It’s why plagues are so dangerous and compound interest is so wonderful.
It’s also why the Democrats’ flirting with court packing could destroy the Supreme Court and, with it, America as we know it.
The following is a reasonable scenario:
Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court, which gives conservatives a 6-3 advantage (or 5-4, given that Chief Justice John Roberts has essentially become a swing vote).
Then, in January, having retained the Democrat-majority House, a President Joe Biden and a newly Democrat-controlled Senate decide to undo the advantage. Congress passes and Biden signs a new law expanding the court to 15 members. Biden appoints six new liberal justices, handing the left a 9-6 majority — a 60 percent advantage.
What happens when the Republicans regain power and they want a 60 percent conservative advantage?
As a bit of algebra shows, to reverse the Democrats’ 9-6 advantage, they’d have to expand the court by 7.5 members. Of course, they can’t nominate half a justice, so they’d probably round up to eight. Regardless, the Republicans, to gain a 60 percent advantage, must expand the court by more than the Democrats did — by eight, as opposed to six.
The parties would surely continue to insist upon a 60 percent advantage, meaning that, with each switch in power, they’d have to expand the court’s size by 50 percent.
The key thing to note is that they would have to expand the court not by a constant number but by a constant percentage. This is what would cause exponential growth. If, for example, one side insisted on a 65 percent advantage and the other followed suit, they’d have to expand the court by 86 percent at each switch in power.
Do you think the court could end up with dozens of members if the Democrats choose to pack it? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 86% (12 Votes) No: 14% (2 Votes)
How often would such switches in power occur? One occurred in 1992, when Democrats won the House, Senate and presidency. Others occurred in 2000, 2008 and 2016. And if the polls are right, another will occur in 2020. Such power switches occur about every eight years, perhaps slightly more frequently.
Let’s err on the side of being less alarmist and assume that the switch would only occur every 10 years. Let’s similarly assume that the parties would only insist upon a 60 percent advantage.
Under these minimal parameters, the court would expand by 50 percent every 10 years.
That means that in 2030, the SCOTUS would comprise 20 justices and by 2040 it would comprise 31 justices. In 100 years, the court would grow by a factor of approximately 58 (1.5 raised to the power of 10), and instead of nine justices, the Supreme Court would consist of 522 justices.
Surely, one would be tempted to think, voters and the two parties would see these problems, and accordingly, such growth wouldn’t continue. But why not? Imagine the following scenario: In the year 2120, the court comprises 522 justices (313 conservatives and 209 liberals). That November, the Democrats retake the House, Senate and presidency. Following precedent, they decide to regain their advantage and expand the court to 783 justices (470 liberals and 313 conservatives).
Some voters might say, “Enough is enough.” However, Democrats could reasonably counter that (1) “It’s what the Republicans did last time. It’s our turn now”; (2) “Is 783 really that much larger than 522?”; (3) “Only by expanding the court can we do things such as guarantee a woman’s right to choose and ensure racial and social justice. Do we really want to sacrifice those goals just to keep the Court a smaller size?”
Further, in such a scenario, no voter would be able to remember when the court was smaller than 40 justices, much less just nine. Would they really care if it were expanded a little more?
Of course, the scenario would continue to repeat.
In other words, if the Democrats do as many of their leading members want them to do (including Gov. Jay Inslee, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Mayor Pete Buttigieg), as The Atlantic urges them to do, as vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris told The New York Times she is “absolutely open to” and as at least one New York Times columnist advocates, we will no longer have a legislature and a supreme judicial branch.
We will essentially have two legislatures (at least when Democratic appointees — justices willing to read left-wing political and social goals into the Constitution — hold the majority of seats).
It will be the end of the Supreme Court as we know it, the end of the balance of power among the three branches of government and, therefore, the end of America as we know it.
Would the Democrats do it? Given the left’s record of destroying whatever it touches — most obviously, the universities, high schools and journalism, and most recently, sports and the sciences — if you are a betting person, you should bet on it.
This is yet another reason everything is at stake in this election.
© 2020 CREATORS.COM
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
Tim Groseclose Summary Contact Tim Groseclose is a professor of economics at George Mason University, where he holds the Adam Smith chair at the Mercatus Center.


westernjournal--2020-10-13--‘WJ Live’: WHO Admits What Conservatives Have Been Saying for Months

Don ’ t miss an episode of “ WJ Live ” by getting it delivered directly to your inbox !
Subscribe to the “ WJ Live ” newsletter .
Will the left marginalize progressives by criticizing Amy Coney Barrett ?
Are the NBA ’ s poor ratings a repercussion of virtue signaling ?
Did the World Health Organization just admit it was wrong ?
• 0:53 — Are NBA fans getting tired of the organization ’ s virtue signaling ?
• 10:58 — Are lockdowns more damaging than the left wants you to believe ?
• 19:55 — Will the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be so harsh toward Amy Coney Barrett ?
• 25:47 — Will the Supreme Court overturn rulings like Roe v. Wade , Obergefell v. Hodges or National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius ?
“ I think that with all of that divisiveness in politics , I think people want politics out of their sports and out of their entertainment .
And whether or not they recognize it and actively go out and boycott , I think they still are kind of voting with their wallets on what they ’ re watching.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ left is really good at painting you as a bigot or a jerk if you disagree with whatever the counterculture ’ s newest oppression Olympics game is.
” — Andrew J. Sciascia “ You should listen to the experts with a critical eye .
… They may very well know what they ’ re talking about .
They may have an agenda.
” — Joe Setyon “ Something should have been done sooner to either combat the WHO ’ s , you know , authoritarian narrative that we have to lock down or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chai “ This shouldn ’ t be a political issue , it should be an issue about freedom and public health.
” — Joe Setyon “ Mainstream progressives are going to see this as blatant sexism , conservatives are going to see this as blatant sexism , the center left , who the left really needs to galvanize , is going to see this as deceptive and sexist.
” — Michael Austin “ This should be a slam dunk success story that they should be touting , but instead they ’ re trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It doesn ’ t matter what she personally believes , what matters is what has come before and what is in the Constitution.
” — Andrew J. Sciascia CBS ’ “ 60 Minutes ” gets higher ratings than the NBA ’ s closing game | The Western Journal Experts raise concerns over economic impact of lockdowns | The Western Journal WHO admits lockdowns shouldn ’ t be primary COVID response | The Western Journal CDC director calls for schools to reopen in light of an increase in the suicide rate among high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden exposes the left ’ s hatred for the impartiality of the Supreme Court | The Western Journal Don ’ t miss an episode of “ WJ Live ” by getting it delivered directly to your inbox !
Subscribe to the “ WJ Live ” newsletter .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Don’t miss an episode of “WJ Live” by getting it delivered directly to your inbox! Subscribe to the “WJ Live” newsletter.
Full Episode Details
Description:
Will the left marginalize progressives by criticizing Amy Coney Barrett? Are the NBA’s poor ratings a repercussion of virtue signaling? Did the World Health Organization just admit it was wrong?
In this episode:
0:53 — Are NBA fans getting tired of the organization’s virtue signaling?
10:58 — Are lockdowns more damaging than the left wants you to believe?
19:55 — Will the left lose progressive support if they continue to be so harsh toward Amy Coney Barrett?
25:47 — Will the Supreme Court overturn rulings like Roe v. Wade, Obergefell v. Hodges or National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius?
Quotes from this episode:
“I think that with all of that divisiveness in politics, I think people want politics out of their sports and out of their entertainment. And whether or not they recognize it and actively go out and boycott, I think they still are kind of voting with their wallets on what they’re watching.” — Andrew J. Sciascia
“The left is really good at painting you as a bigot or a jerk if you disagree with whatever the counterculture’s newest oppression Olympics game is.” — Andrew J. Sciascia
“You should listen to the experts with a critical eye. … They may very well know what they’re talking about. They may have an agenda.” — Joe Setyon
“Something should have been done sooner to either combat the WHO’s, you know, authoritarian narrative that we have to lock down or something along those lines.” — Bryan Chai
“This shouldn’t be a political issue, it should be an issue about freedom and public health.” — Joe Setyon
“Mainstream progressives are going to see this as blatant sexism, conservatives are going to see this as blatant sexism, the center left, who the left really needs to galvanize, is going to see this as deceptive and sexist.” — Michael Austin
“This should be a slam dunk success story that they should be touting, but instead they’re trying to tear down.” — Bryan Chai
“It doesn’t matter what she personally believes, what matters is what has come before and what is in the Constitution.” — Andrew J. Sciascia
Relevant sources:
CBS’ “60 Minutes” gets higher ratings than the NBA’s closing game | The Western Journal
Experts raise concerns over economic impact of lockdowns | The Western Journal
WHO admits lockdowns shouldn’t be primary COVID response | The Western Journal
CDC director calls for schools to reopen in light of an increase in the suicide rate among high school students | The Western Journal
Slate calls Amy Coney Barrett a “shameless, cynical careerist” | Slate
Leslie McAdoo Gordon criticizes Amy Coney Barrett’s attire | Twitter
Joe Biden exposes the left’s hatred for the impartiality of the Supreme Court | The Western Journal
Don’t miss an episode of “WJ Live” by getting it delivered directly to your inbox! Subscribe to the “WJ Live” newsletter.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.