thestream--2020-09-22--President and Senate Need to Move on SCOTUS

If you thought the left had gone insane over the coming election ( and its results-be-damned aftermath ) , you ain ’ t seen nothin ’ yet .
With the sudden vacancy on the Supreme Court , they have completely lost their minds .
On Sunday , Nancy Pelosi threatened to impeach Trump if he dared to do his constitutional duty and nominate a new justice .
She described impeachment as “ one of the arrows in our quiver.
” Good grief .
Interestingly , in a Sunday evening presser , Sen. Chuck Schumer was joined not by Pelosi but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tell you who is really running the show among the Democrats .
The media are nuts , too .
To cite one of many incendiary comments , Reza Aslan tweeted , “ If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire ( bleeping ) thing down.
” To his credit , President Trump says he ’ s going to go ahead with his obligation ( his word ) to make the nomination .
Schumer said , “ The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should not be filled until we have a new President.
” That ’ s hilarious ; we all know what he said in 2016 ( the opposite ) , and what he ’ d do now if positions were reversed ( fill the vacancy immediately ) .
He knows , of course , that if Trump doesn ’ t nominate someone before the election , the chance of us having a “ new President ” rises exponentially , as nothing would make Trump ’ s supporters stay home in fury like his failure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own party to the ground .
Sunday on FOX News ’ Media Buzz , I addressed the political reality by citing Harry Reid , recalling that he “ blew up the filibuster ” on judicial nominees when Republicans had warned it would come back to haunt him .
“ So , ” I said , “ when the Republicans have an opportunity to put a Supreme Court justice on , they ’ re gon na do it , because they have the Senate and they ’ ve got the White House .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , sort of , double-talk going around … Both parties have taken the position that they ’ re going to do what they CAN do when they ’ re in power … That ’ s politics ; that ’ s how it works.
” In an appearance on Sunday Morning Futures , Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan said that “ Trump is following the historic norm .
Nine out of ten times , when the party in the White House is the same party that ’ s controlling the Senate [ NOTE : that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , you put someone forward , they get confirmed.
” Indeed , in 2016 , The Washington Post noted that “ one-third of all U.S. Presidents appointed a Supreme Court Justice in an election year ” — including six lame-duck Presidents !
The critical issue here is getting someone on the Court who will respect the law and the Constitution .
But the left has given us a preview of coming attractions on what we can expect from them , as they don ’ t respect the Bill of Rights one whit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus ) .
As for Pelosi ’ s threat to impeach the President ( also AG Barr ) if Trump moves forward , Jordan said , “ I don ’ t think the American people like to be threatened.
” So at this point , the question isn ’ t whether Trump will nominate a new justice ( he will ) , but rather if the Senate will vote soon and not wait until after the election .
House Judiciary Chair Jerrold Nadler also has issued a threat : that if the GOP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in November it goes Democrat , that ’ ll mean payback time , as Democrats “ pack ” the Court the way Franklin D. Roosevelt hoped to during his administration .
What should the current Senate do ?
Delay voting in hopes that Democrats won ’ t try to pack the Court later if they get the chance ?
Or stop acting like Charlie Brown does every time Lucy promises not to take away the football if he ’ ll just kick , and take the doggone vote ?
What have we learned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : NEVER ‘ COMPROMISE ’ WITH DEMOCRATS .
NEVER APPEASE THEM .
NEVER BELIEVE THEM .
THEY WILL NEVER COMPROMISE WITH REPUBLICANS .
The threat to pack SCOTUS is serious , indeed ; that ’ s why Republicans must keep the Senate this November .
Mark this , if they take the Senate and have a new President to appoint leftist justices , they ’ ll pack the Court faster than you can say “ Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
” As I said on Media Buzz , Democrats have “ walked away from everything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they said they wanted : DACA , infrastructure , tax reform , dealing with COVID … They don ’ t want solutions ; they want control.
” They detest Trump because he won ’ t play their game .
Senators had better not play it , either .
RedState.com has a great new column about why Republican senators must reject any “ grand bargain ” on this with Democrats .
It sounds a lot like me , so , of course , it ’ s a must-read .
“ Bonchie ” says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s one of the dumbest suggestions I ’ ve ever seen in my life .
It ’ s basically negotiating with a person threatening to blow your brains out with a gun that has no bullets.
” He means Democrats have no power now on this and don ’ t know that it would change after the election .
“ Further , ” he says , “ the idea that giving in to Democrats here will somehow heal the nation ’ s divide is ludicrous and naive .
If the GOP doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the riots won ’ t stop and Antifa isn ’ t going away .
You can not fix what ails this nation with political olive branches.
” That the GOP Senate would press forward in this scenario should surprise no one .
Mitch McConnell told FOX News ’ Bret Baier in February , “ If you ’ re asking me a hypothetical , whether this Republican Senate would confirm a member of the Supreme Court , to a vacancy created this year [ before November ] … we would fill it.
” Of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their duty , which is to report this accurately .
There is nothing unconstitutional or unusual about confirming a SCOTUS nominee this close to an election when the President and Senate are of the same party .
Doesn ’ t matter ; the media are already saying this is OUTRAGEOUS !
But that ’ s just another lie , another false narrative — an extremely inflammatory one , but they don ’ t care .
They ’ ll do anything to pressure the few reachable Republican Senators to waver .
Steve Hilton , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Revolution , had a spectacular opening monologue about madness from the left that is a must-watch .
He says pretty much everything else I ’ d like to say — with one glaring exception : he did say the Senate should vote after the election .
On the other hand , his guest , Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn , pointed out that the process generally takes about 30 days from nomination to hearings and another 30 days to the vote .
On the other hand — I ’ m sounding like Tevye in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s something else to consider : we desperately need a full-court to rule on the various election challenges that are inevitable after Nov. 3 .
That could be the most important consideration of all .
Mike Huckabee is the former governor of Arkansas and longtime conservative commentator on issues in culture and current events .
A New York Times best-selling author , he hosts the weekly talk show Huckabee on TBN .

If you thought the left had gone insane over the coming election (and its results-be-damned aftermath), you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
They’ve Completely Lost Their Minds
With the sudden vacancy on the Supreme Court, they have completely lost their minds. On Sunday, Nancy Pelosi threatened to impeach Trump if he dared to do his constitutional duty and nominate a new justice. She described impeachment as “one of the arrows in our quiver.” Good grief.
Interestingly, in a Sunday evening presser, Sen. Chuck Schumer was joined not by Pelosi but by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, which should tell you who is really running the show among the Democrats.
The media are nuts, too. To cite one of many incendiary comments, Reza Aslan tweeted, “If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire (bleeping) thing down.”
To his credit, President Trump says he’s going to go ahead with his obligation (his word) to make the nomination.
Schumer said, “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.” That’s hilarious; we all know what he said in 2016 (the opposite), and what he’d do now if positions were reversed (fill the vacancy immediately).
The Political Reality
He knows, of course, that if Trump doesn’t nominate someone before the election, the chance of us having a “new President” rises exponentially, as nothing would make Trump’s supporters stay home in fury like his failure to do this. Republicans would burn their own party to the ground.
Sunday on FOX News’ Media Buzz, I addressed the political reality by citing Harry Reid, recalling that he “blew up the filibuster” on judicial nominees when Republicans had warned it would come back to haunt him. “So,” I said, “when the Republicans have an opportunity to put a Supreme Court justice on, they’re gonna do it, because they have the Senate and they’ve got the White House. I think there’s plenty of, sort of, double-talk going around … Both parties have taken the position that they’re going to do what they CAN do when they’re in power … That’s politics; that’s how it works.”
In an appearance on Sunday Morning Futures, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan said that “Trump is following the historic norm. Nine out of ten times, when the party in the White House is the same party that’s controlling the Senate [NOTE: that is key] … during an election year, you put someone forward, they get confirmed.”
Indeed, in 2016, The Washington Post noted that “one-third of all U.S. Presidents appointed a Supreme Court Justice in an election year” — including six lame-duck Presidents!
Threats from the Left
The critical issue here is getting someone on the Court who will respect the law and the Constitution. But the left has given us a preview of coming attractions on what we can expect from them, as they don’t respect the Bill of Rights one whit (a whit being smaller than a coronavirus).
As for Pelosi’s threat to impeach the President (also AG Barr) if Trump moves forward, Jordan said, “I don’t think the American people like to be threatened.”
Never ‘compromise’ with Democrats. Never appease them. Never believe them. They will never compromise with Republicans.
So at this point, the question isn’t whether Trump will nominate a new justice (he will), but rather if the Senate will vote soon and not wait until after the election. House Judiciary Chair Jerrold Nadler also has issued a threat: that if the GOP Senate confirms before the election, but in November it goes Democrat, that’ll mean payback time, as Democrats “pack” the Court the way Franklin D. Roosevelt hoped to during his administration.
Never ‘Compromise’ with Democrats
What should the current Senate do? Delay voting in hopes that Democrats won’t try to pack the Court later if they get the chance? Or stop acting like Charlie Brown does every time Lucy promises not to take away the football if he’ll just kick, and take the doggone vote?
What have we learned, class? It’s simple: NEVER ‘COMPROMISE’ WITH DEMOCRATS. NEVER APPEASE THEM. NEVER BELIEVE THEM. THEY WILL NEVER COMPROMISE WITH REPUBLICANS.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
The threat to pack SCOTUS is serious, indeed; that’s why Republicans must keep the Senate this November. Mark this, if they take the Senate and have a new President to appoint leftist justices, they’ll pack the Court faster than you can say “Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”
Don’t Play Their Game
As I said on Media Buzz, Democrats have “walked away from everything the President has laid on the table that they said they wanted: DACA, infrastructure, tax reform, dealing with COVID … They don’t want solutions; they want control.” They detest Trump because he won’t play their game. Senators had better not play it, either.
RedState.com has a great new column about why Republican senators must reject any “grand bargain” on this with Democrats. It sounds a lot like me, so, of course, it’s a must-read.
“Bonchie” says, “… I think it’s one of the dumbest suggestions I’ve ever seen in my life. It’s basically negotiating with a person threatening to blow your brains out with a gun that has no bullets.” He means Democrats have no power now on this and don’t know that it would change after the election.
“Further,” he says, “the idea that giving in to Democrats here will somehow heal the nation’s divide is ludicrous and naive. If the GOP doesn’t replace Ginsburg before the election … the riots won’t stop and Antifa isn’t going away. You cannot fix what ails this nation with political olive branches.”
Fill the Seat
That the GOP Senate would press forward in this scenario should surprise no one. Mitch McConnell told FOX News’ Bret Baier in February, “If you’re asking me a hypothetical, whether this Republican Senate would confirm a member of the Supreme Court, to a vacancy created this year [before November] … we would fill it.”
Of course, the media will not do their duty, which is to report this accurately. There is nothing unconstitutional or unusual about confirming a SCOTUS nominee this close to an election when the President and Senate are of the same party. Doesn’t matter; the media are already saying this is OUTRAGEOUS! But that’s just another lie, another false narrative — an extremely inflammatory one, but they don’t care.
They’ll do anything to pressure the few reachable Republican Senators to waver.
Steve Hilton, on his FOX News show The Next Revolution, had a spectacular opening monologue about madness from the left that is a must-watch. He says pretty much everything else I’d like to say — with one glaring exception: he did say the Senate should vote after the election. On the other hand, his guest, Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn, pointed out that the process generally takes about 30 days from nomination to hearings and another 30 days to the vote.
On the other hand — I’m sounding like Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof — there’s something else to consider: we desperately need a full-court to rule on the various election challenges that are inevitable after Nov. 3. That could be the most important consideration of all.
Mike Huckabee is the former governor of Arkansas and longtime conservative commentator on issues in culture and current events. A New York Times best-selling author, he hosts the weekly talk show Huckabee on TBN.
Originally published at MikeHuckabee.com. Reprinted with permission.


thestream--2020-09-23--A Message the Church Must Hear! Fulfilling Christ’s Great Commission

While talking with Dr. Brown about his new book , I was moved by God to share what I believe @ @ @ @ @ I hope you will share this message and join us as we pray for our @ @ @ @ @ Christ ’ s Great Commission .
James Robison is The Stream ’ s founder and @ @ @ @ @ of LIFE Outreach International and co-host of LIFE Today .
He ’ s the author @ @ @ @ @ Indivisible ( with Jay Richards ) and Living Amazed .
You can view all the @ @ @ @ @ here .

While talking with Dr. Brown about his new book, Evangelicals at the Crossroads, I was moved by God to share what I believe THE CHURCH MUST HEAR! I hope you will share this message and join us as we pray for our nation, seeking to fulfill Christ’s Great Commission.
Our full interview will be posted here tomorrow, but Dr. Brown agreed that this clip should be shown right away. I pray it will bless and inspire you.
James Robison is The Stream’s founder and publisher. He is co-founder of LIFE Outreach International and co-host of LIFE Today. He’s the author of many books, including Indivisible (with Jay Richards) and Living Amazed.
You can view all the videos in this interview series here.


thestream--2020-09-22--After Ginsburg’s Death, a Coup is a Realistic Possibility

Justice Ginsburg ’ s death on Friday represented the end of an era .
As all Court-watchers know , Ginsburg and Justice Scalia — despite their deep political differences — were close personal friends .
In 2015 , a comedy-opera was written about their friendship : Ginsburg gave the opera a rave review .
I saw Ginsburg speak in 2017 and when she spoke of how she missed the late Scalia , I could hear genuine warmth in her voice .
With both Scalia and Ginsburg gone , however , an era of civil disagreement has died with them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and each views the other as its global moral enemy : a role once occupied by the Soviet Union .
We are heading towards tragedy rather than comedy .
Ginsburg ’ s death could result in a bloodless coup that , as I ’ ll explain in this column , would end America ’ s tripartite system of government .
The inevitable outcome would be either a dangerous civil conflict or totalitarian rule .
Our Era is Akin to the Last Decades of the Roman Republic Now is the time to learn from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
American politics today has strong parallels with the last decades of the Roman Republic — when polarization led to a bloody civil conflict which brought the Republic to its end .
With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 , America emerged as the world ’ s sole superpower .
In the same way , the late Roman Republic defeated its only global rival , the Carthaginian Empire .
Over the following decades , Romans were increasingly polarized along political lines similar to our own left- and right-wings .
The global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : it was now the other side of the political aisle .
In this bitter climate , conservatives rallied behind a leader named Sulla — a maverick known for ignoring political norms .
Sulla ’ s central message was that Rome should return to the traditional virtues of its past , although he did not always live by these virtues himself .
In 88 BC , Sulla became the first Roman leader to march on Rome .
Once he had captured the city , however , Sulla proved surprisingly docile , even allowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high office .
Yet the Roman left-wing was apoplectic at Sulla ’ s actions .
They united behind Gaius Marius , an elderly establishment politician long past his prime .
In 87 BC , the left seized control of Rome .
Filled with hatred , they implemented a reign of terror and openly massacred their conservative political enemies .
The slaughter launched decades of civil war from which the Republic never reemerged .
If Joe Biden is elected in November , his administration will of course not involve the public massacre of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well involve packing the Supreme Court : an action that would end America ’ s constitutional government and lead inevitably to future violence .
Court Packing Would Be a Coup , Abolishing the United States Constitution in All But Name Since Trump ’ s election in 2016 , many progressives have discussed ways to create a permanent one-party regime in the United States .
The most popular proposal is “ to pack the Court.
” This means that Democrats would arbitrarily increase the number of seats on the Supreme Court , then load @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their agenda .
The New York Times has spent years trying to prepare its readers to support Court packing , pushing the idea through opinion columns and book reviews .
Many Democratic politicians are already on board .
In a 2019 legal document , known to Court-watchers as the “ Enemy of the Court Brief , ” a group of Democratic senators — including Dick Durbin and Kirsten Gillibrand — threatened to “ restructure ” the Court if it did not limit gun rights : a thinly-veiled reference to packing the Court .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ power , Court packing would be a brilliant move .
The strategy would abolish the republic while , at the same time , hiding behind most Americans ’ ignorance of civics .
Americans might not realize , until it is too late , that Court packing is simply the end of constitutional government .
Many , perhaps most , Americans probably could not name a Supreme Court decision other than Roe v. Wade — one of the Court ’ s most unusual and uncharacteristic decisions .
To understand what Court packing would accomplish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how the Court works .
Court Packing Would Create an Authoritarian Regime by Abolishing Checks and Balances The U.S. Constitution pointedly splits power between three branches .
Its first three Articles create Congress , the President and the Supreme Court — with each Article listing the separate powers of its branch .
Article III creates the Supreme Court , giving the Court power over all cases “ arising under this Constitution.
” If Democrats pack the Court , this power-sharing system will cease to exist .
After the Court is packed once , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruling party might , at any time , simply double the Court ’ s size and remake it to their liking .
The Supreme Court will never again be able to check the power of a united President and Congress .
Progressives argue , with unconcealed smirking malice , that Article III does not specify that there will be “ nine ” justices .
This hardly warrants dignifying with a response .
The very structure of the Constitution — with its first three Articles creating three centers of power — shows that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be eliminated as a distinct branch of government .
This is especially important given the role of the Supreme Court .
Civics surveys show that millions of Americans do not really understand what the Court does .
Its most important function is to apply the U.S. Constitution by striking down unconstitutional laws .
Without the Court , the Constitution would simply be a piece of paper .
In the Heller and McDonald cases , for example , the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects private firearms ownership , striking down gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these cases had been different by one vote , the Second Amendment would be unenforceable .
President Obama could have legally enacted total gun confiscation during the 111th Congress .
Likewise , secular progressives increasingly believe that traditional Christians should not be tolerated in American society .
Without Supreme Court decisions applying the Free Exercise Clause , like Hosanna-Tabor and Lukumi , the government could force Christian churches to hire non-Christian ministers , or simply close down churches that it disliked .
“ The Constitution does not protect your right to discriminate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Hate speech is not free speech.
” Progressives Could Plausibly Create a Totalitarian State Without Serious Resistance Unfortunately , many conservatives naively believe that , whatever happens in American politics , tyranny is simply impossible in the Untied States .
“ The American people are armed , ” we think .
“ They will never let tyranny happen.
” But this assumption is naïve .
This reasoning ignores the way that tyrannies actually work in history .
Real totalitarians do not suddenly announce that all guns and dissent are banned .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ their opponents .
For example , during Saddam Hussein ’ s 1979 coup , Saddam ordered that the names of ten enemies be read out , all of whom were arrested .
But as his other rivals breathed a sigh of relief , another ten names were read out .
Then another ten , and so on .
In ancient Rome , Sulla — after defeating the left-wing Marians and coming to power a second time — did the same thing on a larger scale .
Sulla posted a short list of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by a longer list , followed by another .
The point was that , if you were a Marian whose name was not listed , you would cower and hope for the best while your friends died .
Once your friends had been killed , your name would appear on the next list .
In this way , Sulla exterminated all of the Marians in Italy .
This kind of strategy could work very well against American conservatives , who are highly individualistic , and who do not usually defend anyone who is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To see how this might work , consider the following plausible scenario , based on law and history , that could lead to totalitarian government in the United States .
An Example of a Plausible Scenario Leading to Totalitarian Rule in the Untied States Suppose Democrats pack the Court full of left-wing justices .
The fake Court holds that the Heller case is now overturned , and the Second Amendment no longer protects the people .
The Court ’ s decision is not the same as an actual law banning guns .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that guns have not been banned .
Conservatives go about their daily lives , and do not engage in any kind of mass pushback .
Next , Congress — citing the need to stop far-right organizations — directs federal agencies to create a kind of “ No Fly List ” for firearms : a secret , no-appeal list of Americans who can not own guns .
Most gun owners convince themselves that the list will not affect them .
But “ I ’ ll be fine because I ’ m not a racist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be fine because I don ’ t comment about politics on social media.
” Pro-gun groups and informal networks of gun-owners are steadily disarmed .
While the list expands , cultural progressives realize that nothing is stopping them from finally eliminating dissent .
The first “ hate speech ” prosecution is against a neo-Nazi or some other universally loathed person who no one wants to defend .
The fake Supreme Court approves the prosecution to little fanfare .
This time , the escalation happens quickly .
A wave of prosecutions for hate speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ catharsis .
When pastors and scientists are prosecuted , all non-progressives realize — too late — that the situation is irretrievably lost .
There is no reason this could not continue until United States resembles the Soviet Union .
America was not protected from evil government by the Statue of Liberty , or by the flag or even by social norms .
She was protected by her laws .
Court Packing Must Be Prevented At Any Cost If there is a single unchanging law of human history , it is that unlimited power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past , many people did not have access to historical documents , and might be forgiven for not knowing this .
But today , the entire history of the world is available for free to every American .
If Americans allow Democrats to usurp absolute power , it will be history ’ s most ridiculous and unnecessary failure to learn history ’ s lessons .
To preserve the republican order that Scalia and Ginsburg , together , represented , Americans must speak up now .
If the Court is packed , it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Once the false justices are seated , and the fake Court convenes to hear its first case , the country will be caught between the two horns of either civil conflict or totalitarian rule .
If America fails to heed the warnings of history , history will force us to learn its lessons the hard way .
This must be prevented at any cost .
We must stop Court packing by making it clear , well in advance , that a packed Court would be seen as fundamentally illegitimate .
The more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a coup , the less viable a strategy it will become .
Ian Huyett is a litigation attorney and an editor at Staseos .
He has published several academic articles on law and religion , including most recently How to Overturn Employment Division v. Smith : A Historical Approach with Regent University Law Review .

Justice Ginsburg’s death on Friday represented the end of an era. As all Court-watchers know, Ginsburg and Justice Scalia — despite their deep political differences — were close personal friends. In 2015, a comedy-opera was written about their friendship: Ginsburg gave the opera a rave review. I saw Ginsburg speak in 2017 and when she spoke of how she missed the late Scalia, I could hear genuine warmth in her voice.
With both Scalia and Ginsburg gone, however, an era of civil disagreement has died with them. There are now two separate Americas, and each views the other as its global moral enemy: a role once occupied by the Soviet Union. We are heading towards tragedy rather than comedy.
Ginsburg’s death could result in a bloodless coup that, as I’ll explain in this column, would end America’s tripartite system of government. The inevitable outcome would be either a dangerous civil conflict or totalitarian rule.
Our Era is Akin to the Last Decades of the Roman Republic
Now is the time to learn from history in order to avoid repeating it. American politics today has strong parallels with the last decades of the Roman Republic — when polarization led to a bloody civil conflict which brought the Republic to its end.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, America emerged as the world’s sole superpower. In the same way, the late Roman Republic defeated its only global rival, the Carthaginian Empire. Over the following decades, Romans were increasingly polarized along political lines similar to our own left- and right-wings. The global enemy was no longer a foreign power: it was now the other side of the political aisle.
In this bitter climate, conservatives rallied behind a leader named Sulla — a maverick known for ignoring political norms. Sulla’s central message was that Rome should return to the traditional virtues of its past, although he did not always live by these virtues himself. In 88 BC, Sulla became the first Roman leader to march on Rome. Once he had captured the city, however, Sulla proved surprisingly docile, even allowing some of his worst enemies to hold high office.
Yet the Roman left-wing was apoplectic at Sulla’s actions. They united behind Gaius Marius, an elderly establishment politician long past his prime. In 87 BC, the left seized control of Rome. Filled with hatred, they implemented a reign of terror and openly massacred their conservative political enemies. The slaughter launched decades of civil war from which the Republic never reemerged.
If Joe Biden is elected in November, his administration will of course not involve the public massacre of his political opponents. But it could very well involve packing the Supreme Court: an action that would end America’s constitutional government and lead inevitably to future violence.
Court Packing Would Be a Coup, Abolishing the United States Constitution in All But Name
Since Trump’s election in 2016, many progressives have discussed ways to create a permanent one-party regime in the United States. The most popular proposal is “to pack the Court.” This means that Democrats would arbitrarily increase the number of seats on the Supreme Court, then load the seats with judges who will rubber-stamp their agenda.
The New York Times has spent years trying to prepare its readers to support Court packing, pushing the idea through opinion columns and book reviews. Many Democratic politicians are already on board. In a 2019 legal document, known to Court-watchers as the “Enemy of the Court Brief,” a group of Democratic senators — including Dick Durbin and Kirsten Gillibrand — threatened to “restructure” the Court if it did not limit gun rights: a thinly-veiled reference to packing the Court.
If there is a single unchanging law of human history, it is that unlimited power inevitably becomes unlimited evil.
For progressives who dream of wielding authoritarian power, Court packing would be a brilliant move. The strategy would abolish the republic while, at the same time, hiding behind most Americans’ ignorance of civics. Americans might not realize, until it is too late, that Court packing is simply the end of constitutional government.
Many, perhaps most, Americans probably could not name a Supreme Court decision other than Roe v. Wade — one of the Court’s most unusual and uncharacteristic decisions. To understand what Court packing would accomplish, we need to look closely at how the Court works.
Court Packing Would Create an Authoritarian Regime by Abolishing Checks and Balances
The U.S. Constitution pointedly splits power between three branches. Its first three Articles create Congress, the President and the Supreme Court — with each Article listing the separate powers of its branch. Article III creates the Supreme Court, giving the Court power over all cases “arising under this Constitution.”
If Democrats pack the Court, this power-sharing system will cease to exist. After the Court is packed once, there is no going back: the ruling party might, at any time, simply double the Court’s size and remake it to their liking. The Supreme Court will never again be able to check the power of a united President and Congress.
Progressives argue, with unconcealed smirking malice, that Article III does not specify that there will be “nine” justices. This hardly warrants dignifying with a response. The very structure of the Constitution — with its first three Articles creating three centers of power — shows that the Framers did not intend the Court to be eliminated as a distinct branch of government.
This is especially important given the role of the Supreme Court. Civics surveys show that millions of Americans do not really understand what the Court does. Its most important function is to apply the U.S. Constitution by striking down unconstitutional laws. Without the Court, the Constitution would simply be a piece of paper.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
In the Heller and McDonald cases, for example, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects private firearms ownership, striking down gun bans in D.C. and Chicago. If these cases had been different by one vote, the Second Amendment would be unenforceable. President Obama could have legally enacted total gun confiscation during the 111th Congress.
Likewise, secular progressives increasingly believe that traditional Christians should not be tolerated in American society. Without Supreme Court decisions applying the Free Exercise Clause, like Hosanna-Tabor and Lukumi, the government could force Christian churches to hire non-Christian ministers, or simply close down churches that it disliked. “The Constitution does not protect your right to discriminate,” we can imagine the left intoning. “Hate speech is not free speech.”
Progressives Could Plausibly Create a Totalitarian State Without Serious Resistance
Unfortunately, many conservatives naively believe that, whatever happens in American politics, tyranny is simply impossible in the Untied States. “The American people are armed,” we think. “They will never let tyranny happen.” But this assumption is naïve.
This reasoning ignores the way that tyrannies actually work in history. Real totalitarians do not suddenly announce that all guns and dissent are banned. Instead, they systematically divide and conquer their opponents.
For example, during Saddam Hussein’s 1979 coup, Saddam ordered that the names of ten enemies be read out, all of whom were arrested. But as his other rivals breathed a sigh of relief, another ten names were read out. Then another ten, and so on.
In ancient Rome, Sulla — after defeating the left-wing Marians and coming to power a second time — did the same thing on a larger scale. Sulla posted a short list of people who were to be killed, followed by a longer list, followed by another. The point was that, if you were a Marian whose name was not listed, you would cower and hope for the best while your friends died. Once your friends had been killed, your name would appear on the next list. In this way, Sulla exterminated all of the Marians in Italy.
This kind of strategy could work very well against American conservatives, who are highly individualistic, and who do not usually defend anyone who is further to the right than themselves. To see how this might work, consider the following plausible scenario, based on law and history, that could lead to totalitarian government in the United States.
An Example of a Plausible Scenario Leading to Totalitarian Rule in the Untied States
Suppose Democrats pack the Court full of left-wing justices. The fake Court holds that the Heller case is now overturned, and the Second Amendment no longer protects the people. The Court’s decision is not the same as an actual law banning guns. The media reassures the public — correctly — that guns have not been banned. Conservatives go about their daily lives, and do not engage in any kind of mass pushback.
Next, Congress — citing the need to stop far-right organizations — directs federal agencies to create a kind of “No Fly List” for firearms: a secret, no-appeal list of Americans who cannot own guns. Most gun owners convince themselves that the list will not affect them. But “I’ll be fine because I’m not a racist” soon becomes “I’ll be fine because I don’t comment about politics on social media.” Pro-gun groups and informal networks of gun-owners are steadily disarmed.
While the list expands, cultural progressives realize that nothing is stopping them from finally eliminating dissent. The first “hate speech” prosecution is against a neo-Nazi or some other universally loathed person who no one wants to defend. The fake Supreme Court approves the prosecution to little fanfare.
This time, the escalation happens quickly. A wave of prosecutions for hate speech takes on the character of a national catharsis. When pastors and scientists are prosecuted, all non-progressives realize — too late — that the situation is irretrievably lost. There is no reason this could not continue until United States resembles the Soviet Union. America was not protected from evil government by the Statue of Liberty, or by the flag or even by social norms. She was protected by her laws.
Court Packing Must Be Prevented At Any Cost
If there is a single unchanging law of human history, it is that unlimited power inevitably becomes unlimited evil. In the past, many people did not have access to historical documents, and might be forgiven for not knowing this. But today, the entire history of the world is available for free to every American. If Americans allow Democrats to usurp absolute power, it will be history’s most ridiculous and unnecessary failure to learn history’s lessons.
To preserve the republican order that Scalia and Ginsburg, together, represented, Americans must speak up now. If the Court is packed, it will likely be too late to turn back. Once the false justices are seated, and the fake Court convenes to hear its first case, the country will be caught between the two horns of either civil conflict or totalitarian rule. If America fails to heed the warnings of history, history will force us to learn its lessons the hard way.
This must be prevented at any cost. We must stop Court packing by making it clear, well in advance, that a packed Court would be seen as fundamentally illegitimate. The more people clearly understand that Court packing is a coup, the less viable a strategy it will become.
Ian Huyett is a litigation attorney and an editor at Staseos. He has published several academic articles on law and religion, including most recently How to Overturn Employment Division v. Smith: A Historical Approach with Regent University Law Review.


thestream--2020-09-22--What The New Yorker Got Right and Wrong About Racism in the White American Church

Although Michael Luo ’ s article in the New Yorker came out September 2 , I didn ’ t see it until a childhood friend , himself a liberal Jewish Democrat , sent it to me .
It is entitled “ American Christianity ’ s White-Supremacy Problem , ” and it raises some very serious concerns .
What did Luo get right and what did he get wrong ?
Luo begins his article with a disturbing anecdote from the life of Frederick Douglass while still a slave .
When his master became a Christian , rather than making him “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Douglass had hoped , the reverse was true .
Douglass wrote , “ If it had any effect on his character , it made him more cruel and hateful in all his ways.
” Worse still , Douglass ’ s master justified his cruel behavior with verses from the Bible , making his Christian profession all the more abhorrent .
How Lou Sees Racism in the White American Church Continuing But , Luo notes , this is not just a 19th century problem for white Christians .
Rather , Luo informs us : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some Americans for whom the Confederate flag is a symbol of Southern pride rather than racism .
( Not being from the South myself , those feelings are quite foreign to me . )
And there are many people of conscience who , based on the data they have reviewed , believe that African-American men are not specifically singled out for killing by the police .
But I find it difficult to imagine how “ more than six in ten white Christians ” deny what is to me a self-evident statement : namely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for blacks to work their way out of the lower class.
’ ” These sentiments are backed up by the much-discussed recent book by Robert P. Jones , White Too Long : The Legacy of White Supremacy in American Christianity , which Luo references .
And they are given historical context in the important book by Jemar Tisby , The Color of Compromise : The Truth about the American Church ’ s Complicity in Racism , also referenced by Luo .
To the extent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and blind spots of the American church , he does well .
And to the extent those blind spots exist , he does well to draw our attention to them as well .
Yet there are some clear misses in his article .
First , he notes that , “ In surveys that measure how warmly people say they feel about Black people , the sentiments of white evangelical Protestants exceed those of the general population .
( Other white Christians ’ responses fall close to the mean . )
Yet the vast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the symbols of white supremacy and skeptical of the realities of racial inequality.
” What , then , does this tell us ?
Perhaps these white evangelical Protestants really do have hearts of love .
Perhaps they really do believe in racial reconciliation .
Perhaps they really do want to right wrongs when they become aware of them .
And perhaps these alleged “ symbols of white supremacy ” have no such meaning to them , which is why they are indifferent to them .
And perhaps they are unaware of some aspects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far cry from a white Christian master mistreating a black slave in the name of Christianity , quoting the Bible as he mercilessly lashed his purchased possession .
Yet it does remind us of the importance of honest and ongoing dialogue .
If there are insensitivities on the part of sincere white Christians , then when they become aware , they will become sensitive .
Let us continue to talk together across racial and ethnic lines .
Second , Luo repeats some the standard mischaracterizations about President Trump and his supporters , portraying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christian racists for whom “ Christian nationalism ” means a white America .
Accordingly , Luo points to Trump ’ s alleged “ reluctance to condemn white-nationalist protesters in Charlottesville , and his scapegoating of China for the coronavirus pandemic.
” In point of fact , as has been pointed out endlessly since Charlottesville , Trump immediately condemned the white nationalist protesters on the day of the event , making an even stronger statement in a subsequent news conference .
And his “ scapegoating ” of China — which many would argue is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is hardly race-based .
Had the virus allegedly been manufactured and/or released by , say , an anti-America Canadian government , Trump would have labeled it the Canada virus ( or something even more biting ) .
As for Christians shouting “ MAGA , ” I ’ m sure that some of them are racists who dream of a white America .
But the vast majority of those I have interacted with have issues with the left , not with blacks , with morality , not color .
Luo fails to factor this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Putting Soulwinning First to Change Hearts Third , Luo faults abolitionists like Charles Finney in the 1800s and anti-segregationists like Billy Graham in the 1900s for putting soulwinning ahead of fighting racism .
To be sure Luo does not castigate these leaders for their stances .
And he mentions that Martin Luther King , Jr. advised Graham to keep his focus on gospel preaching .
But he fails to recognize that these are biblically-based , socially-sound principles .
We preach Jesus and repentance first , and that leads directly to godly social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , predicted a national bloodbath if abolitionism was put first and revivalism put second .
He knew that without a massive change of hearts on a national level , a costly civil war would ensue .
Perhaps the war was inevitable .
But Finney ’ s method was to change society by changing hearts , while at the same time aggressively opposing slavery .
( For a contemporary application of this principle , see “ Flipping the Courts and Turning the Hearts.
” ) Graham held to a similar strategy , knowing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an evangelist , while also understanding that true Christian dedication would result in the end of segregation .
Luo sees this as a deficiency , as if Finney and Graham fell short of their callings , which is certainly not true .
Seeking to Understand is a More Constructive Approach And it is misses like this which undermine Luo ’ s bombastic closing statement .
He wrote , “ Today ’ s ‘ slave-holding religion ’ is preached on Fox News , conservative talk radio , and the rest of the right-wing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ witness .
Jesus ’ blessing for peacemakers may demand that Christians confront these institutions of demagoguery and division in the name of the kingdom.
” Had he been more nuanced and accurate , seeking to understand those whom he attempts to expose , his article would have been much more constructive .
As it is , his exaggerations and misstatements detract from the important issues he does address .
Dr. Michael Brown ( www.askdrbrown.org ) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program .
His latest book is Evangelicals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump Test ?
Connect with him on Facebook , Twitter or YouTube .

Although Michael Luo’s article in the New Yorker came out September 2, I didn’t see it until a childhood friend, himself a liberal Jewish Democrat, sent it to me. It is entitled “American Christianity’s White-Supremacy Problem,” and it raises some very serious concerns. What did Luo get right and what did he get wrong?
Luo begins his article with a disturbing anecdote from the life of Frederick Douglass while still a slave. When his master became a Christian, rather than making him “more kind and humane,” as Douglass had hoped, the reverse was true. Douglass wrote, “If it had any effect on his character, it made him more cruel and hateful in all his ways.”
Worse still, Douglass’s master justified his cruel behavior with verses from the Bible, making his Christian profession all the more abhorrent.
How Lou Sees Racism in the White American Church Continuing
But, Luo notes, this is not just a 19th century problem for white Christians. Rather, Luo informs us:
In a 2019 nationwide survey, eighty-six per cent of white evangelical Protestants and seventy per cent of both white mainline Protestants and white Catholics said that the “Confederate flag is more a symbol of Southern pride than of racism”; nearly two-thirds of white Christians over all said that killings of African-American men by the police are isolated incidents rather than part of a broader pattern of mistreatment; and more than six in ten white Christians disagreed with the statement that “generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for blacks to work their way out of the lower class.”
To be sure, there are certainly some Americans for whom the Confederate flag is a symbol of Southern pride rather than racism. (Not being from the South myself, those feelings are quite foreign to me.) And there are many people of conscience who, based on the data they have reviewed, believe that African-American men are not specifically singled out for killing by the police. But I find it difficult to imagine how “more than six in ten white Christians” deny what is to me a self-evident statement: namely, “that ‘generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for blacks to work their way out of the lower class.’”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
These sentiments are backed up by the much-discussed recent book by Robert P. Jones, White Too Long: The Legacy of White Supremacy in American Christianity, which Luo references. And they are given historical context in the important book by Jemar Tisby, The Color of Compromise: The Truth about the American Church’s Complicity in Racism, also referenced by Luo.
To the extent Luo reminds us of the past failings and blind spots of the American church, he does well. And to the extent those blind spots exist, he does well to draw our attention to them as well.
Yet there are some clear misses in his article.
The Importance of Honest Dialogue
First, he notes that, “In surveys that measure how warmly people say they feel about Black people, the sentiments of white evangelical Protestants exceed those of the general population. (Other white Christians’ responses fall close to the mean.) Yet the vast majority of white Christians remain indifferent to the symbols of white supremacy and skeptical of the realities of racial inequality.”
What, then, does this tell us? Perhaps these white evangelical Protestants really do have hearts of love. Perhaps they really do believe in racial reconciliation. Perhaps they really do want to right wrongs when they become aware of them. And perhaps these alleged “symbols of white supremacy” have no such meaning to them, which is why they are indifferent to them. And perhaps they are unaware of some aspects of racial inequality.
This is a far cry from a white Christian master mistreating a black slave in the name of Christianity, quoting the Bible as he mercilessly lashed his purchased possession.
Yet it does remind us of the importance of honest and ongoing dialogue. If there are insensitivities on the part of sincere white Christians, then when they become aware, they will become sensitive. Let us continue to talk together across racial and ethnic lines.
Mischaracterizations That Divide
Second, Luo repeats some the standard mischaracterizations about President Trump and his supporters, portraying him as a racist followed by white Christian racists for whom “Christian nationalism” means a white America.
Accordingly, Luo points to Trump’s alleged “reluctance to condemn white-nationalist protesters in Charlottesville, and his scapegoating of China for the coronavirus pandemic.”
In point of fact, as has been pointed out endlessly since Charlottesville, Trump immediately condemned the white nationalist protesters on the day of the event, making an even stronger statement in a subsequent news conference. And his “scapegoating” of China — which many would argue is not “scapegoating” at all — is hardly race-based. Had the virus allegedly been manufactured and/or released by, say, an anti-America Canadian government, Trump would have labeled it the Canada virus (or something even more biting).
As for Christians shouting “MAGA,” I’m sure that some of them are racists who dream of a white America. But the vast majority of those I have interacted with have issues with the left, not with blacks, with morality, not color. Luo fails to factor this in adequately.
Lou Misses the Importance of Putting Soulwinning First to Change Hearts
Third, Luo faults abolitionists like Charles Finney in the 1800s and anti-segregationists like Billy Graham in the 1900s for putting soulwinning ahead of fighting racism.
To be sure Luo does not castigate these leaders for their stances. And he mentions that Martin Luther King, Jr. advised Graham to keep his focus on gospel preaching. But he fails to recognize that these are biblically-based, socially-sound principles. We preach Jesus and repentance first, and that leads directly to godly social action.
Finney’s method was to change society by changing hearts, while at the same time aggressively opposing slavery.
Finney, for his part, predicted a national bloodbath if abolitionism was put first and revivalism put second. He knew that without a massive change of hearts on a national level, a costly civil war would ensue.
Perhaps the war was inevitable. But Finney’s method was to change society by changing hearts, while at the same time aggressively opposing slavery. (For a contemporary application of this principle, see “Flipping the Courts and Turning the Hearts.”)
Graham held to a similar strategy, knowing that his primary calling and gifting was that of an evangelist, while also understanding that true Christian dedication would result in the end of segregation. Luo sees this as a deficiency, as if Finney and Graham fell short of their callings, which is certainly not true.
Seeking to Understand is a More Constructive Approach
And it is misses like this which undermine Luo’s bombastic closing statement. He wrote, “Today’s ‘slave-holding religion’ is preached on Fox News, conservative talk radio, and the rest of the right-wing media ecosystem; they daily bear false witness. Jesus’ blessing for peacemakers may demand that Christians confront these institutions of demagoguery and division in the name of the kingdom.”
Had he been more nuanced and accurate, seeking to understand those whom he attempts to expose, his article would have been much more constructive. As it is, his exaggerations and misstatements detract from the important issues he does address.
Dr. Michael Brown (www.askdrbrown.org) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. His latest book is Evangelicals at the Crossroads: Will We Pass the Trump Test? Connect with him on Facebook, Twitter or YouTube.


thestream--2020-09-22--President Trump, Top Officials to Discuss SCOTUS Nominee at Values Voter Summit

The 15th annual Values Voter Summit kicks off Tuesday night , live and free online .
Sponsored by Family Research Council Action , the nation ’ s premiere conservative event runs each night through Friday .
COVID-19 has made this year ’ s Values Voter Summit virtual .
The death of Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has made it crucial .
Over the four nights , discussion panels , Q & A sessions , and more will feature leaders such as President Trump , Senator Marsha Blackburn , Rep. Ann Wagner , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and The Stream @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Currently , our numbers are much higher in terms of people who plan to attend , ” said FRC Action president Tony Perkins in a phone interview .
“ So I ’ m looking forward to a really good week.
” A spokesman stated over 6,000 people were pre-registered as of Monday .
Typically drawing thousands in-person to Washington , D.C. and hundreds of thousands via TV broadcast , this year will be different .
The nation ’ s capital has prohibited any large-scale events until at least 2021 , due to COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FRC also eliminated registration fees .
They say the experience will be much more than merely talking heads .
“ We ’ ve crafted it so people will be able to interact with it and ask questions , ” said Perkins in a phone interview .
“ It ’ s not just going to be sitting there watching a computer screen or television.
” Perkins confirms to The Stream that Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death has forced the summit to reshuffle plans , bringing the High Court to the forefront .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prominently each night ” says Perkins .
“ We ’ ll kick off the event with Senator Josh Hawley , who is drawing a line in the sand over the court , ” he told The Stream .
FRC Action has invited voices to discuss why the Supreme Court matters and what attributes conservatives desire to see in the judicial nominee .
Trump is set to announce his pick on Saturday .
Perkins asserts that conservatives ’ election focus has been sharpened by the pending nomination to the Supreme Court .
“ This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the knob of intensity of this election , ” he said .
Current polling diverges on this question .
A recent Marquette University poll shows liberal voters most engaged on the courts .
By contrast , exit polling from the last presidential election revealed 70 percent of Trump voters cited the courts as an important issue .
Long involved in nomination battles , the president of FRC recalled the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016 .
“ Suddenly it went from a theoretical issue of the courts being important , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election , ” he said .
“ That development very clearly had a significant impact on the way conservatives responded.
” Similar to past years , leading voices at Values Voter Summit will feature a combination of elected officials , clergy , and conservative issue activists .
Ambassador Sam Brownback and Rep. Vicky Hartzler , R-Mo.
, will discuss religious freedom issues .
Rev .
Dean Nelson and formerly imprisoned minister Andrew Brunson will share as pastors .
Later , pro-life advocates Abby Johnson and NFL star Benjamin Watson will present on their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ womb .
Such a unique mixture of faith and politics has garnered criticism , most prominently from Southern Poverty Law Center ( SPLC ) .
Their preview post calls the event “ hateful ” before a word has been spoken .
“ The SPLC is nothing more than an attack dog for the left , ” said Perkins .
“ They ’ re desperate .
They ’ re doing everything they can to silence those with whom they disagree.
” He pointed out how SPLC came up in an August Congressional hearing with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gaetz , R-Fla. , asked why the e-commerce giant uses SPLC ’ s “ Hate Map ” to determine which nonprofits can benefit from their Smile program .
Bezos , the richest man in the world , refused to stand up for SPLC .
“ I ’ m going to acknowledge this is an imperfect system , ” he said .
“ I would love suggestions on … better or additional sources.
” “ People are seeing behind the smokescreen , ” said Perkins .
“ Leaders in Congress are now calling on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moral compass , to drop them.
” Seeing Beyond the Crisis Perkins and his team , many of whom worked remotely for weeks or longer this spring , recognize that COVID-19 remains a backdrop for Americans ’ daily lives .
“ People have lost their lives from this coronavirus , there ’ s no question about it , ” he said .
“ No one should in any way diminish that fact.
” In recent discussions , he finds leaders eager to turn a corner especially regarding reopening churches and businesses .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do think the media and the Left have exploited the virus to stoke fear , ” he added .
“ We can ’ t succeed if we ’ re hiding in fear or if we ’ re afraid of this unseen enemy.
” He mentioned a panel of medical professionals will address the current coronavirus situation at the event , in addition to voices giving economic perspective .
With Trump slated to address VVS attendees late in the week , FRC Action has positioned the event to make the case for a second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were on the sidelines or some that were a little bit indifferent , this is going to pull them in , ” said Perkins .
Starting tonight at 8 p.m .
ET , Values Voter Summit will broadcast 90-minute evening programs for the next four nights .
Stream contributor Josh M. Shepherd covers culture , faith , and public policy issues for media outlets including The Federalist .
Find him on Twitter and follow The Stream @ Streamdotorg .

The 15th annual Values Voter Summit kicks off Tuesday night, live and free online. Sponsored by Family Research Council Action, the nation’s premiere conservative event runs each night through Friday. COVID-19 has made this year’s Values Voter Summit virtual. The death of Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has made it crucial.
A Virtual Values Voters Summit
Over the four nights, discussion panels, Q&A sessions, and more will feature leaders such as President Trump, Senator Marsha Blackburn, Rep. Ann Wagner, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and The Stream‘s own James Robison.
“Currently, our numbers are much higher in terms of people who plan to attend,” said FRC Action president Tony Perkins in a phone interview. “So I’m looking forward to a really good week.” A spokesman stated over 6,000 people were pre-registered as of Monday.
Typically drawing thousands in-person to Washington, D.C. and hundreds of thousands via TV broadcast, this year will be different. The nation’s capital has prohibited any large-scale events until at least 2021, due to COVID-19 related measures.
In going virtual, FRC also eliminated registration fees. They say the experience will be much more than merely talking heads.
“We’ve crafted it so people will be able to interact with it and ask questions,” said Perkins in a phone interview. “It’s not just going to be sitting there watching a computer screen or television.”
High Court Becomes Top Priority
Perkins confirms to The Stream that Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death has forced the summit to reshuffle plans, bringing the High Court to the forefront.
“This issue [of the courts] has the ability to turn up the knob of intensity of this election” – Tony Perkins
The Supreme Court will be featured “very prominently each night” says Perkins. “We’ll kick off the event with Senator Josh Hawley, who is drawing a line in the sand over the court,” he told The Stream.
FRC Action has invited voices to discuss why the Supreme Court matters and what attributes conservatives desire to see in the judicial nominee. Trump is set to announce his pick on Saturday.
Perkins asserts that conservatives’ election focus has been sharpened by the pending nomination to the Supreme Court.
“This issue has the ability to turn up the knob of intensity of this election,” he said.
Current polling diverges on this question. A recent Marquette University poll shows liberal voters most engaged on the courts.
By contrast, exit polling from the last presidential election revealed 70 percent of Trump voters cited the courts as an important issue.
Long involved in nomination battles, the president of FRC recalled the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016.
“Suddenly it went from a theoretical issue of the courts being important, to a vacancy on the court during the election,” he said. “That development very clearly had a significant impact on the way conservatives responded.”
Faith, Politics and Controversy
Similar to past years, leading voices at Values Voter Summit will feature a combination of elected officials, clergy, and conservative issue activists.
Ambassador Sam Brownback and Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., will discuss religious freedom issues, along with Senator Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., on the nomination process. Rev. Dean Nelson and formerly imprisoned minister Andrew Brunson will share as pastors.
Later, pro-life advocates Abby Johnson and NFL star Benjamin Watson will present on their latest initiatives to defend lives in the womb.
Such a unique mixture of faith and politics has garnered criticism, most prominently from Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Their preview post calls the event “hateful” before a word has been spoken.
“The SPLC is nothing more than an attack dog for the left,” said Perkins. “They’re desperate. They’re doing everything they can to silence those with whom they disagree.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
He pointed out how SPLC came up in an August Congressional hearing with Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., asked why the e-commerce giant uses SPLC’s “Hate Map” to determine which nonprofits can benefit from their Smile program.
Bezos, the richest man in the world, refused to stand up for SPLC. “I’m going to acknowledge this is an imperfect system,” he said. “I would love suggestions on … better or additional sources.”
“People are seeing behind the smokescreen,” said Perkins. “Leaders in Congress are now calling on Amazon, which uses SPLC as their moral compass, to drop them.”
Seeing Beyond the Crisis
Perkins and his team, many of whom worked remotely for weeks or longer this spring, recognize that COVID-19 remains a backdrop for Americans’ daily lives.
“People have lost their lives from this coronavirus, there’s no question about it,” he said. “No one should in any way diminish that fact.”
“We can’t succeed if we’re hiding in fear or if we’re afraid of this unseen enemy” – Tony Perkins
In recent discussions, he finds leaders eager to turn a corner especially regarding reopening churches and businesses. “To put it in perspective, I do think the media and the Left have exploited the virus to stoke fear,” he added.
“We can’t succeed if we’re hiding in fear or if we’re afraid of this unseen enemy.”
He mentioned a panel of medical professionals will address the current coronavirus situation at the event, in addition to voices giving economic perspective.
With Trump slated to address VVS attendees late in the week, FRC Action has positioned the event to make the case for a second term.
“Maybe some conservatives who were on the sidelines or some that were a little bit indifferent, this is going to pull them in,” said Perkins.
Starting tonight at 8 p.m. ET, Values Voter Summit will broadcast 90-minute evening programs for the next four nights.
Stream contributor Josh M. Shepherd covers culture, faith, and public policy issues for media outlets including The Federalist. Find him on Twitter and follow The Stream @Streamdotorg.


thestream--2020-09-22--Your Life Hangs By a Thread

Your Life Hangs By a Thread

It was almost like dropping a bowling ball onto a paper cup .
The twenty or thirty ton cement mixer cut in front of an older friend at an intersection and crushed her little compact car .
If she ’ d gotten to that spot a second earlier , she told me , the truck would have hit her squarely in the side and she ’ d be dead .
Almost everyone has stories of the time their lives hung by a thread , where just one second made the difference between living and dying .
Your life was not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to keep it or to lose it .
Something saved you .
Even Christians can talk about these events as if they were just lucky that time .
Roll of the dice .
Win some , lose some .
Stuff happens .
But what if it isn ’ t just a roll of the dice ?
What if it ’ s God ?
And what if He saves us far more often than we can possibly know ?
We all have reasons to believe that something or Someone watches out for us .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ d need in court , but enough proof to be thankful .
Some years ago , I was driving in to the seminary where I then worked to preach in chapel .
It was the beginning of the church season of Advent , when the readings point us to the Second Coming .
I would be talking about it as the season we should consider not just the end of history , but the end of our own earthly history .
As I started through an intersection , a car running the red @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inches in front of my bumper .
He ’ d come flying down the steep hill to my right .
If I ’ d been in the intersection a half-second earlier , I might not be alive now .
I would have died on the way to talk to people about dying .
When I told that story , a friend told the story of driving at dusk on an interstate with his family , out in the country without much traffic .
Everyone was singing along to the radio .
He looked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When he looked up saw a pair of headlights coming straight towards them .
He swerved out of the way in time .
The driver must have turned on to the highway offramp thinking it was an onramp , and started driving fast in the wrong direction .
“ A second ’ s difference in my seeing them would have killed all of us in a head on collision , ” my friend said .
Some years ago I was eating dinner at a conference .
One man , a bit of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eating .
He entertained the table .
During an announcement , with everyone looking away , he started choking on a piece of meat .
We turned back to him to find him grunting and waving his hands and even then no one realized for a few seconds that he was choking .
No one knew what to do .
He was a portly man and I couldn ’ t have gotten my arms around him .
He started turning blue .
From the kitchen came a huge man , one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Heimlich maneuver .
He picked up the speaker and pressed his stomach hard a couple times , and the meat popped out of his mouth .
Had he not been there , the man would have died .
Almost everyone has stories like this .
Probably many more than they remember .
You could have died , but you didn ’ t .
A second earlier , a second later , and parents will have lost a child , a husband his wife , children their mother .
I ’ ve often wondered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from without knowing it .
You ’ re leaving the house and duck back inside to grab something you forgot , and that 47 seconds is the difference between being hit by a speeding car and driving safely down the street .
But you don ’ t know that God whispering in your ear , “ You forgot your book , ” is the thing that kept you from dying .
We must have many thanksgivings to give we don ’ t know anything about .
We go through life oblivious to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways God protects us .
Let ’ s assume He guards us even when we think life is just going on the way we expect it to .
Let ’ s say “ Thank you ” when we don ’ t know what He ’ s done .
Because the God who loves you and died for you is watching out for you in ways you can ’ t possibly know .
David Mills is a senior editor of The Stream .
After teaching writing in a seminary , he has been editor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ First Things .
He edits the site Hour of Our Death and writes a weekly column for The Catholic Herald .

It was almost like dropping a bowling ball onto a paper cup. The twenty or thirty ton cement mixer cut in front of an older friend at an intersection and crushed her little compact car. If she’d gotten to that spot a second earlier, she told me, the truck would have hit her squarely in the side and she’d be dead.
Almost everyone has stories of the time their lives hung by a thread, where just one second made the difference between living and dying. Your life was not your own. You could do nothing to keep it or to lose it. Something saved you.
Even Christians can talk about these events as if they were just lucky that time. Roll of the dice. Win some, lose some. Stuff happens.
But what if it isn’t just a roll of the dice? What if it’s God? And what if He saves us far more often than we can possibly know?
We Don’t Know
We all have reasons to believe that something or Someone watches out for us. Not proof of the sort you’d need in court, but enough proof to be thankful.
Some years ago, I was driving in to the seminary where I then worked to preach in chapel. It was the beginning of the church season of Advent, when the readings point us to the Second Coming. I would be talking about it as the season we should consider not just the end of history, but the end of our own earthly history.
As I started through an intersection, a car running the red light shot through the intersection a few inches in front of my bumper. He’d come flying down the steep hill to my right. If I’d been in the intersection a half-second earlier, I might not be alive now. I would have died on the way to talk to people about dying.
A Second’s Difference
When I told that story, a friend told the story of driving at dusk on an interstate with his family, out in the country without much traffic. Everyone was singing along to the radio. He looked down at the controls for a second. When he looked up saw a pair of headlights coming straight towards them. He swerved out of the way in time.
The driver must have turned on to the highway offramp thinking it was an onramp, and started driving fast in the wrong direction. “A second’s difference in my seeing them would have killed all of us in a head on collision,” my friend said.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Some years ago I was eating dinner at a conference. One man, a bit of a celebrity, talked and talked while eating. He entertained the table. During an announcement, with everyone looking away, he started choking on a piece of meat.
We turned back to him to find him grunting and waving his hands and even then no one realized for a few seconds that he was choking. No one knew what to do. He was a portly man and I couldn’t have gotten my arms around him.
He started turning blue. From the kitchen came a huge man, one of the dishwashers, who happened to know the Heimlich maneuver. He picked up the speaker and pressed his stomach hard a couple times, and the meat popped out of his mouth. Had he not been there, the man would have died.
Someone Saved You
Almost everyone has stories like this. Probably many more than they remember. You could have died, but you didn’t. A second earlier, a second later, and parents will have lost a child, a husband his wife, children their mother.
I’ve often wondered how many dangers we’re delivered from without knowing it. You’re leaving the house and duck back inside to grab something you forgot, and that 47 seconds is the difference between being hit by a speeding car and driving safely down the street. But you don’t know that God whispering in your ear, “You forgot your book,” is the thing that kept you from dying.
We must have many thanksgivings to give we don’t know anything about. We go through life oblivious to the dangers that surround us and to the ways God protects us.
Let’s assume He guards us even when we think life is just going on the way we expect it to. Let’s say “Thank you” when we don’t know what He’s done. Because the God who loves you and died for you is watching out for you in ways you can’t possibly know.
David Mills is a senior editor of The Stream. After teaching writing in a seminary, he has been editor of Touchstone and the executive editor of First Things. He edits the site Hour of Our Death and writes a weekly column for The Catholic Herald.


thestream--2020-09-22--Here are 7 Things You Need to Know About Amy Coney Barrett

Judge Amy Coney Barrett , who President Donald Trump is reportedly considering to fill a Supreme Court vacancy , is a Catholic mother of seven who once told law students : “ your fundamental purpose in life is not to be a lawyer , but to know , love and serve God.
” Trump is reportedly considering 48-year-old Barrett , federal Judge Barbara Lagoa , and 4th Circuit Court Judge Allison Rushing to replace former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , according to Fox News .
The late justice died Friday at the age of 87 due to complications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m saving her for Ginsburg , ” Trump said of Barrett in 2019 , Axios reported .
Trump appointed Barrett to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017 , according to the New York Times .
Her confirmation hearings gained national attention when Democratic lawmakers questioned her about her Catholic beliefs , suggesting that Barrett ’ s Catholicism made her unfit to serve as a judge .
“ The conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you , ” Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein told her .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin also questioned Barrett over an article she co-authored as a law student that included the term “ orthodox Catholic , ” asking Barrett : “ Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic ?
” “ If you ’ re asking whether I ’ m a faithful Catholic , I am , although I would stress that my own personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on the discharge of my duties as a judge , ” Barrett told him .
“ She is the perfect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who brings the argument to the court that is potentially the contrary to the views of the sitting women justices , ” Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser told the New York Times .
She Taught Law at the University of Notre Dame Barrett went to law school at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend , Indiana , and graduated summa cum laude in 1997 .
She returned to Notre Dame in 2002 to teach federal courts , constitutional law and statutory interpretation , and was named a professor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She would go on to become the Diane and M.O Research Chair of Law and received a “ distinguished professor of the year ” award in 2010 and 2016 .
During her time at Notre Dame , Barrett joined the conservative legal group , the Federalist Society , and signed a statement of protest against former President Barack Obama ’ s administration for forcing employers to provide birth control against their religious beliefs .
Barrett and her family currently reside in South Bend and regularly attend Notre Dame football games and tail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times .
The potential Supreme Court nominee has drawn attention from both the left and right for her devotion to the Roman Catholic faith .
“ If you can keep in mind that your fundamental purpose in life is not to be a lawyer , but to know , love and serve God , ” Barrett said during a 2006 commencement address to Notre Dame law students , according to the Times , “ you truly will be a different kind of lawyer.
” The Washington Post ’ s Ron Charles highlighted Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Sunday tweet , saying : “ Amy Coney Barrett , the judge at the top of Trump ’ s list to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg , has said we should always remember that a ‘ legal career is but a means to an end … and that end is building the Kingdom of God.
’ ” Filmmaker Arlen Parsa also called Barrett a “ Catholic extremist with 7 children ” in a since deleted tweet , hitting Barrett for her pro-life views while noting that he will vote for pro-abortion 2020 presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Catholic .
“ Her religious convictions are pro-life , and she lives those convictions , ” Barrett ’ s longtime Catholic mentor , Judge Patrick J. Schiltz , told the Times .
“ The question of what we believe as a religious matter has nothing to do with what we believe a written document says.
” She Has Seven Children Barrett was born into a family of seven children and now has seven children herself — five biological and two adopted from Haiti , according to Newsweek .
She met her husband , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Indiana , at Notre Dame Law School , the publication reported .
“ Their family is radically generous and hospitable , ” the Barretts ’ long time friend , Carter Snead , told the Times .
She does not often speak about her family , according to Newsweek , but she discussed them during her 2017 confirmation hearing which her daughters Emma , Vivian , and Tess attended while her other four children stayed home “ with friends and fearless babysitters , ” as Barrett put it .
She Adopted Two Children from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first apple of our eye , ” Barrett said at the 2017 hearing , according to Newsweek .
“ Vivian , directly next to Emma , is 13 .
Vivian is our miracle .
Vivian joined our family — she was born in Haiti and she came home when she was 14 months old , and she weighed 11 pounds and she was so weak we were told she might never walk normally or speak .
Today Vivian is a track star , and I assure you she has no trouble talking.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ old in 2017 , and during the hearing Barrett described her as “ one of the most compassionate and determined people that I know.
” “ John Peter is 10 , and like Vivian , he was born in Haiti , ” Barrett said during the hearing .
“ He joined our family in 2010 when he was 3 years old after the devastating earthquake in Haiti.
” She continued : “ Liam is 8 .
Typically curious 8-year-old .
And Juliet is our spunky 6-year-old.
” Her Youngest Child Has Down Syndrome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which Barrett learned during prenatal testing , according to the Times .
Many parents choose to abort when they discover the unborn baby has Downs syndrome , but Barrett did not .
She carries Benjamin piggyback down the stairs every morning , the Times reported .
“ Benjamin , our youngest , is 5 , ” she said at the 2017 hearing , “ and Benjamin has special needs , and that presents unique challenges for all of us .
But I think all you need to know about Benjamin ’ s place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact the other children unreservedly identify him as their favorite sibling.
” It ’ s Rumored She Could Help Overturn Roe v. Wade Barrett ’ s potential nomination to the Supreme Court to replace Ginsburg has alarmed Democratic lawmakers and abortion advocates who fear that adding Barrett to the bench may result in overturning Roe v. Wade .
“ Amy Coney Barrett meets Donald Trump ’ s two main litmus tests : She has made clear she would invalidate the ( Affordable Care Act ) and take health care away from millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s reproductive freedom , ” Nan Aron , president of the liberal Alliance for Justice , told the Times .
Barrett was asked if she believed abortion is always immoral in the 2017 White House questionnaire , the Associated Press reported .
“ If I am confirmed ( to the 7th Circuit ) , my views on this or any other question will have no bearing on the discharge of my duties as a judge , ” she said .
She has also said that she believes life begins at conception , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 2015 joint letter that affirmed “ the value of human life from conception to natural death.
” Barrett suggested in 2016 during a talk at Jacksonville University that though a woman ’ s right to abortion , as understood by Roe v. Wade , may not change , the “ question of whether people can get very late-term abortions , you know , how many restrictions can be put on clinics , I think that would change , ” the Times reported .
“ If Roe v. Wade were coming against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suspect that she would say there is nothing in the Constitution about this , and if you want a constitutional right to an abortion , people are free to add one to the Constitution , but it is not in there , ” President of Catholic University John Garvey , who taught Barrett in law school , told the Times .
“ That is not the question now .
We have had 45 years of abortion jurisprudence.
” Planned Parenthood ’ s action arm condemned Barrett before she was confirmed as a federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement that “ the idea that Amy Coney Barrett would be a fair and impartial judge on issues of reproductive health is ludicrous.
” Planned Parenthood did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation on Barrett ’ s potential nomination to the Supreme Court .
“ We call on every United States senator to uphold a fundamental standard : If you oppose Roe v. Wade and would empower employers to deny women access to birth control , you should not sit on the bench , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relations and public policy for Planned Parenthood Action Fund , said in a statement in 2017 .
“ Planned Parenthood urges senators to reject the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Seventh Circuit.
” Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who President Donald Trump is reportedly considering to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, is a Catholic mother of seven who once told law students: “your fundamental purpose in life is not to be a lawyer, but to know, love and serve God.”
Trump is reportedly considering 48-year-old Barrett, federal Judge Barbara Lagoa, and 4th Circuit Court Judge Allison Rushing to replace former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, according to Fox News. The late justice died Friday at the age of 87 due to complications of metastatic pancreatic cancer.
“I’m saving her for Ginsburg,” Trump said of Barrett in 2019, Axios reported.
She’s Currently a Federal Appellate Judge
Trump appointed Barrett to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017, according to the New York Times. Her confirmation hearings gained national attention when Democratic lawmakers questioned her about her Catholic beliefs, suggesting that Barrett’s Catholicism made her unfit to serve as a judge.
“The conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you,” Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein told her. “And that’s of concern.”
Democratic Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin also questioned Barrett over an article she co-authored as a law student that included the term “orthodox Catholic,” asking Barrett: “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?”
“If you’re asking whether I’m a faithful Catholic, I am, although I would stress that my own personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on the discharge of my duties as a judge,” Barrett told him.
“She is the perfect combination of brilliant jurist and a woman who brings the argument to the court that is potentially the contrary to the views of the sitting women justices,” Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser told the New York Times.
She Taught Law at the University of Notre Dame
Barrett went to law school at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana, and graduated summa cum laude in 1997. She returned to Notre Dame in 2002 to teach federal courts, constitutional law and statutory interpretation, and was named a professor of law in 2010, according to SCOTUSblog.
She would go on to become the Diane and M.O Research Chair of Law and received a “distinguished professor of the year” award in 2010 and 2016. During her time at Notre Dame, Barrett joined the conservative legal group, the Federalist Society, and signed a statement of protest against former President Barack Obama’s administration for forcing employers to provide birth control against their religious beliefs.
Barrett and her family currently reside in South Bend and regularly attend Notre Dame football games and tail gates, according to the New York Times.
She’s a Devout Catholic
The potential Supreme Court nominee has drawn attention from both the left and right for her devotion to the Roman Catholic faith.
“If you can keep in mind that your fundamental purpose in life is not to be a lawyer, but to know, love and serve God,” Barrett said during a 2006 commencement address to Notre Dame law students, according to the Times, “you truly will be a different kind of lawyer.”
The Washington Post’s Ron Charles highlighted Barrett’s focus on her faith in a Sunday tweet, saying: “Amy Coney Barrett, the judge at the top of Trump’s list to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has said we should always remember that a ‘legal career is but a means to an end … and that end is building the Kingdom of God.’”
Amy Coney Barrett, the judge at the top of Trump’s list to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has said we should always remember that a “legal career is but a means to an end … and that end is building the Kingdom of God." https://t.co/PZ4MRB7PLX — Ron Charles (@RonCharles) September 20, 2020
Filmmaker Arlen Parsa also called Barrett a “Catholic extremist with 7 children” in a since deleted tweet, hitting Barrett for her pro-life views while noting that he will vote for pro-abortion 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden, who is also Catholic.
“Her religious convictions are pro-life, and she lives those convictions,” Barrett’s longtime Catholic mentor, Judge Patrick J. Schiltz, told the Times. “The question of what we believe as a religious matter has nothing to do with what we believe a written document says.”
She Has Seven Children
Barrett was born into a family of seven children and now has seven children herself — five biological and two adopted from Haiti, according to Newsweek. She met her husband, Jesse Barrett, a federal prosecutor in Indiana, at Notre Dame Law School, the publication reported.
“Their family is radically generous and hospitable,” the Barretts’ long time friend, Carter Snead, told the Times.
She does not often speak about her family, according to Newsweek, but she discussed them during her 2017 confirmation hearing which her daughters Emma, Vivian, and Tess attended while her other four children stayed home “with friends and fearless babysitters,” as Barrett put it.
She Adopted Two Children from Haiti
“Emma is 16. The first apple of our eye,” Barrett said at the 2017 hearing, according to Newsweek. “Vivian, directly next to Emma, is 13. Vivian is our miracle. Vivian joined our family — she was born in Haiti and she came home when she was 14 months old, and she weighed 11 pounds and she was so weak we were told she might never walk normally or speak. Today Vivian is a track star, and I assure you she has no trouble talking.”
Her daughter Tess was also 13 years old in 2017, and during the hearing Barrett described her as “one of the most compassionate and determined people that I know.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
“John Peter is 10, and like Vivian, he was born in Haiti,” Barrett said during the hearing. “He joined our family in 2010 when he was 3 years old after the devastating earthquake in Haiti.”
She continued: “Liam is 8. Typically curious 8-year-old. And Juliet is our spunky 6-year-old.”
Her Youngest Child Has Down Syndrome
The youngest Barrett has Downs syndrome, which Barrett learned during prenatal testing, according to the Times. Many parents choose to abort when they discover the unborn baby has Downs syndrome, but Barrett did not. She carries Benjamin piggyback down the stairs every morning, the Times reported.
“Benjamin, our youngest, is 5,” she said at the 2017 hearing, “and Benjamin has special needs, and that presents unique challenges for all of us. But I think all you need to know about Benjamin’s place in the family is summed up by the fact the other children unreservedly identify him as their favorite sibling.”
It’s Rumored She Could Help Overturn Roe v. Wade
Barrett’s potential nomination to the Supreme Court to replace Ginsburg has alarmed Democratic lawmakers and abortion advocates who fear that adding Barrett to the bench may result in overturning Roe v. Wade.
“Amy Coney Barrett meets Donald Trump’s two main litmus tests: She has made clear she would invalidate the (Affordable Care Act) and take health care away from millions of people and undermine a woman’s reproductive freedom,” Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice, told the Times.
Barrett was asked if she believed abortion is always immoral in the 2017 White House questionnaire, the Associated Press reported.
“If I am confirmed (to the 7th Circuit), my views on this or any other question will have no bearing on the discharge of my duties as a judge,” she said.
She has also said that she believes life begins at conception, according to Notre Dame magazine, and signed a 2015 joint letter that affirmed “the value of human life from conception to natural death.”
Barrett suggested in 2016 during a talk at Jacksonville University that though a woman’s right to abortion, as understood by Roe v. Wade, may not change, the “question of whether people can get very late-term abortions, you know, how many restrictions can be put on clinics, I think that would change,” the Times reported.
“If Roe v. Wade were coming against the court for the first time, I suspect that she would say there is nothing in the Constitution about this, and if you want a constitutional right to an abortion, people are free to add one to the Constitution, but it is not in there,” President of Catholic University John Garvey, who taught Barrett in law school, told the Times. “That is not the question now. We have had 45 years of abortion jurisprudence.”
Planned Parenthood’s action arm condemned Barrett before she was confirmed as a federal judge in 2017, saying in a statement that “the idea that Amy Coney Barrett would be a fair and impartial judge on issues of reproductive health is ludicrous.” Planned Parenthood did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation on Barrett’s potential nomination to the Supreme Court.
Amy Coney Barrett — who was already confirmed, despite only having one case — said judges shouldn’t follow the law if it clashes with their religious beliefs. #BadForWomen #CourtsMatter — Planned Parenthood Action – Text WeDecide to 22422 (@PPact) December 12, 2017
“We call on every United States senator to uphold a fundamental standard: If you oppose Roe v. Wade and would empower employers to deny women access to birth control, you should not sit on the bench,” Dana Singiser, vice president of government relations and public policy for Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said in a statement in 2017. “Planned Parenthood urges senators to reject the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Seventh Circuit.”
Copyright 2020 The Daily Caller News Foundation
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].