Amy Coney Barrett is a 48-year-old law professor at Notre Dame and a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. She has been nominated by president Trump for the Supreme Court. She seems to be a good conservative but we will never know until we see her rulings. We have been disappointed over and over in the last 40 years by allegedly conservative justices who turned out not to be reliable conservatives at all, most notably Kennedy, Souter and Roberts.
Nikitas3.com has written that we need a conservative on the Court, not just a Constitutionalist. And here is the difference: A conservative makes a legal decision based on the Constitution and then interprets it through a conservative lens. A Constitutionalist makes a decision based on the Constitution only.
We have had three conservatives in the last 30 years – justices Thomas, Alito and Scalia. But shouldn’t we have judges that interpret the Constitution and make their decision based on that alone?
Well, if both sides did the same thing, that would be fine. But both sides don’t. In important cases, Democrat-appointed justices always vote liberal, no matter what the Constitution says. So we need conservative justices on our side to balance that.
Here is Fox New reporting on Barrett’s positions on four important legal issues:
Perhaps the most high-profile opinion Barrett has written is a dissent in Kanter v. Barr, a case that upheld a Wisconsin law taking gun rights away from non-violent felons. The majority opinion was written by Judges Joel Flaum and Kenneth Ripple, who were appointed by President Ronald Reagan.
Eliot Mincberg, a senior fellow at the liberal group People for the American Way, called Barrett’s record on this case and others “extremely troubling in a number of respects,” specifically noting that the judges in the Kanter v. Barr majority were appointed by a Republican.
Barrett wrote the majority opinion in the case Doe v. Purdue, a due process and Title IX challenge by a Purdue University student who had been accused of sexual assault, which led to the student losing his Navy ROTC scholarship.
The students in the case were identified as John Doe and Jane Doe to preserve their anonymity. Jane alleged that John had woken her up while they were sleeping together by groping her over her clothes and admitted to her that he had “digitally penetrated” her while she was asleep on a different occasion. John denied all the accusations to the school.
According to Barrett’s opinion, Purdue then allegedly wrote a report that “falsely claimed that [John] had confessed to Jane’s allegations;” refused to let John see evidence in the case; did not allow him to present witnesses; did not let him cross-examine Jane; and later “found him guilty by a preponderance of the evidence of sexual violence.”
Barrett said, “Purdue’s process fell short of what even a high school must provide to a student facing a days-long suspension,” meaning John’s 14th Amendment due process claim was legitimate.
In the case Rainsberger v. Benner, Barrett authored an opinion in which she denied qualified immunity — a protection for government officials from being sued for judgment calls they make on the job — for a police officer who was alleged to have submitted a document “riddled with lies and undercut by the omission of exculpatory evidence” that led to a man being put in jail for two months.
Barrett has been involved with a handful of cases that implicated abortion 7th Circuit. In one 2018 case she dissented from a denial of en banc rehearing — meaning she wanted the entire court to reexamine a decision by three judges — after the 7th Circuit ruled unconstitutional an Indiana law banning abortions for reasons relating to the sex, race or potential disability of the fetus. The law also banned fetuses from being disposed of as medical waste.
Barrett joined a dissent by Judge Frank Easterbrook that labeled the ban on abortions for sex, race and disability reasons “the eugenics statute” and argued the Supreme Court had never ruled on such a law so it should not be automatically considered illegitimate.
Working Folks Swing Strongly Republican
Throughout the 20th century working-class people generally supported Democrat candidates while wealthy people were Republicans.
Today there has been a big switcheroo. Most wealthy people today are far-left Democrats, and there is a simple reason for that: Virtually all wealthy people have higher educational degrees and graduated from colleges and universities starting in the 1960s and 1970s when leftist indoctrination became normal.
At the same time working people without college degrees have moved toward president Trump in large numbers as he fights for an America First policy. They did not get the university indoctrination.
The paradigm started to shift under conservative Republican president Ronald Reagan in the 1980s with the so-called Reagan Democrats. Here are excerpts from a story on the shift under Trump from the Politico website, with a Nikitas3.com comment after each excerpt:
Politico reports: Joe Biden has pitched himself to voters as a “union man,” a son of Scranton, Pa., who respects the dignity of work and will defend organized labor if he wins the White House.
To rank-and-file members in some unions, especially the building trades, it doesn’t matter. They’re still firmly in Donald Trump’s camp.
Labor leaders have worked for months to sell their members on Biden, hoping to avoid a repeat of 2016 when Donald Trump outperformed among union members and won the White House. But despite a bevy of national union endorsements for Biden and years of what leaders call attacks on organized labor from the Trump administration, local officials in critical battleground states said support for Trump remains solid.
“We haven’t moved the needle here,” said Mike Knisley, executive secretary-treasurer with the Ohio State Building and Construction Trades Council, who estimated that about half of his members voted for Trump in 2016 and will do so again. “Even if given all the information that’s been put out there, all the facts — just pick an issue that the president has had his hands in — it doesn’t make a difference.”
Among members of North America’s Building Trades Unions, there is a dead heat in six swing states, with Biden receiving 48 percent of the vote and Trump 47 percent, according to an internal poll shared with POLITICO.
Nikitas3.com comment: Wow. Twenty years ago you would never have dreamed of these types of numbers. ‘Dead heat in six swing states..’ Awesome. And Nikitas3.com believes that Trump’s support is much higher than any poll shows since the president does not poll well, i.e., millions of people will not admit to a pollster that they support Trump.
Private-sector union membership has plummeted over the last 75 years. After World War II, 40% of US private sector workers were union members. Today only 10%. On the other hand, government-sector union membership has skyrocketed over the same period. But government workers are by nature Democrats anyway, so there has been no big spike among them for the Democrat party on the basis of their unionization.
In the once-heavily-unionized and heavily-Democrat Iron Range mining region of Northern Minnesota, six mayors recently announced that they support president Trump. This is a classic case of the political shift. These people know that Democrats are allied with wealthy corporate elites and radical environmentalists who are killing their jobs or shipping them overseas for cheap labor.
In Pennsylvania, which once was the definition of a ‘blue collar state’ that voted Democrat, rank-and-file union members have swung strongly toward president Trump as he fights to bring jobs back from overseas. One Pennsylvania woman recently told Joe Biden that she looks out over her Biden yard sign and sees “a sea of Trump signs”. This is not an exaggeration.
On the other hand, most union bosses support Biden since they are the union elite; their power and wealth comes from the elite left. Rank-and-file union members are the ones moving toward Trump. With the weakening of union power, dissenters no longer face the threats, intimidation and violence that they once faced.
Politico reports: “(Trump) has a very, very, very solid foundation of our members,” said James Williams, a vice president of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, whose surveys of members painted a similar picture. …
Trump’s support in some unions could provide an opening for him in the Midwest, particularly in the key Rust Belt states that powered Trump’s victory in 2016 — Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin — where union voters have a sizable impact. Roughly one in six voters nationwide is either a union member or comes from a union household, according to a Gallup Poll earlier this month, and that number rises to more than one in four in states like Michigan.
Nikitas3.com comment: Notice Politico’s bias in the face of facts, saying that “Trump’s support in some unions could provide an opening for him in the Midwest”, as if he is hoping to win these heavily-unionized states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio for the first time. Yet he already won them in 2016. This is how the media subtly manipulate their wording to shape their left-wing narrative. Politico is a very liberal website; they certainly wrote only reluctantly about Trump winning over union workers.
Politico reports: Those (union) voters, historically a bedrock of Democratic support, shifted away from the party in 2016, according to exit polls. Hillary Clinton won union voters by less than half as much as former President Barack Obama had four years earlier — and that swing alone may have been enough to account for her losses in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, one analysis found. Even if Biden takes back the White House, there could be far-reaching impacts on the Democratic Party and labor movement if that trendline persists.
Nikitas3.com comment: Wow again. Hillary only won 50% of the union voters that Obama did just four years earlier. This is stunning. And Nikitas3.com believes that Trump is going to do vastly better in 2020 among union members than he did in 2016 for a variety of reasons including that he has proven his economic bona fides among skeptical union folks; and he is being significantly bolstered by his tough response to the riots in our cities which patriotic and common-sense union members find extremely alarming.
Politico reports: However, even as they praise the Democratic presidential nominee as a less-flawed candidate than Clinton, other union leaders said they fear there’s nothing they can say to the Trump supporters among their ranks to sway their opinion between now and November.
They said parts of Biden’s record, such as his past support for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), hurt him, and that some members still look to the pre-pandemic economy under Trump as a high point.
“It doesn’t seem like there’s anybody changing their minds (to turn away from Trump),” said Don Furko, president of the United Steelworkers Local 1557 in Clairton, Pennsylvania, who said the majority of his membership is backing Trump.
Samantha Zager, deputy national press secretary for the Trump campaign, said, “Throughout his 50 years in politics, Biden has consistently put special interests ahead of American workers — including in his promise to shut the economy back down if he were elected — and that’s why President Trump is seeing strong support from union members.”
Nikitas3.com comment: Millions of union members know that the NAFTA and TPP agreements screwed the American working classes, shifting millions of great jobs overseas. These voters have long memories, and they see ruined cities and shuttered plants right before their eyes as proof. These agreements are part of the Clinton-Obama-Bush globalist agenda, while president Trump is a nationalist who puts America, and US workers, first.
Nikitas3.com calculates that globalization has led to the loss of, or non-creation of 20 million manufacturing jobs in the US, which now stand at 12.5 million, compared to a peak of 19 million in 1979. Nikitas3.com calculates that if jobs had continued growing after 1979 rather than shrinking, that there would be 30 million manufacturing jobs today and we would have a huge and healthy middle class, which we don’t.
Good News – Feds are Charging Rioters with Serious Crimes
While it may appear that riots are running amok in our country, 99% of America is never seeing them in person. These riots are centered in cities and are being magnified by a riot-loving media. And while we worry that nobody is being prosecuted, that is untrue.
Federal agents are citing rioters with federal charges where local prosecutors and judges are letting them go. This is going to increase as president Trump puts the hammer down on the rioters.
These riots can be ended easily. Under federal charges these rioters can face serious jail time. Good. This will send a message to other rioters who were getting away for a few months, but no longer will.
First, look at this from The Daily Mail in Britain:
Oregon Governor Kate Brown on Friday (September 25) declared a state of emergency in Portland over the weekend due to risks of violence as thousands of members of what she called ‘white supremacist groups’ are expected to hold a rally.
Leaders of the self-described ‘Western chauvinist’ Proud Boys called Saturday’s rally to ‘end domestic terrorism’ after four months of near daily demonstrations against police violence and racism in Oregon’s largest city that have often ended in violence.
Many out-of-state demonstrators, some armed, were expected to attend the Proud Boys event in a park about six miles north of downtown, state officials said, with organizers expecting a crowd of up to 20,000, according to local television station KGW8.
OK, so this creepy left-wing governor has let ‘antifa’ and ‘black lives matter’ riot for more than 100 days with hardly a peep. But as soon as The Proud Boys, a conservative group, plans to protest peacefully, she declares a state of emergency. The reason is that she expects ‘antifa’ thugs to confront The Proud Boys and start trouble, but the real reason is that she wants to smear The Proud Boys as violent troublemakers before their rally even starts.
Meanwhile, the US Department of Justice website (DOJ.gov) reports:
The Department of Justice announced today that more than 300 individuals in 29 states and Washington, D.C., have been charged for crimes committed adjacent to or under the guise of peaceful demonstrations since the end of May.
To date, of the 94 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices (USAOs), more than 40 USAOs have filed federal charges alleging crimes ranging from attempted murder, assaulting a law enforcement officer, arson, burglary of a federally-licensed firearms dealer, damaging federal property, malicious destruction of property using fire or explosives, felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, unlawful possession of a destructive device, inciting a riot, felony civil disorder, and others. Violent opportunists have exploited these demonstrations in various ways.
Approximately 80 individuals have been charged with offenses relating to arson and explosives. Approximately 15 individuals have been charged with damaging federal property. In some instances, these individuals are alleged to have set fires to local businesses as well as city and federal property, which will regrettably incur millions of taxpayer dollars to repair damages to the Portland Courthouse, Nashville Courthouse, Minneapolis Police Third Precinct, Seattle Police East Precinct, and local high school in Minnesota; and, to replace police cruisers in South Carolina, Washington, Rhode Island, Georgia, Utah, and other states.
Approximately 35 individuals have been charged with assaulting a law enforcement officer and related offenses. One of these cases was charged in Massachusetts; the rest of these individuals were charged in Oregon. The assaults have targeted local and federal law enforcement officers. In Portland, a man is alleged to have approached a U.S. Marshals Deputy from behind and struck the deputy in the upper back, neck, and shoulder with a wooden baseball bat; another man, allegedly assaulted a Deputy U.S. Marshal with an explosive device. In Boston, a man allegedly shot at least 11 times toward officers, including a deputized federal officer.
Approximately 30 individuals have been charged with offenses related to civil disorder. In several instances, these individuals leveraged social media platforms to incite destruction and assaults against law enforcement officers. In Cleveland, two Pennsylvania men are charged with driving to the city with the intent to participate in a riot and commit acts of violence. In their possession, authorities found a black backpack containing a hammer, two containers of Sterno Firestarter Instant Flame Gel, a can of spray paint, a glass bottle of liquor with a bar-style pour top, a Glock semi-automatic firearm and two magazines loaded with ammunition. In Knoxville, one individual allegedly instructed his social media followers to, “bring hammers bricks whatever you want.” The same defendant allegedly used a trashcan lid filled with an unknown liquid to strike a law enforcement officer in the head while the officer was seated in a police vehicle.
Charges have also been filed against individuals accused of committing burglary and carjacking. In Pittsburgh, two individuals allegedly attempted to burglarize a Dollar Bank. In Louisville, two individuals were charged with conspiracy to commit burglary involving controlled substances at a local Walgreens. Another Louisville individual was charged with carjacking; at the time of the carjacking, the individual was on a felony diversion as a result of a February 2020 conviction for charges that were initially filed as complicity to murder and complicity to robbery.
Several of these charges carry significant maximum prison sentences. For example, felony assault of a federal officer with a dangerous weapon is punishable by up to 20 years in prison. Arson is punishable by up to 20 years in prison with a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison.