It’s Not Amy Coney Barrett That Gun-Grabbers Fear, It’s the Law

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett listens during a confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2020, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Sarah Silbiger/Pool via AP)

By Larry Keane

Foes against U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett lined up this week to disparage only the fifth woman nominated to the nation’s highest court. The test balloons have been floated, including attacks on her faith, her family and now, predictably, her view on gun rights.

Her foes don’t fear Judge Barrett. They fear the law.

They just know Judge Barrett will follow it. She’s vowed to faithfully apply the law as it’s written, not to twist it to a pre-determined end to satisfy a political agenda.

Political Misdirection

The gun control cabal showed their cards. Over the weekend, U.S. Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, “I’m going to be laying out the ways in which Judge Barrett’s views, her views on reaching back and reconsidering and overturning long settled precedent are not just extreme, they’re disqualifying.”

Sen. Coons went as far as to say President Donald Trump was attempting “court packing” by fulfilling his constitutional duty to nominate an appointee to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Yet, Sen. Coons was silent on former Vice President Joe Biden’s refusal to say what he would do with Democratic demands to pack the court after the election, even after Biden repeatedly dodged questions of whether voters deserve to know his intentions on court packing.

“No they don’t….” Biden said. “I’m not gonna play his game, he’d love me to talk about, and I’ve already said something on court packing, he’d love that to be the discussion instead of what he’s doing now.”

Legal Stalwart

Judge Barrett’s opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee emphasized her commitment to originalism or interpreting law as it was written.

“It was the content of Justice Scalia’s reasoning that shaped me,” Judge Barrett’s statement reads. “His judicial philosophy was straightforward: A judge must apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were. Sometimes that approach meant reaching results that he did not like.”

She added, “I believe Americans of all backgrounds deserve an independent Supreme Court that interprets our Constitution and laws as they are written. And I believe I can serve my country by playing that role.”

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett testifies during her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2020. (Leah Millis/Pool via AP)

Judge Barrett’s dissent on Kanter v Barr, in which she disagreed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, quoted Justice Thomas Alito’s opinion in McDonald v Chicago, noting the court “treats the Second Amendment as a second-class right.” This is strikingly similar language used by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch when they vented their frustration at the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant review in Peruta v California in 2017 and wrote that it “reflects a distressing trend: their treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right.”

Their Worst Fear

A fifth Supreme Court justice that is ready and willing to apply the Second Amendment as it is written is a frightening scenario for gun control advocates. It’s not that gun control fears Amy Coney Barrett. They fear that Judge Amy Coney Barrett respects the law.

Shannon Watts, who heads the billionaire-gun control mogul Michael Bloomberg’s gun control enterprise Moms Demand Action, melted down at the idea that Judge Barrett would examine legal text and commit to following the law when deciding Second Amendment opinions and any other cases. Kris Brown, of the gun control group Brady United Against Gun Violence, told NPR she had “grave concerns” of Judge Barrett’s commitment to law over ideology.

Brady Kris Brown

Kris Brown (YouTube screen grab)

CNN reported that Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, said the seating of Judge Barrett to the Supreme Court could usher in a renaissance of Second Amendment cases, despite the Court rejecting 10 pending reviews earlier this year.

“It seems likely that the confirmation of Judge Barrett would remove that uncertainty and open the pipeline to a flurry of cases, perhaps ranging from the constitutionality of criminal [non-violent] felon-in-possession statutes to large-capacity magazine bans,” Vladeck explained.

There is no shortage of cases working their way to the Supreme Court. Two cases are pending review in California, one at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, that could have profound impacts. Duncan v Becerra challenges California’s ban on standard capacity magazines, a law which was struck down by District Court Judge Roger Benitez and upheld when appealed by California’s Democratic Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

The other, Miller v Becerra, challenges California’s ban on modern sporting rifles (MSRs). Judge Benitez denied Attorney General Becerra’s motion to dismiss that case, which will move forward and be heard. Judge Benitez wrote of the law banning MSRs in his order denying dismissal.

“If ever the existence of a state statute had a chilling effect on the exercise of a constitutional right, this is it.”

Judge Barrett’s opponents don’t fear her. They fear the law and her commitment to it.

 

Larry Keane is SVP for Government and Public Affairs, Assistant Secretary and General Counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

comments

  1. avatar GunnyGene says:

    Go for the gold. Start at the top and file a case to repeal the NFA, and all subsequent gun control laws, regulations, executive orders, and ordinances at all levels of government – Fed State, and local.

    1. avatar ColoradoKid says:

      I don’t see ALL or even most of that happening, even with Judge Barrett. But we can hope, right?

    2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      That’s the end game, but you usually can’t bring out your Queen and topple the opponent’s King in a single move. The current state of affairs with the myriad gun control laws and confusion (are you hearing this, ATF?) is like a game of chess that has already been in play, and the pieces are all over the board. To successfully and decisively win in a manner than is clear to everyone, the pieces must move a few more times to advantageous positions.

      Then the final strike can be committed. I look forward to the day…

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “To successfully and decisively win in a manner than is clear to everyone, the pieces must move a few more times to advantageous positions.”

        That’s pretty much how LKB laid it out to me a few days back. One. Step. At. A. Time.

        Yeah, it’s frustrating, but we will have the opportunity to give the 2A “the respect it deserves” as Alito and St. Thomas believe.

        And if what Strych9 believes comes to pass (that Trump wins again) the sky is the limit. I’d really like to see the Hughes amendment struck down, since select-fire is already heavily regulated.

        And when the NFA SBRs and SBSs are finally struck down, I hope a gunmaker introduces an RGB model in celebration… *snicker* 😉

        1. avatar Truth Teller says:

          Geoff the Goof has never known the pleasures of a woman.

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          …and Hail is curiously affixed on the idea of Geoff’s pleasures, mentioning it over and over again.

          I think Freud said something about that…

        3. avatar Geoff "Trolls, the other white meat" PR says:

          It’s ‘projection’, Haz. The little numb-nuts isn’t getting any and is venting. If he ever figures out that all he has to do is talk to a real woman, he just *might* get some.

          But no, here sits and *seethes* in impotent rage, because there isn’t shit he can do, and he knows it… *snicker* 😉

      2. avatar MarkPA says:

        I agree with your view wholeheartedly. SCOTUS will move slowly on 2A cases. And, that might – in fact – work in our favor. We want to win lots of cases; and, with each one, stake-out the metes and bounds of “the right” which “shall not be infringed”.

        As each successive tier of judicial bricks is laid one on top of another we build a strong wall that becomes successively more difficult to knock over with a subsequent case.

        Should those pressing cases over-reach the range of their target we risk losing a case. Or, we risk wining with a holding that isn’t thoroughly reasoned or isn’t as strong as we would like to see.

        To illustrate, we believe that there is a right to carry; and, that there is a right to carry broadly outside the home. If there is a right to carry broadly outside the home then there is a right to carry. So, logically, the latter is a “bigger bite” of the apple.

        Suppose we have a case for carry in a post office. We’d like to win that case. Now, suppose we got it to SCOTUS and we couldn’t get a ruling that there is a right to carry in a post office. Or, that we won a right to carry in a post office but not a right to carry, necessarily, anywhere else. Neither is a desirable outcome.

        It would be better to win a case on a right to carry outside the home but irrespective of where. Then, to win a case for a right to carry in a car on the highways and streets. Then, a right to carry in the town square. Once all these rights are won, we would have a better chance of winning the right to carry in a post office. It would seem a bit odd to have a right to carry outside the post office but to forfeit the right to carry inside the post office.

        The opinion writing process in SCOTUS is one of negotiation among the 9 justices. Or, more importantly, among the 5+ justices who are in the majority. We can see this in Heller. It was something of a miracle that Scalia could write an opinion in that case keeping Kennedy within the Pro-2A fold; rather than the alternative. He might have flipped to the Anti-2A fold. Likely, to keep Kennedy on-board, Scalia had to write the “presumptively legal” and “in common use” statements in Heller.

        What most of us fail to understand is that these objectionable “presumptively legal” and “in common use” statements are mere “dicta”. They mean nothing more than any subsequent court wishes to make of them. Compared to: individual right; handgun; operable; self-defense, the dicta statements are nonsense.

        In Heller, we secured the 2A as an individual right. That is a cornerstone. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to dislodge that stone in a future decision. Self-defense as well. Handgun is important since it is most useful for self-defense; it gets us beyond the Miller doctrine of arms for military purposes. That arms must be operable. That makes self-defense practicable.

        Seemingly, Heller mattered almost not-at-all inasmuch as it had nothing to do with the 50 states of the union! Yet, from Heller, it was just one small step for Mr. McDonald to reach Chicago and the 50 states.

        Then, well, then nothing for firearms. Yet, let’s not forget our sister-in-arms, Ms Jamie Caetano. Her humble stun-gun. That gave us a UNANIMOUS SCOTUS 2A ruling. The 2A is not just for muskets anymore. Any Modern Sporting Rifle owners out there?

        By Halloween, we should have 5 originalists on SCOTUS. That’s what we need. That will suffice to give us a series of rulings, each building on the previous one, which secure “the right” of “the People” “to keep and bear arms” from “infringement”. And, it is that last word which is critical.

        1. avatar Geoff "Trolls, the other white meat" PR says:

          “In Heller, we secured the 2A as an individual right. That is a cornerstone. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to dislodge that stone in a future decision.”

          Do you not recall hearing Hillary say in her 2016 campaign that ‘Heller’ was wrongly decided, and her SCOTUS judge pics would support that opinion?

          The very first chance they have to gut the 2A, they will take it. And they will proclaim that overturning Heller, et.all, will be just as righteous as when ‘Dred Scott’ was overturned.

          An armed citizenry is a grave threat to Leftist politics…

        2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          This might even give hope to the “but muh bumpstock” crowd…

        3. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          @Madd,

          I don’t have a bumpstock, but I might want one someday. Just because.

          Like if/when we finally get our ridiculous CA mag ban overturned permanently, I’ll want to get a drum mag. Or two. Do I need one? Nope. But I’ll get one anyway. Just because.

        4. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          But I’ll get one anyway. Just because.

          And I honestly hope you get the opportunity to own those drum mags AND that bump stock should that be your desire….. I just want my homebuilt burst fire AR to be legalized without all the bullshit…

    3. avatar BLAMMO!! says:

      Maybe the reason so many 2A case are appealed that high is because there are so many infringements at all levels, and have been for so long. Thus, it being considered a lesser right. Legislatures will go as far as they can. Until they can’t.

      1. avatar RandomNYer says:

        It is just absolutely shocking the degree the 2A is culturally relevant, but how little it actually protects in settled law. Why have gun controllers been so afraid to actually test the waters? I think there are comparatively few national gun laws because no gun controllers actually want to find out what the 2A covers. They want to kick the legal side of gun control as far down the road as far as possible and purge out gun culture first. Remember the whole “make gun (culture) like smoking” thing? That is the real goal. Hence why increasing taxes on guns and ammunition is a popular one in gun control circles- it destroys the culture. They adamantly believe they’re on the right side of history and their opponents have an inevitable extinction coming up that just needs to be hastened along. They can always wait for that opportune moment so that when it comes their victory is irreversible.

  2. avatar Debbie W. says:

    “treats the Second Amendment as a second-class right.” This is strikingly similar language used by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch when they vented their frustration at the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant review in Peruta v California in 2017 and wrote that it “reflects a distressing trend: their treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right.”

    Unlike the above Justices who respect The Constitution some jackazz judges show no concern for the fact that Gun Control is rooted racism and genocide so they side with a racist and nazi based agenda. Such jackazz judges have no business whatsoever being judges.

    TRUMP/PENCE 2020.

    1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      And for some reason the Second is a kinda of a right, almost, but not exactly.

      1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

        And for some reason the Second is a kinda of a right, almost, but not exactly.

        The 2nd Amendment does NOT infer any rights, it merely sustains the argument that ALL people have a “natural” (God given if you prefer) right to protect and defend their lives, liberty and property….

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          “. . .it merely sustains the argument that ALL people have a “natural” (God given if you prefer) right . . . “`

          For better or for worse, this statement is patently false. The 2A secures that right exclusively for “the People”. Aliens need not apply.

          If you are an alien, and not a permanent resident, then you may appeal to God; but not to SCOTUS for your right to keep and bear arms.

          Don’t blame me for being a textualist; take up your complaint with Mr. Madison.

          What, if anything, should we wish to make of this textual fact?

          The point, if any, is probably the disparate impact upon aliens both within and outside the US. What ought to be Congressional policy with respect to these classes of persons? Ought we to disarm the victims of MS-13 thugs? Those who dwell among us? Those who dwell abroad?

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      They believe that they are ruling in favor of public safety, and that guns are a threat to all. They view the police state as something desirable, as it supposedly prevents murder and mayhem, and that a disarmed society is a safer society. They ignore research that concludes otherwise. This is the necessary consequence of the so-called “intermediate scrutiny” standard now applied in the liberal circuits, a standard that grants the State a virtual trump card over the assertion of constitutional rights.

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        They ignore REALITY that proves otherwise.

        Mexico should prove what happens when the people are disarmed at a national level.

  3. avatar enuf says:

    Barrett will be a benefit to defending the Second Amendment and restoring rights. That’s a good thing, delighted to see it.

    On health care, everyone should be worried. Be it the affordable care act, insurance for the young, per-existing conditions, or if a pregnant woman who has miscarried and her body is not self-aborting the dead child within her.

    Yes, that shit happens. Contrary to the lies, that shit is real.

    1. avatar Aaron says:

      D&C procedure is not an abortion, but is common after an abortion.

    2. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

      Pre existing conditions were always a red herring. The vast majority of Americans get insurance through their employer and those employers negotiate for coverage of pre existing conditions when they select an insurance provider.

      The only time I have ever had an issue regarding preexisting conditions was after the enactment of the (un)Affordable Care Act which was supposed to eliminate the problem I did not have.

      1. avatar Hush says:

        Insurance companies equate covering “preexisting” conditions as buying a claim. Would you buy a car if the dealer told you it had some transmission problems? Well, insurance companies don’t want to issue a policy knowing certain conditions exist and that claims will certainly occur.
        The idea of covering preexisting conditions is not insurance or not in the traditional sense that insurance is for things that may happen at a future date. Covering preexisting conditions is merely a way to have someone else(insurance companies) pay for conditions that began in the past and still exist in the present.

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        Well, to be clear, the pre-existing condition exclusion is still present but voided if you have continuous coverage. If you have a gap in coverage, e.g. when you got laid off and coverage terminated, the policies typically provide a waiting period of anywhere from 90 days to 6 months before there is coverage for that condition. Since states closely regulate and govern the contents of insurance policies, there is nothing preventing states from mandating the removal of the clause.

    3. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      @enuf,

      You said something that is a common misconception among many these days.

      Insurance is a hedge against a future possibility. A pre-existing condition cannot, therefore, be insured against. Treating an existing condition is called healthcare.

      It’s a ploy of the Left to conflate the two. There is no such thing as insurance that covers existing conditions.

      1. avatar enuf says:

        Having dealt with these problems personally and for members of my family, what you say is nonsense and not the reality Americans live with every day.

        It does not matter what you think it is, it matters what insurance companies call it, and can get away with calling it, under the law.

        1. avatar enuf is Enough says:

          @enuf “Contrary to the lies”

          Except for Minor’s lies, who is an [email protected]@hole provocateur (the more people he can anger the harder he FAP’S it), your lies are just plain dumb.

          enuf “On health care, everyone should be worried” …How much CNN do you watch? Most people are covered by private insurance, and then Medicare and Medicaid, the ACA covers approximately 8 million.

          ***But then you are voting for two people who said they are giving free health care to anyone who crosses the boarder.*** What will that do the health care system enuf? Serious question, try and answer it.

          Three days ago you blamed Trump for the deep state in the ATF. Watch Colion Noir’s interview (included below) with the SB Brace creator for the truth. (I doubt you will, ignorance is one of your defining traits).

          Two days ago you blamed Trump for the 200,000 deaths in the U.S. from Covid, ignoring the fact that China intentionally released the virus (by allowing international travel) and it is a global pandemic with over 1.1 million dead (likely higher as China ‘surprisingly’ fudges its numbers).

          All that stupid from you in just 3 days, but hey ignorance is bliss, right?

          https://youtu.be/jJEHb5H37Do?t=579

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          @enuf,

          Then I recommend you take that logic and apply it to any other industry for which insurance is purchased. Home, mortgage, automobile, life, etc.

          No “insurance” company will pay for damages to your vehicle that exist when you purchase a policy. Or for a mortgage that you’ve already defaulted on. Or for a death that has already occurred. If you find any entity willing to enter into a contract for such things, they’d be called something else, but certainly not “insurance” because the events already happened and are therefore existing conditions.

          When you break a bone and need to go to the doctor for treatment, the injury has already happened and it’s called healthcare. If you wish to financially protect yourself against the possibility of another future injury, you purchase insurance for it.

          Rather simply concepts, really.

        3. avatar NoHail! says:

          How dare you besmirch the great ‘I Haz A Question’. His logic is as unassailable as his home/fortress which, lest ye forget ‘has a natural killbox.’ And don’t worry…if you do forget, he’ll remind you in one of his necessary, relevant posts.

        4. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Hail,

          I’m impressed…I haven’t mentioned that in quite a while (months?), yet you remember it. That means you’ve been paying attention and take everything I say to heart.

          Almost makes me want to cry.

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        A pre-existing condition means simply that you have a chronic ailment, it does not mean that that ailment has been cured. So when you do have a chronic condition, such as diabetes, heart disease, or cancer, you have health care needs NOW, and therefore you are not insuring against a past event but very real current medical issues. Say for example you have heart disease for years, but after changing policies you have a heart attack and are hospitalized. The pre-existing exclusion has a catastrophic economic consequence. You are the one who has a misconception….

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Private insurance in an open market handles such events. If you are diagnosed with an existing condition (say, heart disease, as you mention above), then the insurance company’s actuarial tables calculate the prevailing rates for coverage of a potential heart attack. The condition exists, but the covered event would be a future occurrence. No company would “insure” you for a heart attack you already had.

          What people are decrying is the largely unaffordable rates for severe chronic pre-existing conditions. But then, as I mentioned already, such calculations are already made in any other insurance industry. If you have a Ferrari and are a 40-yr-old male living in Los Angeles, you’ll pay a higher premium than if you’re 65 with an excellent record and own a Honda Accord. They’re both coverable, but greater risks involve greater premiums. The masses understandably don’t want to pay sky-high health insurance premiums, but this is the world we now live in after decades of health providers billing exorbitant charges to insurance companies for standard procedures, who simply pass along the costs to customers in the form of higher premiums.

          Insurance and healthcare are related, but not the same. Never have been. The problem is that many people today want them to be.

        2. avatar Hush says:

          I Haz A Question said it best, “Insurance is a hedge against a future possibility. A pre-existing condition cannot, therefore, be insured against. Treating an existing condition is called healthcare.”
          Healthcare and insurance are not synonymous.

    4. avatar Debbie W. says:

      enuf…After all your slander, libel and calling the POTUS “excrement” it’s mighty white of you to find some delight in all of that. Of course your vote in 16 went to hilliary rotten clintoon and that makes you a self serving back benching pos non participant in the nomination of .50 Cal Amy Barrett.

      Here’s how obamacare works…You go into a hospital ICU and you will been seen as either the glass being half full or half empty so to speak. Half full individuals are generally younger and get more concern because a malpractice suit is based on their income loss over the remainder of their lifetime. Whereas elderly individuals on a fixed income are generally seen as half empty and their potential income is not so much thus fear of a reward in a malpractice suit barely factors in with the quality of care the half empties receive. And sloppy care usually gets a pass.
      If you are elderly like Joan Rivers was with lots of potential income lost due to malpractice then you or your family sees justice. All others get the death panel treatment inherent with obamacare.

      TRUMP/PENCE 2020.

      1. avatar bob says:

        Wifes been running ICU’s for decades now.

        The care you receive has nothing to do with how you pay. Family members are a much bigger threat to your care than insurance companies are. Please don’t degrade our healthcare workers by making it sound like they only give the good care to the wealthy and the poor receive dirt care. These men and women are under extreme stress daily as it is, and that’s on a good day pre covid.
        I have heard the same said about our ambulance service, that we rush and care for ones that pay well but don’t respond to ones that don’t pay, that is complete crap, we have no way to know how we we’ll be paid until all the billing is done later.
        How insurance companies or healthcare companies pay later however is a different story.

  4. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

    in the safety rule book that i and my work peers are expected to adhere to, any critical behaviors that are to be exercised absolutely are expressed utilizing the term shall. infringements are fireable offenses.
    in the bill of rights, not so much.

  5. avatar MADDMAXX says:

    They don’t fear the law, they have been nibbling at the edges of the law for decades, what they really fear is an awakening populace becoming aware of their fraudulent use of a “stacked” liberal Supreme Court to cover their asses and now for the first time in all those decades we will finally have a truly Constitutionalist Court that will endeavor to uphold the words as “written” and not as whatever they think the words “really” mean… I see a lot of 5-4 decisions favoring the Constitution as written with Roberts playing his RINO games and siding with those that want to construct rather than uphold…

  6. avatar LastOfTheOldOnes says:

    GO AMY BARRETT!!!
    I say KILL Obozocare.

    This “affordable” care act is costing me $1,017 per month for my 64 year old wife, and that’s AFTER the gubment kicks in $792 ….

    I’m retired, and this sucks the big one.

    THANKS OBOZOASS AND NANCY PIGLOSI AND ALL LIBERALS THAT VOTED THEIR SORRY ASSES IN…
    Hopefully none of you will be able to get any healthcare soon enough….

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      I have a similar circumstance, and at $1000 a month, I have foregone insurance for several years. Obamacare provided no relief at all. There is only ONE health care insurer who provides individual policies in my area. Fortunately, my wife was on disability before turning 65, so insurance was in3epensive, and I turn 65 next year.

  7. avatar former water walker says:

    Yep they fear ACB. If and when she is confirmed we’ll see if she fulfills her promise or becomes an unpredictable squish like Roberts and Kavanaugh. The “law” is never a concern…”shall not be infringed” is a joke to dims.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      To Progressives (and their former guise of Socialists and Communists), ideology always overrules LAW. More extreme versions have ideology overruling reality and even laws of physics and nature.

      And if water does not run uphill, execute the laborers for sabotage.

  8. avatar C.S. says:

    ACB in some ways just became the most powerful woman in the world.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      I hope that her presence on the Court to end the former 4-1-4 balance will invalidate whatever leverage the Deep State actors have been holding on Roberts to make him “squishy”, allowing him to vote properly on future cases instead of bending.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        We”ll see if a case is granted cert. or not.

        And I suppose if the Leftists go full-apeshit that will be an indicator of quality, as well… 😉

  9. avatar Mjd says:

    It’s not just the gun grabbers that hate the Constitution. Most of the left want the Constitution to be a” living document “. I say come on over to my house and we will have a living rules poker night.

  10. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    When atheist’s attack a person over their religion. It tells me they don’t support civil rights. And I’m not just talking about someone who simply disagrees with a belief in god. The atheist’s are really big supporters of the Welfare Industrial Complex. Because they hate private church welfare. And its requirements for person self control.

    Whenever I hear some one call this the “military industrial complex speech”, it tells me they have never listened to the entire speech. They have chosen to be stupid. It would be great if the Libertarians Liberals and the Left would call for the ending of federal money for education. Especially for colleges with endowments worth BILLIONS of $$$ for a single school. But that will never happen.

    “The enemy of the United States is atheistic in character.”

    “Eisenhower Farewell Address (Best Quality) – ‘Military Industrial Complex’ WARNING” video 16 min long

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Which is ironic because the former People’s Socialist Democratic Republic of East Germany was heavily reliant on religious charities to provide where the state welfare could not. In particular with care of the elderly. Only retired senior party members were supported in their old age by the state.

  11. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    That’s right,Leftards not using a functioning thinking reasoning thought processes,they are ruled by emotion and fear,are and should be very afraid of the wording and meaning of the 2 nd. amendment as written.

    If one goes strictly by the wording each and every gun control law is un Constitutional,as in “Shall Not Be Infringed”.

  12. avatar RidgeRunner says:

    ACB has an impressive intellect, she is literally running circles around these Democrats who are trying, unsuccessfully, to trip her up. The Democrats look really bad, and to me it looks like they’ve pretty much given up, at least on this phase of the confirmation. Judge Barrett is my new favorite badass, I’m proud to be part of a movement that supports people like her. Her influence, with Kavanaugh, will last decades, and this process is also shining a really negative light on the whole “court-packing” concept. I truly think people are going to vote against this possibility, fair-minded Americans don’t like it. The scheming of the left, this whole plot to overthrow Trump and stage a coup that’s coming out, is really exposing the Democrats for what they are: anti-American. What they accuse the Right of is what they’re doing, every time. Beyond that, the rioting, tearing down statues, burning, promoting all white people are evil racists, all of this, is a huge motivating factor for many Americans. Even traditional blue-dogs don’t approve. The other side is completely lacking in energy, they have no motive other than “get Trump out,” they’re not voting FOR somebody, they’re voting AGAINST somebody. The blue dogs are unenthusiastic and there are not enough commies to carry the day. There’s a lot of hate out there on the Left, but there is also a lot of love for the American way of life, and love trumps hate hate every time. For the first time in a long time it feels like the tide has turned and the good guys are winning.
    It’s not about Trump vs. Biden. It’s about America.

    1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

      ACB has an impressive intellect, she is literally running circles around these Democrats who are trying, unsuccessfully, to trip her up.

      Trip her up, piss her off, get a rise (they eventually got to Kavanaugh) but all they do is put their ignorance (and jealousy “Klobuchar”) on display with stupid shit like Mrs. Barrett are YOU a sexual predator? (that did get a look of disbelief for our soon to be newest Associate Justice…

    2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “The Democrats look really bad, and to me it looks like they’ve pretty much given up, at least on this phase of the confirmation.”

      They’re fucked, and they know it, on this confirmation. They don’t have the votes to stop it, and if they pull a Kavanaugh on her of outrageous charges, they risk really pissing us off this close to the election, and that could tip the result our way.

      Personally, I’m *loving* how it’s turning out. This is a serious opportunity to stomp on the brakes of out-of-control Leftism in general, and they know it.

      I fully expect another senate baseball game type of attack by a nutjob Bernie Bro in response. I can imagine they way they will treat her children in the DC area, and it will be *vile*…

  13. avatar possum says:

    Adios TTAG

    1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      adios ttak. the zombified sight has finally been purged.

    2. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      was that the last gasping text as the marsupilal went under a freightliner?

    3. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      there is something undignified about being taken out by a retread. verve would be a sport demon or metronic.

    4. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “Adios TTAG”

      Don’t go, Possum!

      1. avatar Ned Pepper says:

        His tree lost its internet connection.

      2. avatar jwm says:

        Are we even sure this is the real possum?

        1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          I didn’t know he could speak Swahili….

  14. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Wow, this lady impresses me more and more during these grillings.
    (Judge Barrett, not that harpy Watts)

    She is judge Scalia’s reincarnation. I don’t know if there could be a better pick.
    His quote, “The Constitution says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say” is ringing true with her answers.

    The blank notepad stunned me, impressed me, and caused me to smile and nod.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email