Federalist Columnist Highlights Upside of Choosing Barrett

Latest Polls (view all)

Under the cover of Covid, and now in the shadow of the infamous Election Irregularities of that fated 2020 presidential election, with current emerging alleged election fraud in Nevada and Pennsylvania inconveniently slipping into the public discourse, there is proved a colluded ongoing Election Interference in the nomination of the Republican candidate, the likes of which has never occurred in our Constitutional Republic's history, albeit, the question remains: Do you support the plain-sight Election Interference of the Democratic Socialist party, employing its minions in their Propagandistic Media, and their Two Tiered Justice System?

98.13% No, I do not support Election Interference; I am a patriot unto our Constitution.

0.93% Yes, I do support Election Interference; the alternative, Donald Trump, to this mentally diminished president is far worse.

0.93% "What, me worry" if elections are rigged?

Click Here to Vote
107 Vote(s)

View all Polls

Federalist Columnist Highlights Upside of Choosing Barrett

Published: Tuesday, September 29th, 2020 @ 9:03 am
By: John Locke Foundation ( More Entries )

Publisher's Note: This post appears here courtesy of the John Locke Foundation. The author of this post is Mitch Kokai.

Sumantra Maitra writes for the Federalist about the potential benefits for President Trump of nominating a particular candidate for the open U.S. Supreme Court seat.

It is said that when Napoleon was presented with the credentials of a general, he asked, "I know that he is good, but is he lucky?" The phrase might be apocryphal, but it is by no means wrong. One need not believe in the concept of fortune to be fortunate.

On that note, President Donald Trump might be considered fortunate, presented with another opportunity to shape the future with his third nomination to the Supreme Court. With the new vacancy, Trump has also provided social scientists an opportunity to test several academic theories about future political alignments.

For starters, there's nothing Democrats can gain from this scenario. If a caustic confirmation ensues, it would be a rehash of the Brett Kavanaugh episode, which would galvanize Republicans. If there's a nomination but no confirmation and then a lame-duck session, it would spur Republicans to vote for Trump for a future confirmation. If riots break out, they would most definitely stir Republicans to vote. ...

... The nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett would advance those cultural battle lines. If one needs to be genuinely democratic, he or she should be clear about convictions and proudly put forward the alternative to the dilettante technocratic centrism that has been in practice. The public loves clear choices, and the public prefers leaders who act, instead of managers who hedge bets. ...

... Coney Barrett is tough on crime, is against campus kangaroo courts, and is an originalist who would follow the letter of the law to the last word. According to her own words, she would not be deterred from making tough decisions. Her nomination should give the public a clear choice, even if the confirmation does not proceed prior to the election.

Go Back