The Daily Hatch | www.TheDailyHatch.org with Everette Hatcher

Time 2020-10-19 16:04:04

Web Name: The Daily Hatch | www.TheDailyHatch.org with Everette Hatcher

WebSite: http://thedailyhatch.org

ID:87315

Keywords:

Hatch,www,The,

Description:

Another film recommendation: @trialofchicago7 on Netflix. A powerful film with riveting acting about an important time in US history: 1968, with an illegal war abroad and the country at war with many of its citizens at home. Lessons worth remembering so it is not repeated.An almost palpable air of chaos calls to us from more than half a century ago in Aaron Sorkin’s “The Trial of the Chicago 7,” streaming on Netflix. Then, as now, an angry, frightened nation was beset by political and social divisions. We recognize all too readily the tumult preceding the trial, demonstrators and cops facing off in the streets of Chicago during the 1968 Democratic convention. The riots that followed evoke our worst nightmares. If the trial proceedings seem so bizarre as to beggar belief, we certainly grasp the central issue—whether the defendants had exercised their right to free speech and peaceful protest against the Vietnam War, or conspired to incite violence during the convention. Mr. Sorkin’s film is sometimes eloquent, and sustained for the most part by his flair for hyperverbal entertainment. Yet it also diminishes its aura of authenticity with dubious inventions, and muddles its impact by taking on more history than it can handle.The trial alone would have been a challenge to convey in the course of a single feature—it lasted almost six months. And the proceedings, based on transcripts, are intercut with densely detailed flashbacks to the riots via re-enactments and archival footage, plus dramatizations of defense and prosecution strategy sessions outside the courtroom. The movie seems overlong at 129 minutes. (Phedon Papamichael did the excellent cinematography. The production was designed by Shane Valentino.)As descriptions of the event always note, it began as a trial of the Chicago 8, since the Black Panther leader Bobby Seale was included as a defendant, even though he was not involved in the protests near the convention. (He’s a forceful presence in the film, as played by Yahya Abdul-Mateen II.) His case was eventually severed for a separate trial, but only after Seale’s outbursts provoked the shocking spectacle of his being chained and gagged at the instruction of the judge, Julius J. Hoffman. Frank Langella portrays Hoffman without commenting on him, no small achievement in the case of a jurist who quickly grew infamous for his capricious behavior, his bias for the prosecution and his inability to control his courtroom in the face of the defendants’ disruptions. Mark Rylance is similarly canny in dialing back the volatility of the radical defense attorney William Kunstler.The trial was political theater, and Mr. Sorkin’s script capitalizes on its theatricality, though his direction isn’t always up to the task. In between moments of turmoil, confrontation or flamboyant clowning, the tone turns stolid, even dull; some scenes end with inexplicable thuds.Eddie Redmayne is an oddly bland choice as Tom Hayden, more preppy than prickly in the role of the radical leader and relentless strategist who deplores the gleefully anarchic approach to antiwar protest taken by two of his fellow defendants, the so-called Yippies Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman. (The latter was no relation to the judge, as the other Hoffman took pains to make clear, declaring from the bench that “he is not my son.”) They’re played respectively by Jeremy Strong, who brings irony, even melancholy to his role, and Sacha Baron Cohen, a bold choice who proves to be a memorable one. Mr. Cohen doesn’t quite get the Massachusetts accent, but his agility as a comic actor gives him the key to Hoffman’s quicksilver intelligence, while the script gives him the wit and complexity to make Hoffman the movie’s most intriguing character.Some script choices are questionable, or worse. By all accounts the prosecutor Richard Schultz (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) was unswervingly conservative, and considered a government attack dog at the time, yet Mr. Sorkin gives him covert liberal sympathies. At trial’s end the real-life Tom Hayden, invited by the judge to make a statement, spoke with calm and clarity of his generation’s imperative for political action. Mr. Sorkin makes him the centerpiece of an emotional Hollywood ending by giving him a rhetorical gesture so implausibly elaborate, not to mention shamelessly melodramatic, that it leaves you wondering how much license has been taken elsewhere in a movie that seems to play fast but reasonably tight with its facts.By now docudramas are a venerable genre, and a valuable tool, despite their simplifications, for exploring significant events of the past or recent present. No wonder Mr. Sorkin has said he wanted his film to be not so much about the riots of 1968 or the trial of 1969 as about right now. Yet then was then and right now is a singular time, a period of unprecedented peril that requires us to distinguish between reality and the bombardments of the media surround. That’s not to suggest that “The Trial of the Chicago 7” doesn’t have historical value, which it does, or that it isn’t enjoyable, which it is, at least in fits and starts—only to say that it’s a movie, not an instruction manual, and should be treated with appropriate caution.Ocasio-Cortez also appeared bothered by what she saw as “gender dynamics” at work during the debate, in which Pence was the only male participant. She accused Pence of demanding answers for the questions he posed to Harris, while trying to avoid directly answering questions put to him by the debate moderator, Susan Page of USA Today.The vice president also accused Biden and Harris of wanting to steer the U.S. away from traditional energy sources and ban fracking – a process that has helped contribute to the nation’s resurgence in the energy sector but has been a divisive topic among Democrats, who are split between the economic benefits of the process and what many see as its potentially harmful environmental impact.​Amy Coney Barrett was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in November 2017. She serves on the faculty of the Notre Dame Law School, teaching on constitutional law, federal courts, and statutory interpretation, and previously served on the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. She earned her bachelor’s degree from Rhodes College in 1994 and her J.D. from Notre Dame Law School in 1997. Following law school, Barrett clerked for Judge Laurence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court. She also practiced law with Washington, D.C. law firm Miller, Cassidy, Larroca Lewin.I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun controland issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]ByEverette Hatcher III| Posted inFrancis Schaeffer,Prolife|Edit|Comments (3)I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun controland issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]ByEverette Hatcher III| Posted inFrancis Schaeffer,Prolife|Edit|Comments (2)I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun controland issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]ByEverette Hatcher III| Posted inFrancis Schaeffer,Prolife|Edit|Comments (0) SWITCHFOOT sings COLDPLAY song YELLOW (then testimony from JohnForeman) ———Viva La VidaPublished on Jun 23, 2012 by TheRyanj64Coldplay s Viva La Vida at American Airlines Center in Dallas on June 22, 2012__________Coldplay brought confetti, lights and thousands of fans to the American Airlines Center; see photos from their colorful showChris Martin was brought up as an evangelical Christian but he left the faith once he left his childhood home. However, there are been some actions in his life in the last few years that demonstrate that he still is grappling with his childhood Chistian beliefs. This is the third part of a series I am starting on this subject. Today we will look at how the Bible has influenced the lyrics of Viva La Vida. (There are many interpretations of this song on the web.)On June 23, 2012 my son Wilson and I got to attend a Coldplay Concert in Dallas. It was great. We drove down from our home in Little Rock, Arkansas earlier in the day. Viva La Vida was one of our favorite songs that did that night.Here is an article I wrote a couple of years ago about Chris Martin s view of hell. He says he does not believe in it but for some reason he writes a song that teaches that it exists:Chris Martin of the rock group Coldplay wrote the song Viva La Vida, and the song just won both the grammy for the Song of the Year and Best Pop Performance by a duo or Group with Vocals. In this song, Martin is discussing an evil king that has been disposed. I used to rule the world Feel the fear in my enemy s eyes there was never an honest word and that was when I ruled the world, It was the wicked and wild wind, Blew down the doors to let me in, Shattered windows and the sound of drums, People couldn t believe what I d become For some reason I can t explain, I know Saint Peter won t call my name,  Never an honest word, But that was when I ruled the world. Q Magazine asked Chris Martin about the lyric in this song I know Saint Peter won t call my name. Martin replied, It s about You re not on the list. I was a naughty boy. Its always fascinated me that idea of finishing your life and then being analyzed on it That is the most frightening thing you could possibly say to somebody. Eternal damnation. I know about this stuff because I studied it. I was into it all. I know it. It s mildly terrifying to me. And this is serious. I have been following the career of Chris Martin for the last decade. He grew up in a Christian home that believed in Heaven and Hell, but made it clear several years ago that he actually resents those who hold to those same religious dogmatic views he did as a youth. Yet it seems his view on the possibility of an afterlife has changed again.Chris Martin is a big Woody Allen movie fan like I am and no other movie better demonstrates the need for an afterlife than Allen s 1989 film  Crimes and Misdemeanors.  It is  about a eye doctor who hires a killer to murder his mistress because she continually threatens to blow the whistle on his past questionable, probably illegal, business activities. Afterward he is haunted by guilt. His Jewish father had taught him that God sees all and will surely punish the evildoer.But the doctor s crime is never discovered. Later in the film, Judah reflects on the conversation his father had with Judah s unbelieving Aunt May during a Jewish Sedar dinner  many years ago: Come on Sol, open your eyes. Six million Jews burned to death by the Nazi s, and they got away with it because might makes right, says Aunt May.Sol replies, May, how did they get away with it? Judah asks, If a man kills, then what? Sol responds to his son, Then in one way or another he will be punished. Aunt May comments, I say if he can do it and get away with it and he chooses not to be bothered by the ethics, then he is home free. Judah s final conclusion was that might did make right. He observed that one day, because of this conclusion, he woke up and the cloud of guilt was gone. He was, as his aunt said, home free. The basic question Woody Allen is presenting to his own agnostic humanistic worldview is: If you really believe there is no God there to punish you in an afterlife, then why not murder if you can get away with it?  The secular humanist worldview that modern man has adopted does not work in the real world that God has created. God has planted eternity in the human heart  (Ecclesiastes 3:11). This is a direct result of our God-given conscience. The apostle Paul said it best in Romans 1:19, For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God  has shown it to them (Amplified Version).It s no wonder, then, that one of Allen s fellow humanists would comment, Certain moral truths such as do not kill, do not steal, and do not lie do have a special status of being not just mere opinion but bulwarks of humanitarian action. I have no intention of saying, I think Hitler was wrong. Hitler WAS wrong. (Gloria Leitner, A Perspective on Belief,  The Humanist, May/June 1997, pp.38-39). Here Leitner is reasoning from her God-givne conscience and not from humanist philosophy. It wasn t long before she received criticism. Humanist Abigail Ann Martin responded, Neither am I an advocate of Hitler; however, by whose criteria is he evil? (The Humanist, September/October 1997, p. 2.). Humanists don t really have an intellectual basis for saying that Hitler was wrong, but their God-given conscience tells them that they are wrong on this issue.Evidently  Chris Martin who said he resented dogmatic religious views a few years ago, has now written a grammy winning song that pictures an evil king being punished in an afterlife. Could it be that his God-given conscience prompted him to put that line in? Or do men like Hitler get off home free as Woody Allen suggested in Crimes and Misdemeanors?________Even though Chris Martin says he does not believe in hell in this discussion below with Howard Stern he writes Viva La Vida (seen in clip at beginning of this post) where the bad king goes to hell. Again his childhood biblical views are coming out again.On the Howard Stern Show Chris Martin was questioned about his religious beliefs on November 9, 2011:CM: I was raised very religious.HS: I know that. What religion?CM: I am not really sure. People kept asking me that.HS: You were studying religion but you don t know what it was.CM: It was Christian, but there are so many branches of that now. I don t know which branch we were on.HS: Are you a religious man?CM: Not any more religious. I believe I am a spiritual guy I guess.HS: Do you believe there is a heaven and a hell.CM:There definately is not a hell. That is what made me stop being religious.HS: Would you take your children to church or do you want them to get religious training?CM: No. I think it is important to show that there is all these kinds of religions and this person believes that and you can believe whatever you want.HS: What do you do if you want your children to get religious training and you want them to embrace all religions and get the concept of God? Where would take your kids to learn that?CM:That is a good question. I have been doing it in the nihilist approach and I haven t been taking them anywhere.HS: So they are not going to be raised in any religious way.CM: Not in any strict religious way, no . Religion is not the same as having faith is it. Faith is different right. I am not saying I don t believe in anything. I not saying that it has to be this and if you believe something else then the other person is going to hell and all that crap.HS: I am with you on that.Related posts:Chris Martin of Coldplay unknowingly lives out his childhood Christian beliefs (Part 8 of notes from June 23, 2012 Dallas Coldplay Concert)July 4, 2012 – 1:42 amColdplay 6-22-12 Dallas, TX Best Opening.MOV Published on Jun 23, 2012 by jaimenolga 1 of Don’t miss the second song of this clip!! It was incredible! (One eye watching you song was great.) Coldplay brought confetti, lights and thousands of fans to the American Airlines Center; see photos from their colorful show Photo Gallery News [ ]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)ROCKSTAR STEVEN TYLER PRESSURED TEENAGE GIRLFRIEND INTO ABORTION–NOW SHE IS BOLDLY PRO-LIFE.LifeSiteNews.com– When Julia Holcomb was sixteen she and a friend contrived to meet Steven Tyler, the frontman of the multi-platinum-selling bandAerosmith, and now co-host ofAmerican Idol.Holcomb’s gambit was more successful than she could have imagined. She and Tyler met backstage after anAerosmithshow, and what followed was a passionate and drug-fuelled three-year relationship that nearly culminated in marriage, even though Holcomb was a full decade younger than the rock star. But the affair eventually spun out of control and ended explosively after Holcomb was pressured into aborting Tyler’s unborn child.Until now the few known details about the relationship have come from Tyler and his band mates, as found in the band’s memoirs,Walk This Way, or Tyler’s recent autobiography,Does the Noise in my Head Bother You?For her part, Holcomb has conscientiously maintained a several decades-long silence, leaving many wondering what ever became of her. The last public word about her fate appears to have come from one of Tyler’s subsequent girlfriends, who spoke of “suicidal phone calls” from Holcomb to Tyler while he was on tour. But now she has broken her silence, in a brief5,000-word memoirpublished by LifeSiteNews.com in cooperation withRachel’s Vineyard Ministries,a ministry for post-abortion healing.Holcomb’s story is at turns astonishing and disturbing – but, for her at least, has a happy ending. Unbelievably, from the young, confused girl who once spent three years living with a rock star, Holcomb has since become a devout and happily-married Catholic mother of seven children – and is fiercely pro-life.But the journey from the dark years of her late teenagehood to the present is one that she says she nearly didn’t survive.“I became lost in a rock and roll culture,” she recounts. “In Steven’s world it was sex, drugs, and rock and roll … I didn’t know it then, but I would barely make it out alive.”Holcomb, who is publishing her memoir under her maiden name to protect her family’s privacy, explains that she chose to tell her story after her relationship with Tyler received renewed attention through Kevin Burke’s recent National Reviewarticlediscussing her abortion, as well as Tyler’s newly-published autobiography.“I decided it was time to tell my story honestly, to the best of my memory, hoping to bring closure and peace to this period of my life,” she writes. She says that she is seeking not only to correct what she calls the “gross exaggeration” in Tyler’s accounts of their sexual escapades, but also hopes that her account of her abortion, and the painful aftermath, will help those who have had abortions to find healing and peace.The topic of abortion comes up more than once in Julia’s story: she herself narrowly escaped being aborted.Her mother found out she was pregnant with Julia in the midst of a volatile marriage with an unstable and philandering gambler, who abandoned his children when they were toddlers. Family members encouraged her to get a (then-illegal) abortion.“Thankfully she gave birth to me and later to my younger brother, and was a loving mother,” says Julia.An alcoholic stepfather followed the gambling father. And then tragedy struck when a car accident killed Julia’s younger brother and grandfather, and injured Julia, her sister, and her grandmother – an event that eventually landed her stepfather for a spell in a mental institution, and precipitated a divorce.Whereas prior to the divorce Julia’s mother regularly brought her children to church and prayed with them, after the divorce she seemed “wounded and disillusioned with life,” says Julia. She took up with another man, Julia’s second stepfather, with whom she did not initially get along.Feeling unmoored, 15-year-old Julia drifted away from her family, making new friends at the local Teen Center.One of these new friends was a 24-year-old woman who had access to backstage passes for rock concerts. Julia described this friendship as “pivotal” and “one of the most dangerous friendships I ever formed.”This new friend “quickly taught me to dress in revealing clothes to get noticed and use sex as a hook to try to catch a rock star.” Evidently Julia learned well, for she caught Tyler – hook, line, and sinker.“I fell hard. And I fell heavy. And I fell so in love.”That’s how Tyler describes what happened after he met Julia, in his autobiography.So thoroughly was Tyler smitten with his 16-year-old beauty that he began to consider marrying her, and even convinced Julia’s mother to grant him guardianship over her, so that he could take her with him across state lines.After a few months together, Tyler confided to Julia that he wanted to have a child. “I was touched by his sincerity and said yes,” she writes. “I wanted children, and began to believe he must truly love me since he had made himself my guardian and was asking to have children with me.”Tyler threw Julia’s birth control pills over the balcony of their hotel room, and within a year she was pregnant.But things started to fall apart after Tyler announced his intention to marry Julia to his parents. After his parents and grandmother expressed their reservations, due to Julia’s youth, the couple had a fierce argument, and Tyler changed his mind.Within weeks he was back on the road touring, while she was left back home in his apartment “alone and pregnant … with no money, no education, no prenatal care, no driver’s license and little food.” It was also around this time that Tyler reportedly took up with Playboy model Bebe Buell.One day, says Julia, while on tour Tyler sent an old highschool friend and former bandmate to the apartment to bring Julia shopping. The next thing she says she remembers is waking up in a dense cloud of smoke. The apartment was on fire.Julia narrowly escaped with her life, in near-miraculous circumstances. After finding all exits impassable, Julia suddenly recalled fire safety advice from a Bill Cosby commercial, and crawled into an unused fireplace over which hung a picture of Jesus inherited from her grandmother. Tyler later returned that picture to Julia, telling her it was the only thing in the apartment that survived the fire.Julia was rescued from the burning building by firemen, and landed in the hospital with severe smoke inhalation. Tyler was told that she might not make it. But she pulled through, as did her unborn baby.According to Julia, Tyler came into her hospital room and told her that she needed an abortion “because of the smoke damage to my lungs and the oxygen deprivation I had suffered.” But Julia said no, repeatedly. She wanted the baby. Plus, she was already five months pregnant.At that point, Tyler relented and told her she could go back to her mother and have the baby. But Julia says she was concerned that her family wouldn’t want her to have the baby either. With no money, and no expectation that Tyler would help provide for her and the baby, she gave in to his wishes.Julia describes the abortion as “a horrible nightmare I will never forget.” Tyler was with her throughout the abortion, but was doing cocaine the whole time, and therefore seemed “emotionally detached,” she says.She would learn, however, that Tyler was not as detached as he might have appeared.InWalk this Way, he remembered the traumatic event: “You go to the doctor and they put the needle in her belly and they squeeze the stuff in and you watch. And it comes out dead. I was pretty devastated. In my mind, I’m going, Jesus, what have I done?” However, Julia writes that Tyler told her after the abortion that, rather than coming out dead, their baby had actually been born alive, and then allowed to die.“My baby had one defender in life; me, and I caved in to pressure because of fear of rejection and the unknown future,” says Julia. “I wish I could go back and be given that chance again, to say no to the abortion one last time. I wish with all my heart I could have watched that baby live his life and grow to be a man.”After the abortion, “nothing was the same” between Julia and Tyler. Eventually she moved back in with her mother, “a broken spirit.” She says she couldn’t sleep without having nightmares of the abortion and the fire.But she soon came to realize that her second stepfather, whom she had previously disliked, was trying to be a good husband and father, and came to respect him. Julia started going to church with them – a United Methodist church in the area – and began participating in youth events at the church.She soon went to college, and it was there that she met her future husband, Joseph.“Today,” she writes, “I am a pro-life Roman Catholic, the mother of seven children, and this year my husband and I will celebrate our 30th wedding anniversary. Joseph and I have six children of our own, and I give thanks for each of them, as they are truly a gift from God.” The couple are also legal guardians to a young girl, who was born from a difficult pregnancy, but whose mother decided to choose life.Julia describes her husband as “my true hero.” “He has been a loving husband, a generous father, and hard-working provider for our family. My husband loves me and has forgiven me from his heart and has not let my past define his understanding of who I am as a person.”Julia says that she holds no bitterness for Tyler: “I pray for his sincere conversion of heart and hope he can find God’s grace.”Mostly, however, she says she just wants people to know that abortion is never the answer.“Someone may say that my abortion was justified because of my age, the drugs, and the fire,” she says. “I do not believe anything can justify taking my baby’s life. The action is wrong. I pray that our nation will change its laws so that the lives of innocent unborn babies are protected.”She concludes with these powerful words: “Our nation’s young girls, especially those like me, who have experienced trauma and abuse, and are vulnerable to exploitation should not be used as sexual playthings, scarred by abortions to free their male partners from financial responsibility, and then like their unborn children, tossed aside as an unwanted object.“Marriage and the family are the building blocks of all virtuous societies. I learned this lesson in a trial by fire that taught me to trust God’s plan no matter what occurs. I pray that our nation may also find its way back to God by respecting the life of unborn children and strengthening the sanctity of marriage.”I have read over 40 autobiographies by ROCKERS and it seems to me that almost every one of those books can be reduced to 4 points. Once fame hit me then I became hooked on drugs. Next I became an alcoholic (or may have been hooked on both at same time). Thirdly, I chased the skirts and thought happiness would be found through more sex with more women. Finally, in my old age I have found being faithful to my wife and getting over addictions has led to happiness like I never knew before. (Almost every autobiography I have read from rockers has these points in it although Steven Tyler is still chasing the skirts!!).I really enjoyed reading your autobiography recently,Does the Noise in My Head Bother You?: A Rock n Roll Memoir,and it caused me to get on the internet and look some more about your life and I ran across this picture of you and Michael Jackson and Andy Warhol at thefamous Studio 54 nightclub.I live in Arkansas and I just can t get enough of the CRYSTAL BRIDGES MUSEUM in Bentonville. In 1981 I visited 20 European countries on a college trip and I was hooked on art.Francis Schaeffer is one of my favorite writers and he was constantly talking about modern culture and art in his books and that really got me interested in finding out what it was all about. Actually on my blog http://www.thedailyhatch.org I devote my blog every Thursday to the series calledFRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTUREand I examine the work of a modern day artist.Since you knew Andy Warhol. Let me share with you some of whatFrancis Schaeffer wrote about Andy Warhol s art and interviews:The Observer June 12, 1966 does a big spread on Warhol.Andy is a mass communicator. Someone has described pop art as Dada plus Madison Avenue or commercialism and I think that is a good definition. Dada was started in Zurich and came along in modern art. Dada means nothing. The word Dada means rocking horse, but it was chosen by chance. The whole concept Dada is everything means nothing. Pop Art has been said to be the Dada concept put forth in modern commercialization.Everything in his work is being leveled down to an universal monotony which he can always sell for $8000.00.Andy Warhol says, It stops you thinking about things. I wish I were a machine. I don t want to be heard. I don t want human emotions. I have never been touched by a painting. I don t want to think. The world would be easier to live in if we all were machines. It is nothing in the end anyway. Notice Andy Warhol s words very closely concerning the time he takes to make his movies: It stops you thinking about things. I wish I were a machine. I don t want to be heard. I don t want human emotions. I have never been touched by a painting. I don t want to think. The world would be easier to live in if we all were machines.It is nothing in the end anyway. Francis Schaeffer said that modern man may say that we all are the results of chance plus time and there is no life beyond the grave but then people can t live that way because of the mannishness of man. We all have significance and the ability to love and be loved and we have the ability of rational thought that distinguishes us from machines and animals and that indicates that we were man in the image of God.YOU HAVE LOVED AND DEEP DOWN YOU KNOW THAT GOD PUT YOU ON THIS EARTH FOR A PURPOSE AND THAT IS WHY WE HAVE ART TO BEGIN WITH BECAUSE OF MAN S CREATIVITY!!In your autobiography you point out what types of music have influenced yours. A lot of the great groups of the 1960 s came from Memphis and of course the blues did!!!!!Your music reminds me a lot about the Memphis Blues. I thought of your music when I heard the news a while back, In 2 days, Mississippi River has risen 10 feet north of St. Louis. Everybody is now educating themselves on the great flood of 1927.The 1927 Great Mississippi Flood was the most destructive river flood in the history of the United States, causing over $400million in damages and killing 246 people in seven states and displaced 700,000 people.My grandfather moved to Memphis in 1927 and he told me about this flood. There was a lady named Memphis Minnie and she wrote about this flood. I always heard that there was lots of great blues music that had come out of Memphis, butI always thought that was overstated and that the Blues was not a significant form of music.(Live and learn, the Blues music out of Memphis had a GREAT AFFECT ON MUSIC WORLDWIDE!!!)However, at the same time I waslistening to groups like Led Zeppelinand the ROLLING STONES, I had no idea that many of their songs were based on old Blues songs out of Memphis.One of my favorite Led Zeppelin songs was “When the Levee breaks.” It was based on a song by Memphis Minnie.When I examine the Blues they are really an expression of one s desperation to deal with the hard realities we face in life. Some seek escapism through alcohol or drugs. In fact, many famous Blues musicians have died from from addictions to drugs or alcohol!!Tucker Carlson: New emails reveal exactly what Burisma wanted from Joe BidenEditor s Note: This article was adapted from Tucker Carlson s opening commentary on the Oct. 15, 2020 edition of Tucker Carlson Tonight. We knew Joe Biden’s son Hunter pocketed $50,000 a month for a job with a Ukrainian gas company. Joe Biden allowed his son to makemillionsin Ukraine and China while Joe was Vice President.Now, the New York Post is reporting that Vice President Biden may have been introduced to some of the corrupt Ukrainian businessmen paying Hunter…at the same time Vice President Biden was supposed to be overseeing our policy towards Ukraine.Not everything you hear is untrue and not every story is complex. At the heart of the growing Biden-Ukrainescandal, for example, is a very straightforward question:DidJoe Bidensubvert American foreign policy in order to enrich his own family?In 2015, Joe Biden was the sitting vice president of the United States.Included in his portfolio wereU.S. relations with the nation of Ukraine. At that moment, Vice President Joe Biden had more influence over the Ukrainian government and the Ukrainian economy than any other person on the globe outside of Eastern Europe.Biden s younger son, Hunter, knew that andhoped to get rich from his father s influence. Emails published Wednesday by The New York Post, documents apparently taken directly from HunterBiden s own laptop, tell some of that story. Tucker Carlson Tonight have obtained another batch of emails, some exclusively. We believe they also came from Hunter Biden s laptop. We can t prove that they did, we haven t examined that computer. But every detail that we could check, including Hunter Biden s personal email address at the time, suggests they are authentic.If these emails are fake, this is the most complex and sophisticated hoax in history. It almost seems beyond human capacity. The Biden campaign clearly believes these emails are real. They have not said otherwise. We sent the body of them to Hunter Biden s attorney and never heard back. So with that in mind, here s what we have learned.On Nov. 2, 2015, at 4:36p.m., a Burisma executive called Vadym Pozharskyi emailed Hunter Biden and his business partner, Devon Archer. The purpose of the email, Pozharskyiexplains, is to be on the same page reour final goals including, but not limited to: a concrete course of actions. So what did Burisma want, exactly? Well, good PR, for starters. Pozharskyi wanted high-rankingUS [sic]officials to express their positive opinion of Burisma, and thenhe wanted the administration to act on Burisma sbehalf. The scope of work should also include organization of a visit of a number of widely recognized and influential current and/or former US [sic] policy-makers to Ukraine in November, aiming to conduct meetings with and bring positive signal/message and support to Burisma.The goal, Pozharskyi explained, was to close down for [sic] any cases/pursuits against the head of Burismain Ukraine.It couldn t be clearer what they wanted. Burismawanted HuterBiden s father to get their company out of legal trouble with the Ukrainian government. And that s exactly what happened. One month later to the day, on Dec.2, 2015, Hunter Biden received a notice from a Washington PR firm called Blue Star Strategies, which apparently had been hired to lobby the Obama administration on Ukraine. Tucker Carlson Tonight have exclusively obtained that email. Hello all it began. This morning, the White House hosted a conference call regarding the Vice President s upcoming trip to Ukraine. Attached is a memo from the Blue Star Strategies team with the minutes of the call, which outlined the trip s agenda and addressed several questions regarding U.S. policy toward Ukraine. So here you have a PR firm involved in an official White House foreign policy call. How could that happen? Good question. But it worked.Days later, Joe Biden flew to Ukraine and did exactly what his son wanted. The vice president gave a speech slamming the very Ukrainian law enforcement official who was tormenting Burisma. If the Ukrainian government didn t fire its top prosecutor, a man called Viktor Shokin, Biden explained, the administration would withhold a billion dollars in American aid. Now, Ukraine is a poor country, so they had no choice but to obey. Biden s bullying worked.He bragged about it later.The obvious question: Why was the vice president of the United States threatening a tiny country like Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor? That doesn t seem like a vice president s role. Well, now we know why.ViktorShokinhas signed an affidavit affirming that he was, in fact, investigating Burisma at the moment Joe Biden had him removed. Shokin said that before he was fired, administration officials pressured him todropthe case against Burisma. He would not do that, so Joe Biden canned himThat s how things really work in Washington. Your son s got a lucrative consulting deal with a Ukrainian energy company, you tailor American foreign policy our foreign policy to help make him rich. Even at the State Department, possibly the most cynical agency in government, this seemed shockingly brazen.During the impeachment proceedings last fall, a State Department official named George Kent said it was widely known in Washington that the Bidens were up to something sleazy in Ukraine. I was on a call with somebody on the vice president s staff and I raised my concerns that I had heard that Hunter Biden was on the board of Burisma,Kent recalled.This, henoted, could create a perception of a conflict of interest.So how did the vice president s office respond to this concern? According to George Kent, The message that I recall hearing back was that the vice president s son, Beau, was dying of cancer and there was no further bandwidth to deal with family-related issues at the time. Family-related issues? This was America s foreign policy being tailored to Joe Biden s son. Five years later, Joe Biden still has not been forced to explain why he fired Ukraine s top prosecutor at precisely the moment his son was being paid to get him to fire Ukraine s top prosecutor, norhas Joe Biden addressed whether or not he personally benefited from the Burisma contract.But there are tantalizing hints. On Wednesday, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani published what he said was yet another email from Hunter Biden s laptop. It s a note to one of his children. At the end of the email, there s this quote: But dont [sic]worry unlike Pop I won t make you give me half your salary. What does that mean, exactly? Well, we don t know. There may be more detail on the laptop, but unfortunately, we don t have access to that. But the question remains, how has Joe Biden lived in extravagance all these years on a government salary? No one has ever answered that question. And the tech monopolies are working hard to make certain no one ever does.Thursday morning, the New York Post published another story based on the emails. This one describes a business venture HunterBiden was working on in China. One email describes a provisional agreement that theequity will be distributed as follows 10held by Hfor the big guy? The big guy? Is the big guyJoe Biden?If so, how much did Joe Biden get and how much of that came from the Communist Chinese government? Those are real questions, this man could be elected president in three weeks. But Twitter doesn t want you to wonder. It won t allow you to ask those questions. Twitter restricted the New York Post story as unsafe, like it was a lawn dart or a defective circular saw. And that was enough for the Biden campaign.All day Thursday, they deflected questions about Joe Biden s subversion of our country s foreign policy by invoking Twitter s ban on the New York Post story. So the tech monopoly censors information to help their candidate, that candidate uses that censorship to dismiss the story. One hand washes the other.It doesn t matter who you plan to vote for Nov. 3, you should be terrified. Democracies cannot exist and never will be able to exist without the free flow of information. That is a prerequisite andwithout it, we re done. But companies like Facebook and Google and Twitter do not care because they don t believe in democracy. They worship power and they don t need to be consistent. Melania Trump s private phone conversations, the president s stolen tax returns, they were happy to publish all of that. But if you criticize the Democratic candidate, their candidate, you are banned. Facebook and Twitter have policies to not spreadthings that are utterly unreliable, that have been debunked, and where their origin is untrustworthy, Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said Thursday. They re practicing their own internal controls, as I wish they had over the past four years An active Russian disinformation campaign in 2016 had an influence on that election. They are trying even harder in this election. I m glad that they are managing the content on their own websites. Not one word of this story has been debunked, not one word in those emails has been debunked. And if it is debunked, we ll be the first to report it because we re not liars. But did you catch the phrase he wanted you to hear: Russian disinformation ? That s what they re claiming these emails are. And it s all over the Internet, in fact-free, conspiracy-laden conjecture crazier than anything the QAnon people ever thought of.But none of their garbage, their lunatic lies about Russia is ever censored by the tech monopolies. It s not unsafe because it helps Joe Biden. Therefore, you can read it.And where are the real journalists, now that we need them more than ever?They re gone. They re cowering. They re afraid. They don t want to upset power. Jake Sherman of Politico, who claims to be a news reporter,actually apologized on Twitterfor asking the Biden campaign about HunterBiden s emails. These people are craven. They have no standards. They have no self-respect. Like their masters in Silicon Valley, they worship power alone.Twitter on Wednesday afternoon began blocking tweets from being posted that contained links to the New York Post’s report on alleged emails that purportedly show Hunter Biden offered to introduce then-Vice President Joe Biden to an executive of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma.“We can’t complete this request because this link has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially harmful,” Twitter told users who attempted to post a tweet containing a link to the Post’sstory.A Twitter spokesperson told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the platform took action to limit the spread of the Post’s report because of the lack of authoritative reporting on the origins of the materials cited by the outlet.“In line with our Hacked Materials Policy, as well as our approach to blocking URLs, we are taking action to block any links to or images of the material in question on Twitter,” the spokesperson said.There’s no evidence at the moment the Post relied on hacked materials for its report.According to the Post, the email was part of a “massive trove of data recovered from a laptop computer” that was dropped off at a Delaware computer repair shop in April 2019. The owner of the repair shop said the customer never came back to pay for the service and retrieve the computer, the Post reported.The Post uploaded an invoice signed by the customer that states that equipment left with the repair shop “after 90 days of notification of completed service will be treated as abandoned.”The repair shop owner later alerted the FBI to the existence of the laptop and its hard drive after it went unclaimed, both of which were seized by federal authorities in December, according to a federal subpoena obtained by the Post.Before the laptop was seized, however, the shop owner reportedly made a copy of its hard drive and turned it over to a lawyer for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who in turn provided a copy of the hard drive’s contents to the Post.The Daily Caller News Foundation has not confirmed the authenticity of the emails reported by the Post, and the Biden campaign issued astatementon Wednesday denying that Biden met with the Burisma executive in 2015 as alleged in the Post’s report. Also on Wednesday afternoon, Twitter began blocking any tweet from being posted that contained links to one of the two documents the Post uploaded to document sharing platform Scribd.Link to New York Post Scribd document titled, “Email from Vadim Pozharskyi to Devon Archer and Hunter Biden” blocked by Twitter. (Screenshot: Andrew Kerr) 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 this original content, please contactlicensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailysignal.com/2020/10/14/twitter-facebook-suppress-new-york-post-report-on-hunter-biden/amp/Link to New York Post Scribd document titled, “Email from Robert Biden to Devon Archer” blocked by Twitter. (Screenshot:Andrew Kerr)Facebook spokesman Andy Stone, a former staffer for the Democratic House Majority PAC and former California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, announced earlier Wednesday it would reduce the distribution of the Post’s report despite the lack of any fact-checks against the story.During the vice presidential debate Wednesday night, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Vice President Mike Pence sparred over a variety of policies, revealing significant differences on several issues.The debate, which was moderated by USA Today Washington bureau chief Susan Page, featured the two contenders discussing issues ranging from climate change and COVID-19 to abortion and the Supreme Court.Harris aggressively attacked the Trump administration’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. After the opening question, she laid out what could be called a prosecutor’s case.How are socialists deluding a whole generation?Learn more now “The American people have witnessed what is the greatest failure of any presidential administration in the history of our country,” the California senator said. “And here are the facts: 210,000 dead people in our country in just the last several months, over 7 million people who have contracted this disease, 1 in 5 businesses closed. We are looking at frontline workers treated like sacrificial workers. We are looking at 30 million people who in the last several months had to file for unemployment.”That was in response to a question from Page about what the Biden administration would have done differently than Trump to address the COVID-19 pandemic. Harris then went on to summarize the Biden-Harris plan.“Our plan is about what we need to do around a national strategy, for contact tracing, for testing, for administration of a vaccine, and make sure it’s free,” Harris said.Pence, who headed the White House coronavirus task force, defended the administration’s record.“I want the American people to know that from the very first day, President Donald Trump has put the health of America first,” the vice president said. “Before there were more than five cases in the United States—all people who had returned from China—President Donald Trump did what no other American had ever done. That was, he suspended all travel from China, the second-largest economy in the world.”“He said it was xenophobic and hysterical. I can tell you, having led the White House coronavirus task force that decision alone by President Trump gave us invaluable time to set up the greatest mobilization since World War II,” Pence said. “I believe it saved hundreds of thousands of American lives.”As for the Biden plan, Pence said, the Trump administration was already doing much of what it recommends. He also took a shot at aBiden scandalthat effectively ended his 1988 presidential bid.“The reality is, when you look at the Biden plan, it looks an awful lot like what President Trump and I and our task force have been doing every step of the way,” he said. “ … It looks a little bit like plagiarism, something Joe Biden knows a little bit about.”In September 1987, Biden came in for withering criticism for borrowing lines from a speech by then-British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock without attribution, knocking him out of the race when it was subsequently revealed to be part of a larger pattern of borrowing lines from other politicians without credit.Asked about the race to develop a vaccine, Harris said she wouldn’t trust a Trump-endorsed vaccine, but would take one approved by Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.“If the public health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it. Absolutely,” Harris said. “But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it, I’m not taking it.”Pence fired back that the California senator was politicizing the vaccine.“The fact that you continue to undermine public confidence in a vaccine, if a vaccine emerges during the Trump administration, I think, is unconscionable,” the vice president said. “Senator, I just ask you, stop playing politics with people’s lives. The reality is, we will have a vaccine by the end of this year, and it will continue to save countless American lives.”Harris and Pence sparred over the tax cuts passed by Congress in 2017 and debated Biden’s tax plan.Harris said that the Biden administration would repeal the 2017 tax cuts “on Day One,” and that they were passed to benefit the “rich.”“Joe Biden believes you measure the health and strength of America’s economy based on the health and strength of the American worker and the American family,” Harris said. “On the other hand, you have Donald Trump, who measures the strength of the economy based on how rich people are doing.”Pence defended the tax cuts and said: “Joe Biden said twice in the debate last week that he’s going to repeal the Trump tax cuts,” Pence said. “That was tax cuts that gave the average working family $2,000 with a tax break.”In 2017, Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which reduced federal income taxes and made various other changes to the U.S. tax code.Following the tax cut, the American economy experienced record low unemployment, wage growth, and an overall increase in business investment,accordingto Adam Michel, a specialist on tax policy and the federal budget as a policy analyst in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.Harris said that Biden’s tax plan would end tax breaks for the wealthy but wouldn’t raise taxes on American making under $400,000.“He has been very clear about that,” Harris said, adding, “Joe Biden is the one who, during the Great Recession, was responsible for the Recovery Act that brought America back, and now the Trump and Pence administration wants to take credit for Joe Biden’s success for the economy that they had at the beginning of their term.”According to TheWashington Post,“most Americans received a tax” cut in 2017, not just the rich.Biden’s tax proposal would raise taxes about $3 trillion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.“… The Biden tax plan would reduce [gross domestic product] by 1.47 percent over the long term,”accordingto the Tax Foundation’s General Equilibrium Model. “On a conventional basis, the Biden tax plan by 2030 would lead to about 6.5 percent less after-tax income for the top 1 percent of taxpayers and about a 1.7 percent decline in after-tax income for all taxpayers on average.”According to theleft-leaning Tax Policy Center, Biden’s proposal “would increase taxes on average on all income groups, but the highest-income households would see substantially larger increases, both in dollar amounts and as a share of their incomes.”Harris said a Biden administration would grow the economy through green energy, but she also denied past support for banning fracking.“Joe Biden will not ban fracking. That is a fact. I will repeat that Joe Biden has been very clear that he thinks about growing jobs,” Harris said, adding, “Part of those jobs that will be created by Joe Biden are going to be about clean energy and renewable energy, because Joe understands that the West Coast of our country is burning, including my home state of California.”Harris also spoke about climate-related problems in the Southeast and in the Midwest.“Joe sees what is happening in the Gulf states, which are being battered by storms. Joe has seen and talked with the farmers in Iowa, whose entire crops have been destroyed because of floods,” she said. “So, Joe believes again in science. … We have seen a pattern with this administration, which is, they don’t believe in science. Joe’s plan is about saying we are going to deal with it, but we are going to create jobs.”Pence addressed the issue of climate change, but also attacked the Biden campaign’s promises for the environment.“As I said, Susan, the climate is changing. We’ll follow the science,” he said.“With regard to banning fracking, I just recommend people look at the record. You yourself said repeatedly you would ban fracking,” Pence said of Harris. “You were the first Senate co-sponsor of the Green New Deal.“While Joe Biden denied support for the Green New Deal, Susan, thank you for pointing out the Green New Deal is on [the Biden-Harris] website. As USA Today said, it’s essentially the same plan as you co-sponsored with AOC.”That was a reference to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., the main sponsor of the Green New Deal in the House.“You just heard the senator say she was going to resubmit America to the Paris Climate Accord. The American people have always cherished our environment, and we’ll continue to cherish it,” Pence said. “We’ve made great progress reducing [carbon dioxide] emissions through American innovation and the development of natural gas through fracking.“We don’t need a massive $2 trillion Green New Deal that would impose all new mandates on American businesses and American families. … It makes no sense. It will cost jobs.”Pence and Harris sparred over U.S. relations with China, including its role in the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.“China and the World Health Organization did not play straight with the American people,” Pence said. “They did not let our personnel into China … until the middle of February.”The vice president defended the administration’s aggressive trade policy with Beijing. “But China has been taking advantage of the United States for decades, in the wake of Biden cheerleading for China,” he said.Harris said that the Trump administration had “lost” the trade war with China. “What ended up happening because of a so-called “trade war” with China? America lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs,” she said.Pence countered that a Biden administration would go soft on the communist country.“Joe Biden has been a cheerleader for communist China over the last several decades,” he said.The vice president criticized the record of the administration of Biden’s boss, President Barack Obama, saying that it had dismissed the idea that manufacturing jobs could ever come back to America.“In our first three years, this administration saw 500,000 manufacturing jobs created, and that’s the type of growth we’re going to see,” Pence said.With the nomination of federal appeals court Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, Page asked both candidates what they would want their respective states of Indiana and California to do if the high court were to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide and sent the matter back to the states to decide for themselves.Neither candidate directly addressed the question, but both spoke of the abortion issue in the context of the Supreme Court.“The issues before us couldn’t be more serious,” Harris said. “There is the issue of choice, and I will always fight for a woman’s right to make a decision about her own body. It should be her decision and not that of Donald Trump and the vice president, Michael Pence.”Pence reiterated his pro-life stance, and called out the Biden-Harris ticket.“I couldn’t be more proud to serve as vice president to a president who stands unapologetically for the sanctity of human life. I will not apologize for it,” he said. “This is another one of those cases where there is such a dramatic contrast. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris support taxpayer funding of abortion all the way up to the moment of birth, late-term abortion.”Pence asked Harris at one point if she would support packing the courts, meaning increasing the number of Supreme Court justices to 10 or more, and then he accused her of not answering the question.“Once again you gave a non-answer, Joe Biden gave a non-answer,” Pence said. “The American people deserve a straight answer.”In his remarks, Pence noted the Supreme Court has had nine justices for the past 150 years.The vice presidential candidates also had a heated exchange on race relations amid social unrest in major American cities.Harris called out Trump for what she claimed was his reluctance to condemn white supremacists, referring tolast week’s presidential debatebetween Trump and Biden.“Last week, the president of the United States took a debate stage in front of 70 million Americans and refused to condemn white supremacists,” Harris said. “It wasn’t like he wasn’t given a chance. He didn’t do it, and then he doubled down. Then he said, when pressed, ‘Stand back, stand by.’ This is part of a pattern with Donald Trump.”She also cited the deadly 2017 Charlottesville, Va., Unite the Right rally.Pence countered by citingTrump’s commentsregarding the Charlottesville violence.“This is one of the things that makes people dislike the media so much in this country, that you selectively edit so much,” Pence said, arguing that the media had distorted what Trump had said about there being “very fine people” on both sides in Charlottesville.“After President Trump made comments about people on either side of the debate over monuments, he condemned the KKK, neo-Nazis and white supremacists,” the vice president said.“He has done so repeatedly. Your concern that he doesn’t condemn neo-Nazis, President Trump has Jewish grandchildren. His daughter and son-in-law are Jewish. This is a president who respects and cherishes all of the American people.”Pence then went on offense about Harris’ prosecution record as a district attorney in San Francisco.“When you were D.A. in San Francisco, African Americans were 19 times more likely to be prosecuted for minor drug offenses than whites and Hispanics,” Pence said to Harris. “You increased the disproportionate incarceration. You did nothing on criminal justice reform in California. You didn’t lift a finger to pass theFirst Step Acton Capitol Hill.”The First Step Act is a bipartisan criminal justice reform billsigned into law by Trump in December 2018.Harris didn’t directly defend her record as district attorney of San Francisco, but pivoted to her record as California attorney general.“Having served as the attorney general of California, the work I did is a model of what our nation needs to do and what we will be able to do,” she said, adding, “I was the first statewide officer to institute a requirement that my agents would wear body cameras and keep them on full time. We were the first to initiate that there would be training for law enforcement on implicit bias.”I grew up and went to EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL in Memphis and ran some of our track meets at RHODES COLLEGE and I know that campus well and I even was contacted by a official at Rhodes with some recruiting material after a good performance in my sophomore year in my mile run there in 1978. Also during the late 1970’s I helped my friends Byron Tyler and David Rogers in a Christian Rock Saturday morning show on Rhodes’s radio station!!! My brother-in-law graduated from Rhodes but I graduated from University of Memphis in 1982.President Trump is going to announce his nomination for the Supreme Court later this week, and all the talk is about Amy Coney Barrett, currently a Notre Dame professor of law and a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. As it happens, Amy was a classmate of mine at Rhodes College, a small (1,400 students at the time) liberal-arts school in Memphis. I didn’t know her well, but she was a friend of other friends, and we were acquainted a bit through being in a club together.I can tell you a few things about her, though. For one thing, she didnothave a wild reputation, so I think that if she’s nominated, the Senate hearings will have to find something else to complain about. She was an English major and served on the Honor Council, a student body that enforced our honor code against lying and cheating (a great feature of academics at Rhodes that allowed us take-home tests in many classes). We were both in Mortar Board, an honor society. She wasn’t a political activist and was never a member of the College Republicans (I was, and we had a much larger membership than the College Democrats).Amy at the homecoming game senior yearPopular, as far as I knew, and by our senior year, she shows up in the yearbook’s candid photos taken around campus.Candid photo in the social room (the ironing board refers to another picture)I hadn’t thought about her for a long time, until three years ago when friends were pointing out she’d been nominated for the Seventh Circuit, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein grilled her over her religion, proclaiming that “the dogma lives loudly within you.” At the time, I thought that was a rough Senate hearing.My daughter was a Notre Dame student, and two years ago, I stopped by to visit Amy at her home in South Bend and catch up. She had been listed as being on the president’s shortlist for a Supreme Court seat, and Kavanaugh was going through his own nomination process at that time.L to R: Me, Amy Barrett, and my daughterMy daughter had been treating the accusations against him as probably true by default and took an unconcerned view towards the behavior of the press. Amy knows Kavanaugh, spoke well of him, and described what it was like seeing the press contacting her and digging through rumors about him. That changed my daughter’s opinion of how these things go, she told me. I meant to ask her if she were named to the Supreme Court if she’d be willing to go through all of the hatred and attacks on her reputation that would surely be a part of it. But I can’t remember if I did. I reckon we’ll all find out soon enough, though.As a footnote, if Amy is confirmed to the court, she would be the second Supreme Court justice to come from Rhodes. Our first was Abe Fortas (class of 1930), who was named by President Johnson in 1965. Fortas resigned in 1969 after a series of ethics scandals, but the college gives out the Abe Fortas Award for Excellence in Legal Studies each year. Quite understandable; we’re a small school, and we should still be proud one of our own was elevated to the Supreme Court. May Amy Barrett bring us more honor.Published inLawTags:SCOTUS; SUPREME COURT; Amy Coney BarrettBarrett served as a visiting associate professor and John M. Olin Fellow in Law atGeorge Washington University Law Schoolfor a year before returning to her alma mater, Notre Dame Law School in 2002.[15]At Notre Dame she taught federal courts, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation. Barrett was named a Professor of Law in 2010, and from 2014 to 2017 held the Diane and M.O. Miller Research Chair of Law.[16]Her scholarship focuses on constitutional law, originalism, statutory interpretation, andstare decisis.[12]Her academic work has been published in journals such as theColumbia,Cornell,Virginia,Notre Dame, andTexasLaw Reviews.[15]Some of her most significant publications areSuspension and Delegation, 99 Cornell L. Rev. 251 (2014),Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement, 91 Tex. L. Rev. 1711 (2013),The Supervisory Power of the Supreme Court, 106 Colum. L. Rev. 101 (2006), andStare Decisis and Due Process, 74 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1011 (2003).At Notre Dame, Barrett received the Distinguished Professor of the Year award three times.[15]She taught Constitutional Law, Civil Procedure, Evidence, Federal Courts, Constitutional Theory Seminar, and Statutory Interpretation Seminar.[15]Barrett has continued to teach seminars as a sitting judge.[17]A hearing on Barrett s nomination before theSenate Judiciary Committeewas held on September 6, 2017.[20]During the hearing, SenatorDianne Feinsteinquestioned Barrett about a law review article Barrett co-wrote in 1998 with ProfessorJohn H. Garveyin which she argued that Catholic judges should in some cases recuse themselves from death penalty cases due to their moral objections to the death penalty. The article concluded that the trial judge should recuse herself instead of entering the order. Asked to elaborate on the statements and discuss how you view the issue of faith versus fulfilling the responsibility as a judge today, Barrett said that she had participated in many death-penalty appeals while serving as law clerk to Scalia, adding, My personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on the discharge of my duties as a judge [21][22]and It is never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge s personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law. [23]Worried that Barrett would not upholdRoe v. Wadegiven her Catholic beliefs, Feinstein followed Barrett s response by saying, the dogma lives loudly within you, and that is a concern. [24][25][26]The hearing made Barrett popular with religious conservatives,[11]and in response, the conservativeJudicial Crisis Networkbegan to sell mugs with Barrett s photo and Feinstein s dogma remark.[27]Feinstein s and other senators questioning was criticized by some Republicans and other observers, such as university presidentsJohn I. JenkinsandChristopher Eisgruber, as improper inquiry into a nominee s religious belief that employed anunconstitutional religious test for office;[23][28][29]others, such asNan Aron, defended Feinstein s line of questioning.[29]Lambda Legal, an LGBT civil rights organization, co-signed a letter with 26 other gay rights organizations opposing Barrett s nomination. The letter expressed doubts about her ability to separate faith from her rulings on LGBT matters.[30][31]During her Senate confirmation hearing, Barrett was questioned about landmark LGBTQ legal precedents such asObergefell v. Hodges,United States v. Windsor, andLawrence v. Texas. Barrett said these cases are binding precedents that she intended to faithfully follow if confirmed to the appeals court, as required by law.[30]The letter co-signed by Lambda Legal said Simply repeating that she would be bound by Supreme Court precedent does not illuminate—indeed, it obfuscates—how Professor Barrett would interpret and apply precedent when faced with the sorts of dilemmas that, in her view, put Catholic judges in a bind.' [30]Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network later said that warnings from LGBT advocacy groups about shortlisted nominees to replace JusticeAnthony Kennedy, including Barrett, were very much overblown and called them mostly scare tactics. [30]In 2015, Barrett signed a letter in support of theOrdinary Synod of Bishops on the Familythat endorsed the Catholic Church s teachings on human sexuality and its definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. When asked about the letter, she testified that the Church s definition of marriage is legally irrelevant.[32][33]Barrett s nomination was supported by every law clerk she had worked with and all of her 49 faculty colleagues at Notre Dame Law school. 450 former students signed a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee supporting Barrett s nomination.[34][35]On October 5, 2017, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 11–9 on party lines to recommend Barrett and report her nomination to the full Senate.[36][37]On October 30, the Senate invokedclotureby a vote of 54–42.[38]It confirmed her by a vote of 55–43 on October 31, with three Democrats—Joe Donnelly,Tim Kaine, andJoe Manchin—voting for her.[10]She received her commission two days later.[2]Barrett is the first and to date only woman to occupy an Indiana seat on the Seventh Circuit.[39]InDoe v. Purdue University, 928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2019), the court, in a unanimous decision written by Barrett, reinstated a suit brought by a malePurdue Universitystudent (John Doe) who had been found guilty of sexual assault byPurdue University, which resulted in a one-year suspension, loss of hisNavy ROTCscholarship, and expulsion from the ROTC affecting his ability to pursue his chosen career in the Navy.[40]Doe alleged the school s Advisory Committee on Equity discriminated against him on the basis of his sex and violated his rights to due process by not interviewing the alleged victim, not allowing him to present evidence in his defense, including an erroneous statement that he confessed to some of the alleged assault, and appearing to believe the victim instead of the accused without hearing from either party or having even read the investigation report. The court found that Doe had adequately alleged that the university deprived him of his occupational liberty withoutdue processin violation of theFourteenth Amendmentand had violated hisTitle IXrights by imposing a punishment infected by sex bias, and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.[41][42][43]InEEOC v. AutoZone, the Seventh Circuit considered the federal government s appeal from a ruling in a suit brought by theEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionagainstAutoZone; the EEOC argued that the retailer s assignment of employees to different stores based on race (e.g., sending African American employees to stores in heavily African American neighborhoods ) violatedTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act. The panel, which did not include Barrett, ruled in favor of AutoZone. An unsuccessful petition for rehearingen bancwas filed. Three judges—Chief JudgeDiane Woodand JudgesIlana RovnerandDavid Hamilton—voted to grant rehearing, and criticized the panel decision as upholding a separate-but-equal arrangement Barrett and four other judges voted to deny rehearing.[11]InCook County v. Wolf, 962 F.3d 208 (7th Cir. 2020), Barrett wrote a 40-page dissent from the majority s decision to uphold a preliminary injunction on the Trump administration s controversial public charge rule , which heightened the standard for obtaining agreen card. In her dissent, she argued that any noncitizens who disenrolled from government benefits because of the rule did so due to confusion about the rule itself rather than from its application, writing that the vast majority of the people subject to the rule are not eligible for government benefits in the first place. On the merits, Barrett departed from her colleagues Wood and Rovner, who held that DHS s interpretation of that provision was unreasonable underChevronStep Two. Barrett would have held that the new rule fell within the broad scope of discretion granted to the Executive by Congress through theImmigration and Nationality Act.[44][45][46]The public charge issue is the subject of acircuit split.[44][46][47]InYafai v. Pompeo, 924 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2019), the court considered a case brought by a Yemeni citizen, Ahmad, and her husband, a U.S. citizen, who challenged a consular officer s decision to twice deny Ahmad s visa application under theImmigration and Nationality Act. Yafai, the U.S. citizen, argued that the denial of his wife s visa application violated his constitutional right to live in the United States with his spouse.[48]In an 2-1 majority opinion authored by Barrett, the court held that the plaintiff’s claim was properly dismissed under the doctrine ofconsular nonreviewability. She declined to address whether Yafai had been denied a constitutional right (or whether a constitutional right to live in the United States with his spouse existed) because even if a constitutional right was implicated, the court lacked authority to disturb the consular officer s decision to deny Ahmad’s visa application because that decision was facially legitimate and bona fide. Following the panel s decision, Yafai filed a petition for rehearingen banc; the petition was denied, with eight judges voting against rehearing and three in favor, Wood, Rovner and Hamilton. Barrett and JudgeJoel Flaumconcurred in the denial of rehearing.[48][49]InKanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019), Barrett dissented when the court upheld a law prohibiting convicted nonviolent felons from possessing firearms. The plaintiffs had been convicted ofmail fraud. The majority upheld the felony dispossession statutes as substantially related to an important government interest in preventing gun violence. In her dissent, Barrett argued that while the government has a legitimate interest in denying gun possession to felons convicted of violent crimes, there is no evidence that denying guns to nonviolent felons promotes this interest, and that the law violates the Second Amendment.[50][51]InRainsberger v. Benner, 913 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2019), the panel, in an opinion by Barrett, affirmed the district court s ruling denying the defendant s motion for summary judgment and qualified immunity in a42 U.S.C. § 1983case. The defendant, Benner, was a police detective who knowingly provided false and misleading information in aprobable causeaffidavit that was used to obtain anarrest warrantagainst Rainsberger. (The charges were later dropped and Rainsberger was released.) The court found the defendant s lies and omissions violated clearly established law and thus Benner was not shielded by qualified immunity.[52]The caseUnited States v. Watson, 900 F.3d 892 (7th Cir. 2018) involved police responding to an anonymous tip that people were playing with guns in a parking lot. The police arrived and searched the defendant s vehicle, taking possession of two firearms; the defendant was later charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court denied the defendant smotion to suppress. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit, in a decision by Barrett, vacated and remanded, determining that the police lacked probable cause to search the vehicle based solely upon the tip, when no crime was alleged. Barrett distinguishedNavarette v. Californiaand wrote, the police were right to respond to the anonymous call by coming to the parking lot to determine what was happening. But determining what was happening and immediately seizing people upon arrival are two different things, and the latter was premature Watson s case presents a close call. But this one falls on the wrong side of the Fourth Amendment. [53]In a 2013 Texas Law Review article, Barrett included as one of only seven Supreme Court “superprecedents“, Mapp vs Ohio (1961); the seminal case where the court found through the doctrine of selective incorporation that the 4th Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures was binding on state and local authorities in the same way it historically applied to the federal government.InCasillas v. Madison Ave. Associates, Inc., 926 F.3d 329 (7th Cir. 2019), the plaintiff brought aclass-actionlawsuit against Madison Avenue, alleging that the company violated theFair Debt Collection Practices Act(FDCPA) when it sent her a debt-collection letter that described the FDCPA process for verifying a debt but failed to specify that she was required to respond in writing to trigger the FDCPA protections. Casillas did not allege that she had tried to verify her debt and trigger the statutory protections under the FDCPA, or that the amount owed was in any doubt. In a decision written by Barrett, the panel, citing the Supreme Court’s decision inSpokeo, Inc. v. Robins, found that the plaintiff s allegation of receiving incorrect or incomplete information was a bare procedural violation that was insufficiently concrete to satisfy theArticle III sinjury-in-factrequirement. Wood dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc. The issue created acircuit split.[54][55][56]Barrett considers herself anoriginalist. She is a constitutional scholar with expertise in statutory interpretation.[10]Reuters described Barrett as a a favorite among religious conservatives, and said that she has supported expansive gun rights and voted in favor of one of the Trump administration s anti-immigration policies.[57]Barrett was one of JusticeAntonin Scalia s law clerks. She has spoken and written of her admiration of his close attention to the text of statutes. She has also praised his adherence to originalism.[58]In 2013, Barrett wrote aTexas Law Reviewarticle on the doctrine ofstare decisiswherein she listed seven cases that should be considered superprecedents —cases that the court would never consider overturning. The list includedBrown v. Board of Educationbut specifically excludedRoe v. Wade. In explaining why it was not included, Barrett referenced scholarship agreeing that in order to qualify as superprecedent a decision must enjoy widespread support from not only jurists but politicians and the public at large to the extent of becoming immune to reversal or challenge. She argued the people must trust the validity of a ruling to such an extent the matter has been taken off of the court s agenda, with lower courts no longer taking challenges to them seriously. Barrett pointed toPlanned Parenthood v. Caseyas specific evidenceRoehad not yet attained this status.[59]The article did not include any pro-Second Amendment or pro-LGBT cases as Super-Precedent .[30][31]When asked during her confirmation hearings why she did not include any pro-LGBT cases as superprecedent , Barrett explained that the list contained in the article was collected from other scholars and not a product of her own independent analysis on the subject.[32][33]Barrett has never ruled directly on a case pertaining to abortion rights, but she did vote to rehear a successful challenge to Indiana s parental notification law in 2019. In 2018, Barrett voted against striking down another Indiana law requiring burial or cremation of fetal remains. In both cases, Barrett voted with the minority. The Supreme Court later reinstated the fetal remains law and in July 2020 it ordered a rehearing in the parental notification case.[57]At a 2013 event reflecting on the 40th anniversary ofRoe v. Wade, she described the decision—inNotre Dame Magazine s paraphrase—as creating through judicial fiat a framework of abortion on demand. [60][61]She also remarked that it was very unlikely the court would overturn the core ofRoe v. Wade: The fundamental element, that the woman has a right to choose abortion, will probably stand. The controversy right now is about funding. It s a question of whether abortions will be publicly or privately funded. [62][63]NPR said that those statements were made before the election of Donald Trump and the changing composition of the Supreme Court to the right subsequent to his election, which could make Barrett s vote pivotal in overturningRoe v. Wade.[64]Barrett was critical ofChief JusticeJohn Roberts opinion in the 5–4 decision that upheld the constitutionality of the central provision in theAffordable Care Act(Obamacare) inNFIB vs. Sebelius. Roberts s opinion defended the constitutionality of theindividual mandateof the Affordable Care Act by characterizing it as a tax. Barrett disapproved of this approach, saying Roberts pushed the ACA beyond it s plausible limit to save it. [64][65][66][67]She criticized the Obama administration for providing employees of religious institutions the option of obtainingbirth controlwithout having the religious institutions pay for it.[65]Barrett has been on President Trump s list of potential Supreme Court nominees since 2017, almost immediately after her court of appeals confirmation. In July 2018, afterAnthony Kennedy s retirement announcement, she was reportedly one of three finalists Trump considered, along with JudgeRaymond Kethledgeand JudgeBrett Kavanaugh.[16][68]Trump chose Kavanaugh.[69]Reportedly, although Trump liked Barrett, he was concerned about her lack of experience on the bench.[70]In the Republican Party, Barrett was favored bysocial conservatives.[70]After Kavanaugh s selection, Barrett was viewed as a possible Trump nominee for a future Supreme Court vacancy.[71]Trump was reportedly saving Ruth Bader Ginsburg s seat for Barrett if Ginsburg retired or died during his presidency.[72]Ginsburg died on September 18, 2020, and Barrett has been widely mentioned as the front-runner to succeed her.[73][74][75][76]​Amy Coney Barrett was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in November 2017. She serves on the faculty of the Notre Dame Law School, teaching on constitutional law, federal courts, and statutory interpretation, and previously served on the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. She earned her bachelor’s degree from Rhodes College in 1994 and her J.D. from Notre Dame Law School in 1997. Following law school, Barrett clerked for Judge Laurence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court. She also practiced law with Washington, D.C. law firm Miller, Cassidy, Larroca Lewin.I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun controland issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]ByEverette Hatcher III| Posted inFrancis Schaeffer,Prolife|Edit|Comments (0)I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun controland issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]ByEverette Hatcher III| Posted inFrancis Schaeffer,Prolife|Edit|Comments (0)I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun controland issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]ByEverette Hatcher III| Posted inFrancis Schaeffer,Prolife|Edit|Comments (0)I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun controland issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]ByEverette Hatcher III| Posted inFrancis Schaeffer,Prolife|Edit|Comments (3)I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun controland issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]ByEverette Hatcher III| Posted inFrancis Schaeffer,Prolife|Edit|Comments (2)I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun controland issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]ByEverette Hatcher III| Posted inFrancis Schaeffer,Prolife|Edit|Comments (0) RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! PART 160 Part I (It was my privilege to correspond with Charles Darwin’s grandson, the eminent professor Dr. Horace Barlow, Neuroscience, Cambridge) 9th letter in response to 11-22-17 letter I received from Professor Horace Barlow was mailed on 1-2-18 and included Charles Darwin’s comments on WilliamPaley ________________I found Dr. Barlow to be a true gentleman and he was very kind to take the time to answer the questions that I submitted to him. In the upcoming months I will take time once a week to pay tribute to his life and reveal our correspondence. In the first week I noted: Today I am posting my first letter to him in February of 2015 which discussed Charles Darwin lamenting his loss of aesthetic tastes which he blamed on Darwin’s own dedication to the study of evolution. In a later return letter, Dr. Barlow agreed that Darwin did in fact lose his aesthetic tastes at the end of his life.In the second week I look at the views of Michael Polanyi and share the comments of Francis Schaeffer concerning Polanyi’s views.In the third week, I look at the life of Brandon Burlsworth in the November 28, 2016 letter and the movie GREATER and the problem of evil which Charles Darwin definitely had a problem with once his daughter died.On the 4th letter to Dr. Barlow looks at Darwin’s admission that he at times thinks that creation appears to look like the expression of a mind. Francis Schaeffer discusses Darwin’s own words in 1968 sermon at this link.My Fifth Letter concerning Charles Darwin’s views on MORAL MOTIONS Which was mailed on March 1, 2017. Francis Schaeffer discusses Darwin’s own words concerning moral motions in Schaeffer’s 1968 sermon at this link.6th letter on May 1, 2017 in which Charles Darwin’s hopes are that someone would find in Pompeii an old manuscript by a distinguished Roman that would show that Christ existed! Francis Schaeffer discusses Darwin’s own words concerning the possible manuscript finds in Schaeffer’s 1968 sermon at this link  7th letter on Darwin discussing DETERMINISM  dated 7-1-17 . Francis Schaeffer discusses Darwin’s own words concerning determinism in Schaeffer’s 1968 sermon at this link.8th letter responds to Dr. Barlow’s letter to me concerning the Francis Schaeffer discusses Darwin’s own words concerning chance in Schaeffer’s 1968 sermon at this link. Continue reading Portlandabsorbed another night ofviolent protestsSunday that resulted in the toppling of two statues in the city and reports of numerous buildings withtheir windows smashed in, includingthe Oregon Historical Society.The unrest was reportedly tied to the Day of Rage on the eve ofColumbus Day.Andy Ngo, a journalist who has been documenting the unrest in the city, posted images of the destruction on Twitter. The Oregonian reported that protesters managed to bring down statues of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt.Ngo posted a video of what he identified as the protesters toppling the statue of Roosevelt, which depicts the former president riding on horseback. The video showed a rope tied around the statue and protesters could be heard cheering when the statue shifted.https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/us/portland-protesters-topple-lincoln-roosevelt-statues-during-day-of-rage.ampJussie SmollettSmollett at the 2016PaleyFestBornJustin SmollettJune 21, 1982(age38)Santa Rosa, California, U.S.OccupationActorsingersongwriterYearsactive1991–presentRelativesJake Smollett(brother)Jurnee Smollett-Bell(sister)On January 29, 2019, Smollett told police that he was attacked outside his apartment building by two men inski masks. He reported they called himracialandhomophobicslurs and said this is MAGA country,” a reference to PresidentDonald Trump s slogan Make America Great Again. [36]He claimed they used their hands, feet, and teeth as weapons in the assault.[37][38]According to a statement released by theChicago Police Department, the two suspects then poured an unknown liquid on Smollett and put anoosearound his neck.[39]Smollett said that he fought them off. Smollett was treated atNorthwestern Memorial Hospital; not seriously injured, he was released in good condition later that morning.[36][40][41]The police were called after 2:30a.m.;[42]when they arrived around 2:40 am, Smollett had a white rope around his neck.[43]Smollett said that the attack may have been motivated by his criticism of theTrump administration[44]and that he believed that the alleged assault was linked to the threatening letter that was sent to him earlier that month.[35]On April 12, 2019, the city of Chicago filed a lawsuit in theCircuit Court of Cook Countyagainst Smollett for the cost of overtime authorities expended investigating the alleged attack, totalling $130,105.15.[57][58][6][59]In November 2019, Smollett filed acounter-suitagainst the city of Chicago alleging he was the victim of mass public ridicule and harm and arguing he should not be made to reimburse the city for the cost of the investigation.[60]On February 11, 2020, after further investigation by a special prosecutor was completed, Smollett was indicted again by a Cook County grand jury on six counts pertaining to making four false police reports.[4][6]On June 12, 2020, a judge struck down Smollett s claim that his February charge violated the principle ofdouble jeopardy.[61]Ocasio-Cortez appeared bothered by what she saw as “gender dynamics” at work during the debate, in which Pence was the only male participantParticularly irking the New York Democrat seemed to be Pence’s reference to her by her widely used nickname “AOC.”“For the record @Mike_Pence, it’s Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez to you,” Ocasio-Cortez responded on Twitter.Ocasio-Cortez also appeared bothered by what she saw as “gender dynamics” at work during the debate, in which Pence was the only male participant. She accused Pence of demanding answers for the questions he posed to Harris, while trying to avoid directly answering questions put to him by the debate moderator, Susan Page of USA Today.“Why is it that Mike Pence doesn’t seem to have to answer any of the questions asked of him in this debate?” she wrote.“Pence demanding that Harris answer *his* own personal questions when he won’t even answer the moderator’s is gross, and exemplary of the gender dynamics so many women have to deal with at work,” she added.But perhaps the most touchy subject for Ocasio-Cortez – a member of so-called “Squad” of far-left lawmakers on Capitol Hill wasclimate change.During the debate, Pence had suggested that theGreen New Deal– the signature legislative proposal of Ocasio-Cortez – was a product of “climate alarmists” that would be expensive and cost many Americans their jobs. Estimates have placed the deal s price tag atmore than $90 trillion.Pence claimed that the Democratic presidential ticket of former Vice President Joe Biden and Harris would fully embrace the plan if elected.“Now, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris would put us back in the Paris climate accord, they’d impose the Green New Deal, which would crush American energy, would increase the energy costs of American families in their homes, and literally crush American jobs,” Pence said.Ocasio-Cortez responded by claiming the Green New Deal has been lied about nonstop. It s a massive job-creation and infrastructure plan to decarbonize increase quality of work and life, she wrote.The vice president also accused Biden and Harris of wanting to steer the U.S. away from traditional energy sources and ban fracking – a process that has helped contribute to the nation’s resurgence in the energy sector but has been a divisive topic among Democrats, who are split between the economic benefits of the process and what many see as its potentially harmful environmental impact.The debate performance of Vice President Mike Pence drew close scrutiny by U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.“The American people know Joe Biden will not ban fracking,” Harris said. “That is a fact. That is a fact. Ocasio-Cortez – perhaps mindful of accusations that she was less than enthusiastic for the Biden-Harris ticket after preferring progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders for president earlier in the campaign – kept her fracking response limited to a single sentence.“Fracking is bad, actually,” she wrote.Dom Calicchio is a Senior Editor at FoxNews.com. Reach him at dom.calicchio@foxnews.com.​Amy Coney Barrett was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in November 2017. She serves on the faculty of the Notre Dame Law School, teaching on constitutional law, federal courts, and statutory interpretation, and previously served on the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. She earned her bachelor’s degree from Rhodes College in 1994 and her J.D. from Notre Dame Law School in 1997. Following law school, Barrett clerked for Judge Laurence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court. She also practiced law with Washington, D.C. law firm Miller, Cassidy, Larroca Lewin.I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun controland issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]ByEverette Hatcher III| Posted inFrancis Schaeffer,Prolife|Edit|Comments (0)I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun controland issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]ByEverette Hatcher III| Posted inFrancis Schaeffer,Prolife|Edit|Comments (0)I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun controland issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]ByEverette Hatcher III| Posted inFrancis Schaeffer,Prolife|Edit|Comments (0)I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun controland issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]ByEverette Hatcher III| Posted inFrancis Schaeffer,Prolife|Edit|Comments (3)I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun controland issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]ByEverette Hatcher III| Posted inFrancis Schaeffer,Prolife|Edit|Comments (2)I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun controland issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]ByEverette Hatcher III| Posted inFrancis Schaeffer,Prolife|Edit|Comments (0)Jussie SmollettSmollett at the 2016PaleyFestBornJustin SmollettJune 21, 1982(age38)Santa Rosa, California, U.S.OccupationActorsingersongwriterYearsactive1991–presentRelativesJake Smollett(brother)Jurnee Smollett-Bell(sister)On January 29, 2019, Smollett told police that he was attacked outside his apartment building by two men inski masks. He reported they called himracialandhomophobicslurs and said this is MAGA country,” a reference to PresidentDonald Trump s slogan Make America Great Again. [36]He claimed they used their hands, feet, and teeth as weapons in the assault.[37][38]According to a statement released by theChicago Police Department, the two suspects then poured an unknown liquid on Smollett and put anoosearound his neck.[39]Smollett said that he fought them off. Smollett was treated atNorthwestern Memorial Hospital; not seriously injured, he was released in good condition later that morning.[36][40][41]The police were called after 2:30a.m.;[42]when they arrived around 2:40 am, Smollett had a white rope around his neck.[43]Smollett said that the attack may have been motivated by his criticism of theTrump administration[44]and that he believed that the alleged assault was linked to the threatening letter that was sent to him earlier that month.[35]On April 12, 2019, the city of Chicago filed a lawsuit in theCircuit Court of Cook Countyagainst Smollett for the cost of overtime authorities expended investigating the alleged attack, totalling $130,105.15.[57][58][6][59]In November 2019, Smollett filed acounter-suitagainst the city of Chicago alleging he was the victim of mass public ridicule and harm and arguing he should not be made to reimburse the city for the cost of the investigation.[60]On February 11, 2020, after further investigation by a special prosecutor was completed, Smollett was indicted again by a Cook County grand jury on six counts pertaining to making four false police reports.[4][6]On June 12, 2020, a judge struck down Smollett s claim that his February charge violated the principle ofdouble jeopardy.[61]Ocasio-Cortez appeared bothered by what she saw as “gender dynamics” at work during the debate, in which Pence was the only male participantParticularly irking the New York Democrat seemed to be Pence’s reference to her by her widely used nickname “AOC.”“For the record @Mike_Pence, it’s Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez to you,” Ocasio-Cortez responded on Twitter.Ocasio-Cortez also appeared bothered by what she saw as “gender dynamics” at work during the debate, in which Pence was the only male participant. She accused Pence of demanding answers for the questions he posed to Harris, while trying to avoid directly answering questions put to him by the debate moderator, Susan Page of USA Today.“Why is it that Mike Pence doesn’t seem to have to answer any of the questions asked of him in this debate?” she wrote.“Pence demanding that Harris answer *his* own personal questions when he won’t even answer the moderator’s is gross, and exemplary of the gender dynamics so many women have to deal with at work,” she added.But perhaps the most touchy subject for Ocasio-Cortez – a member of so-called “Squad” of far-left lawmakers on Capitol Hill wasclimate change.During the debate, Pence had suggested that theGreen New Deal– the signature legislative proposal of Ocasio-Cortez – was a product of “climate alarmists” that would be expensive and cost many Americans their jobs. Estimates have placed the deal s price tag atmore than $90 trillion.Pence claimed that the Democratic presidential ticket of former Vice President Joe Biden and Harris would fully embrace the plan if elected.“Now, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris would put us back in the Paris climate accord, they’d impose the Green New Deal, which would crush American energy, would increase the energy costs of American families in their homes, and literally crush American jobs,” Pence said.Ocasio-Cortez responded by claiming the Green New Deal has been lied about nonstop. It s a massive job-creation and infrastructure plan to decarbonize increase quality of work and life, she wrote.The vice president also accused Biden and Harris of wanting to steer the U.S. away from traditional energy sources and ban fracking – a process that has helped contribute to the nation’s resurgence in the energy sector but has been a divisive topic among Democrats, who are split between the economic benefits of the process and what many see as its potentially harmful environmental impact.The debate performance of Vice President Mike Pence drew close scrutiny by U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.“The American people know Joe Biden will not ban fracking,” Harris said. “That is a fact. That is a fact. Ocasio-Cortez – perhaps mindful of accusations that she was less than enthusiastic for the Biden-Harris ticket after preferring progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders for president earlier in the campaign – kept her fracking response limited to a single sentence.“Fracking is bad, actually,” she wrote.Dom Calicchio is a Senior Editor at FoxNews.com. Reach him at dom.calicchio@foxnews.com.​Amy Coney Barrett was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in November 2017. She serves on the faculty of the Notre Dame Law School, teaching on constitutional law, federal courts, and statutory interpretation, and previously served on the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. She earned her bachelor’s degree from Rhodes College in 1994 and her J.D. from Notre Dame Law School in 1997. Following law school, Barrett clerked for Judge Laurence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court. She also practiced law with Washington, D.C. law firm Miller, Cassidy, Larroca Lewin.I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun controland issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]ByEverette Hatcher III| Posted inFrancis Schaeffer,Prolife|Edit|Comments (0)I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun controland issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]ByEverette Hatcher III| Posted inFrancis Schaeffer,Prolife|Edit|Comments (0)I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun controland issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]ByEverette Hatcher III| Posted inFrancis Schaeffer,Prolife|Edit|Comments (0)I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun controland issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]ByEverette Hatcher III| Posted inFrancis Schaeffer,Prolife|Edit|Comments (3)I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun controland issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]ByEverette Hatcher III| Posted inFrancis Schaeffer,Prolife|Edit|Comments (2)I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun controland issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]ByEverette Hatcher III| Posted inFrancis Schaeffer,Prolife|Edit|Comments (0) AOC v Thomas Sowell!!!! (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is “a rising star” when it comes to picking rhetoric overfacts!) Phillip Stucky from The Daily Caller reports, Award-winning economist Thomas Sowell asserted, in a Tuesday interview on Fox Business, that Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is “a rising star” when it comes to picking rhetoric over facts.I was impacted in 1980 by the film series Free to Choose and I was very impressed by the performance by Thomas Sowell. Today he remembers his former teacher Milton Friedman.Friedman could be a help todayIf Milton Friedman were alive today — and there was never a time when he was more needed — he would be 100 years old. He was born on July 31, 1912. But professor Friedman’s death at age 94 deprived the nation of one of those rare thinkers who had both genius and common sense.Most people would not be able to understand the complex economic analysis that won him a Nobel Prize, but people with no knowledge of economics had no trouble understanding his books such as Free to Choose or the TV series of the same name.In being able to express himself at the highest level of his profession but also at a level that the average person could readily understand, Milton Friedman was like the economist whose theories and persona were most different from his own — John Maynard Keynes.Like many, if not most, people who became prominent as opponents of the left, professor Friedman began on the left. Decades later, looking back at a statement of his own from his early years, he said, “The most striking feature of this statement is how thoroughly Keynesian it is.”No one converted Milton Friedman, either in economics or in his views on social policy. His own research, analysis and experience converted him.As a professor, he did not attempt to convert students to his political views. I made no secret of the fact that I was a Marxist when I was a student in professor Friedman’s course, but he made no effort to change my views. He once said that anybody who was easily converted was not worth converting.I was still a Marxist after taking professor Friedman’s class. Working as an economist in the government converted me.What Milton Friedman is best known for as an economist was his opposition to Keynesian economics, which had largely swept the economics profession on both sides of the Atlantic, with the notable exception of the University of Chicago, where Friedman was trained as a student and later taught.In the heyday of Keynesian economics, many economists believed that inflationary government policies could reduce unemployment, and early empirical data seemed to support that view. The inference was that the government could make careful trade-offs between inflation and unemployment, and thus “fine-tune” the economy.Milton Friedman challenged this view with both facts and analysis. He showed that the relationship between inflation and unemployment held only in the short run, when the inflation was unexpected. But, after everyone got used to inflation, unemployment could be just as high with high inflation as it had been with low inflation.When both unemployment and inflation rose at the same time in the 1970s — “stagflation,” as it was called — the idea of the government “fine-tuning” the economy faded away. There still are some die-hard Keynesians today who keep insisting that the government’s stimulus spending would have worked, if only it was bigger and lasted longer.This is one of those heads-I-win-and-tails-you-lose arguments. Even if the government spends itself into bankruptcy and the economy still does not recover, Keynesians can always say that it would have worked if only the government had spent more.Although Milton Friedman became a conservative icon, he considered himself a liberal in the original sense of the word — someone who believes in the liberty of the individual, free of government intrusions. Far from trying to conserve things as they are, he wrote a book titled Tyranny of the Status Quo.Milton Friedman proposed radical changes in policies and institutions ranging from the public schools to the Federal Reserve. It is liberals who want to conserve and expand the welfare state.As a student of Friedman back in 1960, I was struck by two things — his tough grading standards and the fact that he had a black secretary. This was years before affirmative action. People on the left exhibit blacks as mascots. But I never heard Milton Friedman say that he had a black secretary, though she was with him for decades. Both his grading standards and his refusal to try to be politically correct increased my respect for him.Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at Stanford University s Hoover InstitutionWe knew Joe Biden’s son Hunter pocketed $50,000 a month for a job with a Ukrainian gas company. Joe Biden allowed his son to makemillionsin Ukraine and China while Joe was Vice President.Now, the New York Post is reporting that Vice President Biden may have been introduced to some of the corrupt Ukrainian businessmen paying Hunter…at the same time Vice President Biden was supposed to be overseeing our policy towards Ukraine.Twitter on Wednesday afternoon began blocking tweets from being posted that contained links to the New York Post’s report on alleged emails that purportedly show Hunter Biden offered to introduce then-Vice President Joe Biden to an executive of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma.“We can’t complete this request because this link has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially harmful,” Twitter told users who attempted to post a tweet containing a link to the Post’sstory.A Twitter spokesperson told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the platform took action to limit the spread of the Post’s report because of the lack of authoritative reporting on the origins of the materials cited by the outlet.“In line with our Hacked Materials Policy, as well as our approach to blocking URLs, we are taking action to block any links to or images of the material in question on Twitter,” the spokesperson said.There’s no evidence at the moment the Post relied on hacked materials for its report.According to the Post, the email was part of a “massive trove of data recovered from a laptop computer” that was dropped off at a Delaware computer repair shop in April 2019. The owner of the repair shop said the customer never came back to pay for the service and retrieve the computer, the Post reported.The Post uploaded an invoice signed by the customer that states that equipment left with the repair shop “after 90 days of notification of completed service will be treated as abandoned.”The repair shop owner later alerted the FBI to the existence of the laptop and its hard drive after it went unclaimed, both of which were seized by federal authorities in December, according to a federal subpoena obtained by the Post.Before the laptop was seized, however, the shop owner reportedly made a copy of its hard drive and turned it over to a lawyer for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who in turn provided a copy of the hard drive’s contents to the Post.The Daily Caller News Foundation has not confirmed the authenticity of the emails reported by the Post, and the Biden campaign issued astatementon Wednesday denying that Biden met with the Burisma executive in 2015 as alleged in the Post’s report. Also on Wednesday afternoon, Twitter began blocking any tweet from being posted that contained links to one of the two documents the Post uploaded to document sharing platform Scribd.Link to New York Post Scribd document titled, “Email from Vadim Pozharskyi to Devon Archer and Hunter Biden” blocked by Twitter. (Screenshot: Andrew Kerr) 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 this original content, please contactlicensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailysignal.com/2020/10/14/twitter-facebook-suppress-new-york-post-report-on-hunter-biden/amp/Link to New York Post Scribd document titled, “Email from Robert Biden to Devon Archer” blocked by Twitter. (Screenshot:Andrew Kerr)Facebook spokesman Andy Stone, a former staffer for the Democratic House Majority PAC and former California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, announced earlier Wednesday it would reduce the distribution of the Post’s report despite the lack of any fact-checks against the story.During the vice presidential debate Wednesday night, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Vice President Mike Pence sparred over a variety of policies, revealing significant differences on several issues.The debate, which was moderated by USA Today Washington bureau chief Susan Page, featured the two contenders discussing issues ranging from climate change and COVID-19 to abortion and the Supreme Court.Harris aggressively attacked the Trump administration’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. After the opening question, she laid out what could be called a prosecutor’s case.How are socialists deluding a whole generation?Learn more now “The American people have witnessed what is the greatest failure of any presidential administration in the history of our country,” the California senator said. “And here are the facts: 210,000 dead people in our country in just the last several months, over 7 million people who have contracted this disease, 1 in 5 businesses closed. We are looking at frontline workers treated like sacrificial workers. We are looking at 30 million people who in the last several months had to file for unemployment.”That was in response to a question from Page about what the Biden administration would have done differently than Trump to address the COVID-19 pandemic. Harris then went on to summarize the Biden-Harris plan.“Our plan is about what we need to do around a national strategy, for contact tracing, for testing, for administration of a vaccine, and make sure it’s free,” Harris said.Pence, who headed the White House coronavirus task force, defended the administration’s record.“I want the American people to know that from the very first day, President Donald Trump has put the health of America first,” the vice president said. “Before there were more than five cases in the United States—all people who had returned from China—President Donald Trump did what no other American had ever done. That was, he suspended all travel from China, the second-largest economy in the world.”“He said it was xenophobic and hysterical. I can tell you, having led the White House coronavirus task force that decision alone by President Trump gave us invaluable time to set up the greatest mobilization since World War II,” Pence said. “I believe it saved hundreds of thousands of American lives.”As for the Biden plan, Pence said, the Trump administration was already doing much of what it recommends. He also took a shot at aBiden scandalthat effectively ended his 1988 presidential bid.“The reality is, when you look at the Biden plan, it looks an awful lot like what President Trump and I and our task force have been doing every step of the way,” he said. “ … It looks a little bit like plagiarism, something Joe Biden knows a little bit about.”In September 1987, Biden came in for withering criticism for borrowing lines from a speech by then-British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock without attribution, knocking him out of the race when it was subsequently revealed to be part of a larger pattern of borrowing lines from other politicians without credit.Asked about the race to develop a vaccine, Harris said she wouldn’t trust a Trump-endorsed vaccine, but would take one approved by Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.“If the public health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it. Absolutely,” Harris said. “But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it, I’m not taking it.”Pence fired back that the California senator was politicizing the vaccine.“The fact that you continue to undermine public confidence in a vaccine, if a vaccine emerges during the Trump administration, I think, is unconscionable,” the vice president said. “Senator, I just ask you, stop playing politics with people’s lives. The reality is, we will have a vaccine by the end of this year, and it will continue to save countless American lives.”Harris and Pence sparred over the tax cuts passed by Congress in 2017 and debated Biden’s tax plan.Harris said that the Biden administration would repeal the 2017 tax cuts “on Day One,” and that they were passed to benefit the “rich.”“Joe Biden believes you measure the health and strength of America’s economy based on the health and strength of the American worker and the American family,” Harris said. “On the other hand, you have Donald Trump, who measures the strength of the economy based on how rich people are doing.”Pence defended the tax cuts and said: “Joe Biden said twice in the debate last week that he’s going to repeal the Trump tax cuts,” Pence said. “That was tax cuts that gave the average working family $2,000 with a tax break.”In 2017, Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which reduced federal income taxes and made various other changes to the U.S. tax code.Following the tax cut, the American economy experienced record low unemployment, wage growth, and an overall increase in business investment,accordingto Adam Michel, a specialist on tax policy and the federal budget as a policy analyst in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.Harris said that Biden’s tax plan would end tax breaks for the wealthy but wouldn’t raise taxes on American making under $400,000.“He has been very clear about that,” Harris said, adding, “Joe Biden is the one who, during the Great Recession, was responsible for the Recovery Act that brought America back, and now the Trump and Pence administration wants to take credit for Joe Biden’s success for the economy that they had at the beginning of their term.”According to TheWashington Post,“most Americans received a tax” cut in 2017, not just the rich.Biden’s tax proposal would raise taxes about $3 trillion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.“… The Biden tax plan would reduce [gross domestic product] by 1.47 percent over the long term,”accordingto the Tax Foundation’s General Equilibrium Model. “On a conventional basis, the Biden tax plan by 2030 would lead to about 6.5 percent less after-tax income for the top 1 percent of taxpayers and about a 1.7 percent decline in after-tax income for all taxpayers on average.”According to theleft-leaning Tax Policy Center, Biden’s proposal “would increase taxes on average on all income groups, but the highest-income households would see substantially larger increases, both in dollar amounts and as a share of their incomes.”Harris said a Biden administration would grow the economy through green energy, but she also denied past support for banning fracking.“Joe Biden will not ban fracking. That is a fact. I will repeat that Joe Biden has been very clear that he thinks about growing jobs,” Harris said, adding, “Part of those jobs that will be created by Joe Biden are going to be about clean energy and renewable energy, because Joe understands that the West Coast of our country is burning, including my home state of California.”Harris also spoke about climate-related problems in the Southeast and in the Midwest.“Joe sees what is happening in the Gulf states, which are being battered by storms. Joe has seen and talked with the farmers in Iowa, whose entire crops have been destroyed because of floods,” she said. “So, Joe believes again in science. … We have seen a pattern with this administration, which is, they don’t believe in science. Joe’s plan is about saying we are going to deal with it, but we are going to create jobs.”Pence addressed the issue of climate change, but also attacked the Biden campaign’s promises for the environment.“As I said, Susan, the climate is changing. We’ll follow the science,” he said.“With regard to banning fracking, I just recommend people look at the record. You yourself said repeatedly you would ban fracking,” Pence said of Harris. “You were the first Senate co-sponsor of the Green New Deal.“While Joe Biden denied support for the Green New Deal, Susan, thank you for pointing out the Green New Deal is on [the Biden-Harris] website. As USA Today said, it’s essentially the same plan as you co-sponsored with AOC.”That was a reference to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., the main sponsor of the Green New Deal in the House.“You just heard the senator say she was going to resubmit America to the Paris Climate Accord. The American people have always cherished our environment, and we’ll continue to cherish it,” Pence said. “We’ve made great progress reducing [carbon dioxide] emissions through American innovation and the development of natural gas through fracking.“We don’t need a massive $2 trillion Green New Deal that would impose all new mandates on American businesses and American families. … It makes no sense. It will cost jobs.”Pence and Harris sparred over U.S. relations with China, including its role in the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.“China and the World Health Organization did not play straight with the American people,” Pence said. “They did not let our personnel into China … until the middle of February.”The vice president defended the administration’s aggressive trade policy with Beijing. “But China has been taking advantage of the United States for decades, in the wake of Biden cheerleading for China,” he said.Harris said that the Trump administration had “lost” the trade war with China. “What ended up happening because of a so-called “trade war” with China? America lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs,” she said.Pence countered that a Biden administration would go soft on the communist country.“Joe Biden has been a cheerleader for communist China over the last several decades,” he said.The vice president criticized the record of the administration of Biden’s boss, President Barack Obama, saying that it had dismissed the idea that manufacturing jobs could ever come back to America.“In our first three years, this administration saw 500,000 manufacturing jobs created, and that’s the type of growth we’re going to see,” Pence said.With the nomination of federal appeals court Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, Page asked both candidates what they would want their respective states of Indiana and California to do if the high court were to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide and sent the matter back to the states to decide for themselves.Neither candidate directly addressed the question, but both spoke of the abortion issue in the context of the Supreme Court.“The issues before us couldn’t be more serious,” Harris said. “There is the issue of choice, and I will always fight for a woman’s right to make a decision about her own body. It should be her decision and not that of Donald Trump and the vice president, Michael Pence.”Pence reiterated his pro-life stance, and called out the Biden-Harris ticket.“I couldn’t be more proud to serve as vice president to a president who stands unapologetically for the sanctity of human life. I will not apologize for it,” he said. “This is another one of those cases where there is such a dramatic contrast. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris support taxpayer funding of abortion all the way up to the moment of birth, late-term abortion.”Pence asked Harris at one point if she would support packing the courts, meaning increasing the number of Supreme Court justices to 10 or more, and then he accused her of not answering the question.“Once again you gave a non-answer, Joe Biden gave a non-answer,” Pence said. “The American people deserve a straight answer.”In his remarks, Pence noted the Supreme Court has had nine justices for the past 150 years.The vice presidential candidates also had a heated exchange on race relations amid social unrest in major American cities.Harris called out Trump for what she claimed was his reluctance to condemn white supremacists, referring tolast week’s presidential debatebetween Trump and Biden.“Last week, the president of the United States took a debate stage in front of 70 million Americans and refused to condemn white supremacists,” Harris said. “It wasn’t like he wasn’t given a chance. He didn’t do it, and then he doubled down. Then he said, when pressed, ‘Stand back, stand by.’ This is part of a pattern with Donald Trump.”She also cited the deadly 2017 Charlottesville, Va., Unite the Right rally.Pence countered by citingTrump’s commentsregarding the Charlottesville violence.“This is one of the things that makes people dislike the media so much in this country, that you selectively edit so much,” Pence said, arguing that the media had distorted what Trump had said about there being “very fine people” on both sides in Charlottesville.“After President Trump made comments about people on either side of the debate over monuments, he condemned the KKK, neo-Nazis and white supremacists,” the vice president said.“He has done so repeatedly. Your concern that he doesn’t condemn neo-Nazis, President Trump has Jewish grandchildren. His daughter and son-in-law are Jewish. This is a president who respects and cherishes all of the American people.”Pence then went on offense about Harris’ prosecution record as a district attorney in San Francisco.“When you were D.A. in San Francisco, African Americans were 19 times more likely to be prosecuted for minor drug offenses than whites and Hispanics,” Pence said to Harris. “You increased the disproportionate incarceration. You did nothing on criminal justice reform in California. You didn’t lift a finger to pass theFirst Step Acton Capitol Hill.”The First Step Act is a bipartisan criminal justice reform billsigned into law by Trump in December 2018.Harris didn’t directly defend her record as district attorney of San Francisco, but pivoted to her record as California attorney general.“Having served as the attorney general of California, the work I did is a model of what our nation needs to do and what we will be able to do,” she said, adding, “I was the first statewide officer to institute a requirement that my agents would wear body cameras and keep them on full time. We were the first to initiate that there would be training for law enforcement on implicit bias.”I grew up and went to EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL in Memphis and ran some of our track meets at RHODES COLLEGE and I know that campus well and I even was contacted by a official at Rhodes with some recruiting material after a good performance in my sophomore year in my mile run there in 1978. Also during the late 1970’s I helped my friends Byron Tyler and David Rogers in a Christian Rock Saturday morning show on Rhodes’s radio station!!! My brother-in-law graduated from Rhodes but I graduated from University of Memphis in 1982.President Trump is going to announce his nomination for the Supreme Court later this week, and all the talk is about Amy Coney Barrett, currently a Notre Dame professor of law and a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. As it happens, Amy was a classmate of mine at Rhodes College, a small (1,400 students at the time) liberal-arts school in Memphis. I didn’t know her well, but she was a friend of other friends, and we were acquainted a bit through being in a club together.I can tell you a few things about her, though. For one thing, she didnothave a wild reputation, so I think that if she’s nominated, the Senate hearings will have to find something else to complain about. She was an English major and served on the Honor Council, a student body that enforced our honor code against lying and cheating (a great feature of academics at Rhodes that allowed us take-home tests in many classes). We were both in Mortar Board, an honor society. She wasn’t a political activist and was never a member of the College Republicans (I was, and we had a much larger membership than the College Democrats).Amy at the homecoming game senior yearPopular, as far as I knew, and by our senior year, she shows up in the yearbook’s candid photos taken around campus.Candid photo in the social room (the ironing board refers to another picture)I hadn’t thought about her for a long time, until three years ago when friends were pointing out she’d been nominated for the Seventh Circuit, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein grilled her over her religion, proclaiming that “the dogma lives loudly within you.” At the time, I thought that was a rough Senate hearing.My daughter was a Notre Dame student, and two years ago, I stopped by to visit Amy at her home in South Bend and catch up. She had been listed as being on the president’s shortlist for a Supreme Court seat, and Kavanaugh was going through his own nomination process at that time.L to R: Me, Amy Barrett, and my daughterMy daughter had been treating the accusations against him as probably true by default and took an unconcerned view towards the behavior of the press. Amy knows Kavanaugh, spoke well of him, and described what it was like seeing the press contacting her and digging through rumors about him. That changed my daughter’s opinion of how these things go, she told me. I meant to ask her if she were named to the Supreme Court if she’d be willing to go through all of the hatred and attacks on her reputation that would surely be a part of it. But I can’t remember if I did. I reckon we’ll all find out soon enough, though.As a footnote, if Amy is confirmed to the court, she would be the second Supreme Court justice to come from Rhodes. Our first was Abe Fortas (class of 1930), who was named by President Johnson in 1965. Fortas resigned in 1969 after a series of ethics scandals, but the college gives out the Abe Fortas Award for Excellence in Legal Studies each year. Quite understandable; we’re a small school, and we should still be proud one of our own was elevated to the Supreme Court. May Amy Barrett bring us more honor.Published inLawTags:SCOTUS; SUPREME COURT; Amy Coney BarrettBarrett served as a visiting associate professor and John M. Olin Fellow in Law atGeorge Washington University Law Schoolfor a year before returning to her alma mater, Notre Dame Law School in 2002.[15]At Notre Dame she taught federal courts, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation. Barrett was named a Professor of Law in 2010, and from 2014 to 2017 held the Diane and M.O. Miller Research Chair of Law.[16]Her scholarship focuses on constitutional law, originalism, statutory interpretation, andstare decisis.[12]Her academic work has been published in journals such as theColumbia,Cornell,Virginia,Notre Dame, andTexasLaw Reviews.[15]Some of her most significant publications areSuspension and Delegation, 99 Cornell L. Rev. 251 (2014),Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement, 91 Tex. L. Rev. 1711 (2013),The Supervisory Power of the Supreme Court, 106 Colum. L. Rev. 101 (2006), andStare Decisis and Due Process, 74 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1011 (2003).At Notre Dame, Barrett received the Distinguished Professor of the Year award three times.[15]She taught Constitutional Law, Civil Procedure, Evidence, Federal Courts, Constitutional Theory Seminar, and Statutory Interpretation Seminar.[15]Barrett has continued to teach seminars as a sitting judge.[17]A hearing on Barrett s nomination before theSenate Judiciary Committeewas held on September 6, 2017.[20]During the hearing, SenatorDianne Feinsteinquestioned Barrett about a law review article Barrett co-wrote in 1998 with ProfessorJohn H. Garveyin which she argued that Catholic judges should in some cases recuse themselves from death penalty cases due to their moral objections to the death penalty. The article concluded that the trial judge should recuse herself instead of entering the order. Asked to elaborate on the statements and discuss how you view the issue of faith versus fulfilling the responsibility as a judge today, Barrett said that she had participated in many death-penalty appeals while serving as law clerk to Scalia, adding, My personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on the discharge of my duties as a judge [21][22]and It is never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge s personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law. [23]Worried that Barrett would not upholdRoe v. Wadegiven her Catholic beliefs, Feinstein followed Barrett s response by saying, the dogma lives loudly within you, and that is a concern. [24][25][26]The hearing made Barrett popular with religious conservatives,[11]and in response, the conservativeJudicial Crisis Networkbegan to sell mugs with Barrett s photo and Feinstein s dogma remark.[27]Feinstein s and other senators questioning was criticized by some Republicans and other observers, such as university presidentsJohn I. JenkinsandChristopher Eisgruber, as improper inquiry into a nominee s religious belief that employed anunconstitutional religious test for office;[23][28][29]others, such asNan Aron, defended Feinstein s line of questioning.[29]Lambda Legal, an LGBT civil rights organization, co-signed a letter with 26 other gay rights organizations opposing Barrett s nomination. The letter expressed doubts about her ability to separate faith from her rulings on LGBT matters.[30][31]During her Senate confirmation hearing, Barrett was questioned about landmark LGBTQ legal precedents such asObergefell v. Hodges,United States v. Windsor, andLawrence v. Texas. Barrett said these cases are binding precedents that she intended to faithfully follow if confirmed to the appeals court, as required by law.[30]The letter co-signed by Lambda Legal said Simply repeating that she would be bound by Supreme Court precedent does not illuminate—indeed, it obfuscates—how Professor Barrett would interpret and apply precedent when faced with the sorts of dilemmas that, in her view, put Catholic judges in a bind.' [30]Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network later said that warnings from LGBT advocacy groups about shortlisted nominees to replace JusticeAnthony Kennedy, including Barrett, were very much overblown and called them mostly scare tactics. [30]In 2015, Barrett signed a letter in support of theOrdinary Synod of Bishops on the Familythat endorsed the Catholic Church s teachings on human sexuality and its definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. When asked about the letter, she testified that the Church s definition of marriage is legally irrelevant.[32][33]Barrett s nomination was supported by every law clerk she had worked with and all of her 49 faculty colleagues at Notre Dame Law school. 450 former students signed a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee supporting Barrett s nomination.[34][35]On October 5, 2017, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 11–9 on party lines to recommend Barrett and report her nomination to the full Senate.[36][37]On October 30, the Senate invokedclotureby a vote of 54–42.[38]It confirmed her by a vote of 55–43 on October 31, with three Democrats—Joe Donnelly,Tim Kaine, andJoe Manchin—voting for her.[10]She received her commission two days later.[2]Barrett is the first and to date only woman to occupy an Indiana seat on the Seventh Circuit.[39]InDoe v. Purdue University, 928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2019), the court, in a unanimous decision written by Barrett, reinstated a suit brought by a malePurdue Universitystudent (John Doe) who had been found guilty of sexual assault byPurdue University, which resulted in a one-year suspension, loss of hisNavy ROTCscholarship, and expulsion from the ROTC affecting his ability to pursue his chosen career in the Navy.[40]Doe alleged the school s Advisory Committee on Equity discriminated against him on the basis of his sex and violated his rights to due process by not interviewing the alleged victim, not allowing him to present evidence in his defense, including an erroneous statement that he confessed to some of the alleged assault, and appearing to believe the victim instead of the accused without hearing from either party or having even read the investigation report. The court found that Doe had adequately alleged that the university deprived him of his occupational liberty withoutdue processin violation of theFourteenth Amendmentand had violated hisTitle IXrights by imposing a punishment infected by sex bias, and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.[41][42][43]InEEOC v. AutoZone, the Seventh Circuit considered the federal government s appeal from a ruling in a suit brought by theEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionagainstAutoZone; the EEOC argued that the retailer s assignment of employees to different stores based on race (e.g., sending African American employees to stores in heavily African American neighborhoods ) violatedTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act. The panel, which did not include Barrett, ruled in favor of AutoZone. An unsuccessful petition for rehearingen bancwas filed. Three judges—Chief JudgeDiane Woodand JudgesIlana RovnerandDavid Hamilton—voted to grant rehearing, and criticized the panel decision as upholding a separate-but-equal arrangement Barrett and four other judges voted to deny rehearing.[11]InCook County v. Wolf, 962 F.3d 208 (7th Cir. 2020), Barrett wrote a 40-page dissent from the majority s decision to uphold a preliminary injunction on the Trump administration s controversial public charge rule , which heightened the standard for obtaining agreen card. In her dissent, she argued that any noncitizens who disenrolled from government benefits because of the rule did so due to confusion about the rule itself rather than from its application, writing that the vast majority of the people subject to the rule are not eligible for government benefits in the first place. On the merits, Barrett departed from her colleagues Wood and Rovner, who held that DHS s interpretation of that provision was unreasonable underChevronStep Two. Barrett would have held that the new rule fell within the broad scope of discretion granted to the Executive by Congress through theImmigration and Nationality Act.[44][45][46]The public charge issue is the subject of acircuit split.[44][46][47]InYafai v. Pompeo, 924 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2019), the court considered a case brought by a Yemeni citizen, Ahmad, and her husband, a U.S. citizen, who challenged a consular officer s decision to twice deny Ahmad s visa application under theImmigration and Nationality Act. Yafai, the U.S. citizen, argued that the denial of his wife s visa application violated his constitutional right to live in the United States with his spouse.[48]In an 2-1 majority opinion authored by Barrett, the court held that the plaintiff’s claim was properly dismissed under the doctrine ofconsular nonreviewability. She declined to address whether Yafai had been denied a constitutional right (or whether a constitutional right to live in the United States with his spouse existed) because even if a constitutional right was implicated, the court lacked authority to disturb the consular officer s decision to deny Ahmad’s visa application because that decision was facially legitimate and bona fide. Following the panel s decision, Yafai filed a petition for rehearingen banc; the petition was denied, with eight judges voting against rehearing and three in favor, Wood, Rovner and Hamilton. Barrett and JudgeJoel Flaumconcurred in the denial of rehearing.[48][49]InKanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019), Barrett dissented when the court upheld a law prohibiting convicted nonviolent felons from possessing firearms. The plaintiffs had been convicted ofmail fraud. The majority upheld the felony dispossession statutes as substantially related to an important government interest in preventing gun violence. In her dissent, Barrett argued that while the government has a legitimate interest in denying gun possession to felons convicted of violent crimes, there is no evidence that denying guns to nonviolent felons promotes this interest, and that the law violates the Second Amendment.[50][51]InRainsberger v. Benner, 913 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2019), the panel, in an opinion by Barrett, affirmed the district court s ruling denying the defendant s motion for summary judgment and qualified immunity in a42 U.S.C. § 1983case. The defendant, Benner, was a police detective who knowingly provided false and misleading information in aprobable causeaffidavit that was used to obtain anarrest warrantagainst Rainsberger. (The charges were later dropped and Rainsberger was released.) The court found the defendant s lies and omissions violated clearly established law and thus Benner was not shielded by qualified immunity.[52]The caseUnited States v. Watson, 900 F.3d 892 (7th Cir. 2018) involved police responding to an anonymous tip that people were playing with guns in a parking lot. The police arrived and searched the defendant s vehicle, taking possession of two firearms; the defendant was later charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court denied the defendant smotion to suppress. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit, in a decision by Barrett, vacated and remanded, determining that the police lacked probable cause to search the vehicle based solely upon the tip, when no crime was alleged. Barrett distinguishedNavarette v. Californiaand wrote, the police were right to respond to the anonymous call by coming to the parking lot to determine what was happening. But determining what was happening and immediately seizing people upon arrival are two different things, and the latter was premature Watson s case presents a close call. But this one falls on the wrong side of the Fourth Amendment. [53]In a 2013 Texas Law Review article, Barrett included as one of only seven Supreme Court “superprecedents“, Mapp vs Ohio (1961); the seminal case where the court found through the doctrine of selective incorporation that the 4th Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures was binding on state and local authorities in the same way it historically applied to the federal government.InCasillas v. Madison Ave. Associates, Inc., 926 F.3d 329 (7th Cir. 2019), the plaintiff brought aclass-actionlawsuit against Madison Avenue, alleging that the company violated theFair Debt Collection Practices Act(FDCPA) when it sent her a debt-collection letter that described the FDCPA process for verifying a debt but failed to specify that she was required to respond in writing to trigger the FDCPA protections. Casillas did not allege that she had tried to verify her debt and trigger the statutory protections under the FDCPA, or that the amount owed was in any doubt. In a decision written by Barrett, the panel, citing the Supreme Court’s decision inSpokeo, Inc. v. Robins, found that the plaintiff s allegation of receiving incorrect or incomplete information was a bare procedural violation that was insufficiently concrete to satisfy theArticle III sinjury-in-factrequirement. Wood dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc. The issue created acircuit split.[54][55][56]Barrett considers herself anoriginalist. She is a constitutional scholar with expertise in statutory interpretation.[10]Reuters described Barrett as a a favorite among religious conservatives, and said that she has supported expansive gun rights and voted in favor of one of the Trump administration s anti-immigration policies.[57]Barrett was one of JusticeAntonin Scalia s law clerks. She has spoken and written of her admiration of his close attention to the text of statutes. She has also praised his adherence to originalism.[58]In 2013, Barrett wrote aTexas Law Reviewarticle on the doctrine ofstare decisiswherein she listed seven cases that should be considered superprecedents —cases that the court would never consider overturning. The list includedBrown v. Board of Educationbut specifically excludedRoe v. Wade. In explaining why it was not included, Barrett referenced scholarship agreeing that in order to qualify as superprecedent a decision must enjoy widespread support from not only jurists but politicians and the public at large to the extent of becoming immune to reversal or challenge. She argued the people must trust the validity of a ruling to such an extent the matter has been taken off of the court s agenda, with lower courts no longer taking challenges to them seriously. Barrett pointed toPlanned Parenthood v. Caseyas specific evidenceRoehad not yet attained this status.[59]The article did not include any pro-Second Amendment or pro-LGBT cases as Super-Precedent .[30][31]When asked during her confirmation hearings why she did not include any pro-LGBT cases as superprecedent , Barrett explained that the list contained in the article was collected from other scholars and not a product of her own independent analysis on the subject.[32][33]Barrett has never ruled directly on a case pertaining to abortion rights, but she did vote to rehear a successful challenge to Indiana s parental notification law in 2019. In 2018, Barrett voted against striking down another Indiana law requiring burial or cremation of fetal remains. In both cases, Barrett voted with the minority. The Supreme Court later reinstated the fetal remains law and in July 2020 it ordered a rehearing in the parental notification case.[57]At a 2013 event reflecting on the 40th anniversary ofRoe v. Wade, she described the decision—inNotre Dame Magazine s paraphrase—as creating through judicial fiat a framework of abortion on demand. [60][61]She also remarked that it was very unlikely the court would overturn the core ofRoe v. Wade: The fundamental element, that the woman has a right to choose abortion, will probably stand. The controversy right now is about funding. It s a question of whether abortions will be publicly or privately funded. [62][63]NPR said that those statements were made before the election of Donald Trump and the changing composition of the Supreme Court to the right subsequent to his election, which could make Barrett s vote pivotal in overturningRoe v. Wade.[64]Barrett was critical ofChief JusticeJohn Roberts opinion in the 5–4 decision that upheld the constitutionality of the central provision in theAffordable Care Act(Obamacare) inNFIB vs. Sebelius. Roberts s opinion defended the constitutionality of theindividual mandateof the Affordable Care Act by characterizing it as a tax. Barrett disapproved of this approach, saying Roberts pushed the ACA beyond it s plausible limit to save it. [64][65][66][67]She criticized the Obama administration for providing employees of religious institutions the option of obtainingbirth controlwithout having the religious institutions pay for it.[65]Barrett has been on President Trump s list of potential Supreme Court nominees since 2017, almost immediately after her court of appeals confirmation. In July 2018, afterAnthony Kennedy s retirement announcement, she was reportedly one of three finalists Trump considered, along with JudgeRaymond Kethledgeand JudgeBrett Kavanaugh.[16][68]Trump chose Kavanaugh.[69]Reportedly, although Trump liked Barrett, he was concerned about her lack of experience on the bench.[70]In the Republican Party, Barrett was favored bysocial conservatives.[70]After Kavanaugh s selection, Barrett was viewed as a possible Trump nominee for a future Supreme Court vacancy.[71]Trump was reportedly saving Ruth Bader Ginsburg s seat for Barrett if Ginsburg retired or died during his presidency.[72]Ginsburg died on September 18, 2020, and Barrett has been widely mentioned as the front-runner to succeed her.[73][74][75][76]​Amy Coney Barrett was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in November 2017. She serves on the faculty of the Notre Dame Law School, teaching on constitutional law, federal courts, and statutory interpretation, and previously served on the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. She earned her bachelor’s degree from Rhodes College in 1994 and her J.D. from Notre Dame Law School in 1997. Following law school, Barrett clerked for Judge Laurence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court. She also practiced law with Washington, D.C. law firm Miller, Cassidy, Larroca Lewin.I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun controland issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]ByEverette Hatcher III| Posted inFrancis Schaeffer,Prolife|Edit|Comments (0)I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun controland issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]ByEverette Hatcher III| Posted inFrancis Schaeffer,Prolife|Edit|Comments (0)I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun controland issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]ByEverette Hatcher III| Posted inFrancis Schaeffer,Prolife|Edit|Comments (0)I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun controland issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]ByEverette Hatcher III| Posted inFrancis Schaeffer,Prolife|Edit|Comments (3)I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun controland issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]ByEverette Hatcher III| Posted inFrancis Schaeffer,Prolife|Edit|Comments (2)I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun controland issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]ByEverette Hatcher III| Posted inFrancis Schaeffer,Prolife|Edit|Comments (0)Check out the quote below by Kamala Harris in the debate concerning President Lincoln stating that the reason he put off nominating a Supreme Court replacement after the election was because Lincoln wanted the winner of the the 1864 election to make the pick, and then see that debunked. Yet liberal fact checkers like Planned Parenthood do not put in the false category but only say it “may be a little bit of a stretch.”Sen. Kamala Harris told Pence. “In 1864 Abraham Lincoln was up for reelection. And it was 27 days before the election. And a seat became open on the United States Supreme Court. Abraham Lincoln’s party was in charge not only of the White House but the Senate. But Honest Abe said, ‘It’s not the right thing to do. The American people deserve to make the decision about who will be the next president of the United States, and then that person will be able to select who will serve on the highest court of the land.”Michael Burlingame, the distinguished chair in Lincoln studies at the University of Illinois-Springfield, told PolitiFact, I ve never seen anything like that quote in all my 36 years of Lincoln research. Lincoln, of course, said no such thing, Dan McLaughlin of THE NATIONAL REVIEW refuted the Democrat Wednesday night.  He sent no nominee to the Senate in October 1864 because the Senate was out of session until December.” Congress was in recess until early December, so there would have been no point in naming a man before the election anyway. Lincoln shrewdly used that to his advantage. If he had lost the election, there is no evidence he wouldn’t have filled the spot in the lame-duck session.Claim: In 1864, 27 days before the election, President Abraham Lincoln decided not to nominate an appointment to a vacant seat on the U.S. Supreme Court because he believed the people should decide.Context: In a discussion of Trump’s recent nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the supreme court just weeks before the November Election, Harris recalled a moment in political history when Abraham Lincoln chose to defer the nomination of a justice to the court following a Justice’s death less than a month before the election. Harris tied this story to the current moment, as most voters across the country would like for the winner of the November election to appoint the next justice to the Supreme Court.Fact-check: Lincoln did wait to appoint a justice in 1864 until December, a month after the presidential election. His decision to do so may or may not have been politically motivated, as many potential candidates were eager to campaign for his reelection with the hope that he would return the favor with a nomination to the court. Harris’s claim that Lincoln waited so that the people could decide on the president and the court appointment may be a little bit of a stretch, but it is also not necessarily representative of the position we’re in today, given that during Abraham Lincoln’s presidency, only white men were allowed to vote.Washington Post fact-check s Harris little history lesson about Lincoln: Wasn t exactly true Harris insisted Honest Abe said filling a vacant Supreme Court seat during an election was not the right thing to do The Washington Post offered a sharp rebuke to the little history lesson Sen.Kamala Harrisshared during Wednesday night s vice presidential debate, which apparently wasn t exactly true. During an exchange with Vice PresidentMike Penceon the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to theSupreme Court, Harris suggested that one of the most revered Republican presidents would be in favor of allowing a newly elected president to fill a vacant seat instead of rushing a confirmation in the heat of an election.She made her argument in response to Pence sayingthatPresident Trump s appointment is following precedent.“I’m so glad we went through a little history lesson. Let’s do that a little more,” Harris told Pence. “In 1864 Abraham Lincoln was up for reelection. And it was 27 days before the election. And a seat became open on the United States Supreme Court. Abraham Lincoln’s party was in charge not only of the White House but the Senate. But Honest Abe said, ‘It’s not the right thing to do. The American people deserve to make the decision about who will be the next president of the United States, and thenthatperson will be able to select who will serve on the highest court of the land.”Well,according to a reportfrom The Washington Post on Thursday, Harris did not accurately describe what took place under Lincoln when filling the vacant seat ofChief Justice Roger B. Taney. Harris is correct that a seat became available 27 days before the election. And that Lincoln didn’t nominate anyone until after he won, the Post wrote. But there is no evidence he thought the seat should be filled by the winner of the election. In fact, he had other motives for the delay. According to Lincoln historian Michael Burlingame, Lincoln told his aides he wanted to delay hisSupreme Court confirmation process because he was “waiting to receive expressions of public opinion from the country, though thePost noted, that didn’t mean he was waiting for ballots so much as the mail. The overarching effect of the delay is that it held Lincoln’s broad but shaky coalition of conservative and radical Republicans together, the Post explained. Congress was in recess until early December, so there would have been no point in naming a man before the election anyway. Lincoln shrewdly used that to his advantage. If he had lost the election, there is no evidence he wouldn’t have filled the spot in the lame-duck session. The Post concluded, So Harris is mistaken about Lincoln’s motivations in this regard. National Review senior writer Dan McLaughinwent even further, accusing Harris of dishonesty with her Lincoln anecdote. Lincoln, of course, said no such thing, McLaughlin refuted the Democrat Wednesday night. He sent no nominee to the Senate in October 1864 because the Senate was out of session until December. During the vice presidential debate Wednesday night, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Vice President Mike Pence sparred over a variety of policies, revealing significant differences on several issues.The debate, which was moderated by USA Today Washington bureau chief Susan Page, featured the two contenders discussing issues ranging from climate change and COVID-19 to abortion and the Supreme Court.Harris aggressively attacked the Trump administration’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. After the opening question, she laid out what could be called a prosecutor’s case.How are socialists deluding a whole generation?Learn more now “The American people have witnessed what is the greatest failure of any presidential administration in the history of our country,” the California senator said. “And here are the facts: 210,000 dead people in our country in just the last several months, over 7 million people who have contracted this disease, 1 in 5 businesses closed. We are looking at frontline workers treated like sacrificial workers. We are looking at 30 million people who in the last several months had to file for unemployment.”That was in response to a question from Page about what the Biden administration would have done differently than Trump to address the COVID-19 pandemic. Harris then went on to summarize the Biden-Harris plan.“Our plan is about what we need to do around a national strategy, for contact tracing, for testing, for administration of a vaccine, and make sure it’s free,” Harris said.Pence, who headed the White House coronavirus task force, defended the administration’s record.“I want the American people to know that from the very first day, President Donald Trump has put the health of America first,” the vice president said. “Before there were more than five cases in the United States—all people who had returned from China—President Donald Trump did what no other American had ever done. That was, he suspended all travel from China, the second-largest economy in the world.”“He said it was xenophobic and hysterical. I can tell you, having led the White House coronavirus task force that decision alone by President Trump gave us invaluable time to set up the greatest mobilization since World War II,” Pence said. “I believe it saved hundreds of thousands of American lives.”As for the Biden plan, Pence said, the Trump administration was already doing much of what it recommends. He also took a shot at aBiden scandalthat effectively ended his 1988 presidential bid.“The reality is, when you look at the Biden plan, it looks an awful lot like what President Trump and I and our task force have been doing every step of the way,” he said. “ … It looks a little bit like plagiarism, something Joe Biden knows a little bit about.”In September 1987, Biden came in for withering criticism for borrowing lines from a speech by then-British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock without attribution, knocking him out of the race when it was subsequently revealed to be part of a larger pattern of borrowing lines from other politicians without credit.Asked about the race to develop a vaccine, Harris said she wouldn’t trust a Trump-endorsed vaccine, but would take one approved by Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.“If the public health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it. Absolutely,” Harris said. “But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it, I’m not taking it.”Pence fired back that the California senator was politicizing the vaccine.“The fact that you continue to undermine public confidence in a vaccine, if a vaccine emerges during the Trump administration, I think, is unconscionable,” the vice president said. “Senator, I just ask you, stop playing politics with people’s lives. The reality is, we will have a vaccine by the end of this year, and it will continue to save countless American lives.”Harris and Pence sparred over the tax cuts passed by Congress in 2017 and debated Biden’s tax plan.Harris said that the Biden administration would repeal the 2017 tax cuts “on Day One,” and that they were passed to benefit the “rich.”“Joe Biden believes you measure the health and strength of America’s economy based on the health and strength of the American worker and the American family,” Harris said. “On the other hand, you have Donald Trump, who measures the strength of the economy based on how rich people are doing.”Pence defended the tax cuts and said: “Joe Biden said twice in the debate last week that he’s going to repeal the Trump tax cuts,” Pence said. “That was tax cuts that gave the average working family $2,000 with a tax break.”In 2017, Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which reduced federal income taxes and made various other changes to the U.S. tax code.Following the tax cut, the American economy experienced record low unemployment, wage growth, and an overall increase in business investment,accordingto Adam Michel, a specialist on tax policy and the federal budget as a policy analyst in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.Harris said that Biden’s tax plan would end tax breaks for the wealthy but wouldn’t raise taxes on American making under $400,000.“He has been very clear about that,” Harris said, adding, “Joe Biden is the one who, during the Great Recession, was responsible for the Recovery Act that brought America back, and now the Trump and Pence administration wants to take credit for Joe Biden’s success for the economy that they had at the beginning of their term.”According to TheWashington Post,“most Americans received a tax” cut in 2017, not just the rich.Biden’s tax proposal would raise taxes about $3 trillion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.“… The Biden tax plan would reduce [gross domestic product] by 1.47 percent over the long term,”accordingto the Tax Foundation’s General Equilibrium Model. “On a conventional basis, the Biden tax plan by 2030 would lead to about 6.5 percent less after-tax income for the top 1 percent of taxpayers and about a 1.7 percent decline in after-tax income for all taxpayers on average.”According to theleft-leaning Tax Policy Center, Biden’s proposal “would increase taxes on average on all income groups, but the highest-income households would see substantially larger increases, both in dollar amounts and as a share of their incomes.”Harris said a Biden administration would grow the economy through green energy, but she also denied past support for banning fracking.“Joe Biden will not ban fracking. That is a fact. I will repeat that Joe Biden has been very clear that he thinks about growing jobs,” Harris said, adding, “Part of those jobs that will be created by Joe Biden are going to be about clean energy and renewable energy, because Joe understands that the West Coast of our country is burning, including my home state of California.”Harris also spoke about climate-related problems in the Southeast and in the Midwest.“Joe sees what is happening in the Gulf states, which are being battered by storms. Joe has seen and talked with the farmers in Iowa, whose entire crops have been destroyed because of floods,” she said. “So, Joe believes again in science. … We have seen a pattern with this administration, which is, they don’t believe in science. Joe’s plan is about saying we are going to deal with it, but we are going to create jobs.”Pence addressed the issue of climate change, but also attacked the Biden campaign’s promises for the environment.“As I said, Susan, the climate is changing. We’ll follow the science,” he said.“With regard to banning fracking, I just recommend people look at the record. You yourself said repeatedly you would ban fracking,” Pence said of Harris. “You were the first Senate co-sponsor of the Green New Deal.“While Joe Biden denied support for the Green New Deal, Susan, thank you for pointing out the Green New Deal is on [the Biden-Harris] website. As USA Today said, it’s essentially the same plan as you co-sponsored with AOC.”That was a reference to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., the main sponsor of the Green New Deal in the House.“You just heard the senator say she was going to resubmit America to the Paris Climate Accord. The American people have always cherished our environment, and we’ll continue to cherish it,” Pence said. “We’ve made great progress reducing [carbon dioxide] emissions through American innovation and the development of natural gas through fracking.“We don’t need a massive $2 trillion Green New Deal that would impose all new mandates on American businesses and American families. … It makes no sense. It will cost jobs.”Pence and Harris sparred over U.S. relations with China, including its role in the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.“China and the World Health Organization did not play straight with the American people,” Pence said. “They did not let our personnel into China … until the middle of February.”The vice president defended the administration’s aggressive trade policy with Beijing. “But China has been taking advantage of the United States for decades, in the wake of Biden cheerleading for China,” he said.Harris said that the Trump administration had “lost” the trade war with China. “What ended up happening because of a so-called “trade war” with China? America lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs,” she said.Pence countered that a Biden administration would go soft on the communist country.“Joe Biden has been a cheerleader for communist China over the last several decades,” he said.The vice president criticized the record of the administration of Biden’s boss, President Barack Obama, saying that it had dismissed the idea that manufacturing jobs could ever come back to America.“In our first three years, this administration saw 500,000 manufacturing jobs created, and that’s the type of growth we’re going to see,” Pence said.With the nomination of federal appeals court Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, Page asked both candidates what they would want their respective states of Indiana and California to do if the high court were to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide and sent the matter back to the states to decide for themselves.Neither candidate directly addressed the question, but both spoke of the abortion issue in the context of the Supreme Court.“The issues before us couldn’t be more serious,” Harris said. “There is the issue of choice, and I will always fight for a woman’s right to make a decision about her own body. It should be her decision and not that of Donald Trump and the vice president, Michael Pence.”Pence reiterated his pro-life stance, and called out the Biden-Harris ticket.“I couldn’t be more proud to serve as vice president to a president who stands unapologetically for the sanctity of human life. I will not apologize for it,” he said. “This is another one of those cases where there is such a dramatic contrast. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris support taxpayer funding of abortion all the way up to the moment of birth, late-term abortion.”Pence asked Harris at one point if she would support packing the courts, meaning increasing the number of Supreme Court justices to 10 or more, and then he accused her of not answering the question.“Once again you gave a non-answer, Joe Biden gave a non-answer,” Pence said. “The American people deserve a straight answer.”In his remarks, Pence noted the Supreme Court has had nine justices for the past 150 years.The vice presidential candidates also had a heated exchange on race relations amid social unrest in major American cities.Harris called out Trump for what she claimed was his reluctance to condemn white supremacists, referring tolast week’s presidential debatebetween Trump and Biden.“Last week, the president of the United States took a debate stage in front of 70 million Americans and refused to condemn white supremacists,” Harris said. “It wasn’t like he wasn’t given a chance. He didn’t do it, and then he doubled down. Then he said, when pressed, ‘Stand back, stand by.’ This is part of a pattern with Donald Trump.”She also cited the deadly 2017 Charlottesville, Va., Unite the Right rally.Pence countered by citingTrump’s commentsregarding the Charlottesville violence.“This is one of the things that makes people dislike the media so much in this country, that you selectively edit so much,” Pence said, arguing that the media had distorted what Trump had said about there being “very fine people” on both sides in Charlottesville.“After President Trump made comments about people on either side of the debate over monuments, he condemned the KKK, neo-Nazis and white supremacists,” the vice president said.“He has done so repeatedly. Your concern that he doesn’t condemn neo-Nazis, President Trump has Jewish grandchildren. His daughter and son-in-law are Jewish. This is a president who respects and cherishes all of the American people.”Pence then went on offense about Harris’ prosecution record as a district attorney in San Francisco.“When you were D.A. in San Francisco, African Americans were 19 times more likely to be prosecuted for minor drug offenses than whites and Hispanics,” Pence said to Harris. “You increased the disproportionate incarceration. You did nothing on criminal justice reform in California. You didn’t lift a finger to pass theFirst Step Acton Capitol Hill.”The First Step Act is a bipartisan criminal justice reform billsigned into law by Trump in December 2018.Harris didn’t directly defend her record as district attorney of San Francisco, but pivoted to her record as California attorney general.“Having served as the attorney general of California, the work I did is a model of what our nation needs to do and what we will be able to do,” she said, adding, “I was the first statewide officer to institute a requirement that my agents would wear body cameras and keep them on full time. We were the first to initiate that there would be training for law enforcement on implicit bias.”I grew up and went to EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL in Memphis and ran some of our track meets at RHODES COLLEGE and I know that campus well and I even was contacted by a official at Rhodes with some recruiting material after a good performance in my sophomore year in my mile run there in 1978. Also during the late 1970’s I helped my friends Byron Tyler and David Rogers in a Christian Rock Saturday morning show on Rhodes’s radio station!!! My brother-in-law graduated from Rhodes but I graduated from University of Memphis in 1982.President Trump is going to announce his nomination for the Supreme Court later this week, and all the talk is about Amy Coney Barrett, currently a Notre Dame professor of law and a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. As it happens, Amy was a classmate of mine at Rhodes College, a small (1,400 students at the time) liberal-arts school in Memphis. I didn’t know her well, but she was a friend of other friends, and we were acquainted a bit through being in a club together.I can tell you a few things about her, though. For one thing, she didnothave a wild reputation, so I think that if she’s nominated, the Senate hearings will have to find something else to complain about. She was an English major and served on the Honor Council, a student body that enforced our honor code against lying and cheating (a great feature of academics at Rhodes that allowed us take-home tests in many classes). We were both in Mortar Board, an honor society. She wasn’t a political activist and was never a member of the College Republicans (I was, and we had a much larger membership than the College Democrats).Amy at the homecoming game senior yearPopular, as far as I knew, and by our senior year, she shows up in the yearbook’s candid photos taken around campus.Candid photo in the social room (the ironing board refers to another picture)I hadn’t thought about her for a long time, until three years ago when friends were pointing out she’d been nominated for the Seventh Circuit, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein grilled her over her religion, proclaiming that “the dogma lives loudly within you.” At the time, I thought that was a rough Senate hearing.My daughter was a Notre Dame student, and two years ago, I stopped by to visit Amy at her home in South Bend and catch up. She had been listed as being on the president’s shortlist for a Supreme Court seat, and Kavanaugh was going through his own nomination process at that time.L to R: Me, Amy Barrett, and my daughterMy daughter had been treating the accusations against him as probably true by default and took an unconcerned view towards the behavior of the press. Amy knows Kavanaugh, spoke well of him, and described what it was like seeing the press contacting her and digging through rumors about him. That changed my daughter’s opinion of how these things go, she told me. I meant to ask her if she were named to the Supreme Court if she’d be willing to go through all of the hatred and attacks on her reputation that would surely be a part of it. But I can’t remember if I did. I reckon we’ll all find out soon enough, though.As a footnote, if Amy is confirmed to the court, she would be the second Supreme Court justice to come from Rhodes. Our first was Abe Fortas (class of 1930), who was named by President Johnson in 1965. Fortas resigned in 1969 after a series of ethics scandals, but the college gives out the Abe Fortas Award for Excellence in Legal Studies each year. Quite understandable; we’re a small school, and we should still be proud one of our own was elevated to the Supreme Court. May Amy Barrett bring us more honor.Published inLawTags:SCOTUS; SUPREME COURT; Amy Coney BarrettBarrett served as a visiting associate professor and John M. Olin Fellow in Law atGeorge Washington University Law Schoolfor a year before returning to her alma mater, Notre Dame Law School in 2002.[15]At Notre Dame she taught federal courts, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation. Barrett was named a Professor of Law in 2010, and from 2014 to 2017 held the Diane and M.O. Miller Research Chair of Law.[16]Her scholarship focuses on constitutional law, originalism, statutory interpretation, andstare decisis.[12]Her academic work has been published in journals such as theColumbia,Cornell,Virginia,Notre Dame, andTexasLaw Reviews.[15]Some of her most significant publications areSuspension and Delegation, 99 Cornell L. Rev. 251 (2014),Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement, 91 Tex. L. Rev. 1711 (2013),The Supervisory Power of the Supreme Court, 106 Colum. L. Rev. 101 (2006), andStare Decisis and Due Process, 74 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1011 (2003).At Notre Dame, Barrett received the Distinguished Professor of the Year award three times.[15]She taught Constitutional Law, Civil Procedure, Evidence, Federal Courts, Constitutional Theory Seminar, and Statutory Interpretation Seminar.[15]Barrett has continued to teach seminars as a sitting judge.[17]A hearing on Barrett s nomination before theSenate Judiciary Committeewas held on September 6, 2017.[20]During the hearing, SenatorDianne Feinsteinquestioned Barrett about a law review article Barrett co-wrote in 1998 with ProfessorJohn H. Garveyin which she argued that Catholic judges should in some cases recuse themselves from death penalty cases due to their moral objections to the death penalty. The article concluded that the trial judge should recuse herself instead of entering the order. Asked to elaborate on the statements and discuss how you view the issue of faith versus fulfilling the responsibility as a judge today, Barrett said that she had participated in many death-penalty appeals while serving as law clerk to Scalia, adding, My personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on the discharge of my duties as a judge [21][22]and It is never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge s personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law. [23]Worried that Barrett would not upholdRoe v. Wadegiven her Catholic beliefs, Feinstein followed Barrett s response by saying, the dogma lives loudly within you, and that is a concern. [24][25][26]The hearing made Barrett popular with religious conservatives,[11]and in response, the conservativeJudicial Crisis Networkbegan to sell mugs with Barrett s photo and Feinstein s dogma remark.[27]Feinstein s and other senators questioning was criticized by some Republicans and other observers, such as university presidentsJohn I. JenkinsandChristopher Eisgruber, as improper inquiry into a nominee s religious belief that employed anunconstitutional religious test for office;[23][28][29]others, such asNan Aron, defended Feinstein s line of questioning.[29]Lambda Legal, an LGBT civil rights organization, co-signed a letter with 26 other gay rights organizations opposing Barrett s nomination. The letter expressed doubts about her ability to separate faith from her rulings on LGBT matters.[30][31]During her Senate confirmation hearing, Barrett was questioned about landmark LGBTQ legal precedents such asObergefell v. Hodges,United States v. Windsor, andLawrence v. Texas. Barrett said these cases are binding precedents that she intended to faithfully follow if confirmed to the appeals court, as required by law.[30]The letter co-signed by Lambda Legal said Simply repeating that she would be bound by Supreme Court precedent does not illuminate—indeed, it obfuscates—how Professor Barrett would interpret and apply precedent when faced with the sorts of dilemmas that, in her view, put Catholic judges in a bind.' [30]Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network later said that warnings from LGBT advocacy groups about shortlisted nominees to replace JusticeAnthony Kennedy, including Barrett, were very much overblown and called them mostly scare tactics. [30]In 2015, Barrett signed a letter in support of theOrdinary Synod of Bishops on the Familythat endorsed the Catholic Church s teachings on human sexuality and its definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. When asked about the letter, she testified that the Church s definition of marriage is legally irrelevant.[32][33]Barrett s nomination was supported by every law clerk she had worked with and all of her 49 faculty colleagues at Notre Dame Law school. 450 former students signed a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee supporting Barrett s nomination.[34][35]On October 5, 2017, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 11–9 on party lines to recommend Barrett and report her nomination to the full Senate.[36][37]On October 30, the Senate invokedclotureby a vote of 54–42.[38]It confirmed her by a vote of 55–43 on October 31, with three Democrats—Joe Donnelly,Tim Kaine, andJoe Manchin—voting for her.[10]She received her commission two days later.[2]Barrett is the first and to date only woman to occupy an Indiana seat on the Seventh Circuit.[39]InDoe v. Purdue University, 928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2019), the court, in a unanimous decision written by Barrett, reinstated a suit brought by a malePurdue Universitystudent (John Doe) who had been found guilty of sexual assault byPurdue University, which resulted in a one-year suspension, loss of hisNavy ROTCscholarship, and expulsion from the ROTC affecting his ability to pursue his chosen career in the Navy.[40]Doe alleged the school s Advisory Committee on Equity discriminated against him on the basis of his sex and violated his rights to due process by not interviewing the alleged victim, not allowing him to present evidence in his defense, including an erroneous statement that he confessed to some of the alleged assault, and appearing to believe the victim instead of the accused without hearing from either party or having even read the investigation report. The court found that Doe had adequately alleged that the university deprived him of his occupational liberty withoutdue processin violation of theFourteenth Amendmentand had violated hisTitle IXrights by imposing a punishment infected by sex bias, and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.[41][42][43]InEEOC v. AutoZone, the Seventh Circuit considered the federal government s appeal from a ruling in a suit brought by theEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionagainstAutoZone; the EEOC argued that the retailer s assignment of employees to different stores based on race (e.g., sending African American employees to stores in heavily African American neighborhoods ) violatedTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act. The panel, which did not include Barrett, ruled in favor of AutoZone. An unsuccessful petition for rehearingen bancwas filed. Three judges—Chief JudgeDiane Woodand JudgesIlana RovnerandDavid Hamilton—voted to grant rehearing, and criticized the panel decision as upholding a separate-but-equal arrangement Barrett and four other judges voted to deny rehearing.[11]InCook County v. Wolf, 962 F.3d 208 (7th Cir. 2020), Barrett wrote a 40-page dissent from the majority s decision to uphold a preliminary injunction on the Trump administration s controversial public charge rule , which heightened the standard for obtaining agreen card. In her dissent, she argued that any noncitizens who disenrolled from government benefits because of the rule did so due to confusion about the rule itself rather than from its application, writing that the vast majority of the people subject to the rule are not eligible for government benefits in the first place. On the merits, Barrett departed from her colleagues Wood and Rovner, who held that DHS s interpretation of that provision was unreasonable underChevronStep Two. Barrett would have held that the new rule fell within the broad scope of discretion granted to the Executive by Congress through theImmigration and Nationality Act.[44][45][46]The public charge issue is the subject of acircuit split.[44][46][47]InYafai v. Pompeo, 924 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2019), the court considered a case brought by a Yemeni citizen, Ahmad, and her husband, a U.S. citizen, who challenged a consular officer s decision to twice deny Ahmad s visa application under theImmigration and Nationality Act. Yafai, the U.S. citizen, argued that the denial of his wife s visa application violated his constitutional right to live in the United States with his spouse.[48]In an 2-1 majority opinion authored by Barrett, the court held that the plaintiff’s claim was properly dismissed under the doctrine ofconsular nonreviewability. She declined to address whether Yafai had been denied a constitutional right (or whether a constitutional right to live in the United States with his spouse existed) because even if a constitutional right was implicated, the court lacked authority to disturb the consular officer s decision to deny Ahmad’s visa application because that decision was facially legitimate and bona fide. Following the panel s decision, Yafai filed a petition for rehearingen banc; the petition was denied, with eight judges voting against rehearing and three in favor, Wood, Rovner and Hamilton. Barrett and JudgeJoel Flaumconcurred in the denial of rehearing.[48][49]InKanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019), Barrett dissented when the court upheld a law prohibiting convicted nonviolent felons from possessing firearms. The plaintiffs had been convicted ofmail fraud. The majority upheld the felony dispossession statutes as substantially related to an important government interest in preventing gun violence. In her dissent, Barrett argued that while the government has a legitimate interest in denying gun possession to felons convicted of violent crimes, there is no evidence that denying guns to nonviolent felons promotes this interest, and that the law violates the Second Amendment.[50][51]InRainsberger v. Benner, 913 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2019), the panel, in an opinion by Barrett, affirmed the district court s ruling denying the defendant s motion for summary judgment and qualified immunity in a42 U.S.C. § 1983case. The defendant, Benner, was a police detective who knowingly provided false and misleading information in aprobable causeaffidavit that was used to obtain anarrest warrantagainst Rainsberger. (The charges were later dropped and Rainsberger was released.) The court found the defendant s lies and omissions violated clearly established law and thus Benner was not shielded by qualified immunity.[52]The caseUnited States v. Watson, 900 F.3d 892 (7th Cir. 2018) involved police responding to an anonymous tip that people were playing with guns in a parking lot. The police arrived and searched the defendant s vehicle, taking possession of two firearms; the defendant was later charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court denied the defendant smotion to suppress. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit, in a decision by Barrett, vacated and remanded, determining that the police lacked probable cause to search the vehicle based solely upon the tip, when no crime was alleged. Barrett distinguishedNavarette v. Californiaand wrote, the police were right to respond to the anonymous call by coming to the parking lot to determine what was happening. But determining what was happening and immediately seizing people upon arrival are two different things, and the latter was premature Watson s case presents a close call. But this one falls on the wrong side of the Fourth Amendment. [53]In a 2013 Texas Law Review article, Barrett included as one of only seven Supreme Court “superprecedents“, Mapp vs Ohio (1961); the seminal case where the court found through the doctrine of selective incorporation that the 4th Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures was binding on state and local authorities in the same way it historically applied to the federal government.InCasillas v. Madison Ave. Associates, Inc., 926 F.3d 329 (7th Cir. 2019), the plaintiff brought aclass-actionlawsuit against Madison Avenue, alleging that the company violated theFair Debt Collection Practices Act(FDCPA) when it sent her a debt-collection letter that described the FDCPA process for verifying a debt but failed to specify that she was required to respond in writing to trigger the FDCPA protections. Casillas did not allege that she had tried to verify her debt and trigger the statutory protections under the FDCPA, or that the amount owed was in any doubt. In a decision written by Barrett, the panel, citing the Supreme Court’s decision inSpokeo, Inc. v. Robins, found that the plaintiff s allegation of receiving incorrect or incomplete information was a bare procedural violation that was insufficiently concrete to satisfy theArticle III sinjury-in-factrequirement. Wood dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc. The issue created acircuit split.[54][55][56]Barrett considers herself anoriginalist. She is a constitutional scholar with expertise in statutory interpretation.[10]Reuters described Barrett as a a favorite among religious conservatives, and said that she has supported expansive gun rights and voted in favor of one of the Trump administration s anti-immigration policies.[57]Barrett was one of JusticeAntonin Scalia s law clerks. She has spoken and written of her admiration of his close attention to the text of statutes. She has also praised his adherence to originalism.[58]In 2013, Barrett wrote aTexas Law Reviewarticle on the doctrine ofstare decisiswherein she listed seven cases that should be considered superprecedents —cases that the court would never consider overturning. The list includedBrown v. Board of Educationbut specifically excludedRoe v. Wade. In explaining why it was not included, Barrett referenced scholarship agreeing that in order to qualify as superprecedent a decision must enjoy widespread support from not only jurists but politicians and the public at large to the extent of becoming immune to reversal or challenge. She argued the people must trust the validity of a ruling to such an extent the matter has been taken off of the court s agenda, with lower courts no longer taking challenges to them seriously. Barrett pointed toPlanned Parenthood v. Caseyas specific evidenceRoehad not yet attained this status.[59]The article did not include any pro-Second Amendment or pro-LGBT cases as Super-Precedent .[30][31]When asked during her confirmation hearings why she did not include any pro-LGBT cases as superprecedent , Barrett explained that the list contained in the article was collected from other scholars and not a product of her own independent analysis on the subject.[32][33]Barrett has never ruled directly on a case pertaining to abortion rights, but she did vote to rehear a successful challenge to Indiana s parental notification law in 2019. In 2018, Barrett voted against striking down another Indiana law requiring burial or cremation of fetal remains. In both cases, Barrett voted with the minority. The Supreme Court later reinstated the fetal remains law and in July 2020 it ordered a rehearing in the parental notification case.[57]At a 2013 event reflecting on the 40th anniversary ofRoe v. Wade, she described the decision—inNotre Dame Magazine s paraphrase—as creating through judicial fiat a framework of abortion on demand. [60][61]She also remarked that it was very unlikely the court would overturn the core ofRoe v. Wade: The fundamental element, that the woman has a right to choose abortion, will probably stand. The controversy right now is about funding. It s a question of whether abortions will be publicly or privately funded. [62][63]NPR said that those statements were made before the election of Donald Trump and the changing composition of the Supreme Court to the right subsequent to his election, which could make Barrett s vote pivotal in overturningRoe v. Wade.[64]Barrett was critical ofChief JusticeJohn Roberts opinion in the 5–4 decision that upheld the constitutionality of the central provision in theAffordable Care Act(Obamacare) inNFIB vs. Sebelius. Roberts s opinion defended the constitutionality of theindividual mandateof the Affordable Care Act by characterizing it as a tax. Barrett disapproved of this approach, saying Roberts pushed the ACA beyond it s plausible limit to save it. [64][65][66][67]She criticized the Obama administration for providing employees of religious institutions the option of obtainingbirth controlwithout having the religious institutions pay for it.[65]Barrett has been on President Trump s list of potential Supreme Court nominees since 2017, almost immediately after her court of appeals confirmation. In July 2018, afterAnthony Kennedy s retirement announcement, she was reportedly one of three finalists Trump considered, along with JudgeRaymond Kethledgeand JudgeBrett Kavanaugh.[16][68]Trump chose Kavanaugh.[69]Reportedly, although Trump liked Barrett, he was concerned about her lack of experience on the bench.[70]In the Republican Party, Barrett was favored bysocial conservatives.[70]After Kavanaugh s selection, Barrett was viewed as a possible Trump nominee for a future Supreme Court vacancy.[71]Trump was reportedly saving Ruth Bader Ginsburg s seat for Barrett if Ginsburg retired or died during his presidency.[72]Ginsburg died on September 18, 2020, and Barrett has been widely mentioned as the front-runner to succeed her.[73][74][75][76]​Amy Coney Barrett was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in November 2017. She serves on the faculty of the Notre Dame Law School, teaching on constitutional law, federal courts, and statutory interpretation, and previously served on the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. She earned her bachelor’s degree from Rhodes College in 1994 and her J.D. from Notre Dame Law School in 1997. Following law school, Barrett clerked for Judge Laurence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court. She also practiced law with Washington, D.C. law firm Miller, Cassidy, Larroca Lewin.I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun controland issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]ByEverette Hatcher III| Posted inFrancis Schaeffer,Prolife|Edit|Comments (0)I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun controland issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]ByEverette Hatcher III| Posted inFrancis Schaeffer,Prolife|Edit|Comments (0)I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun controland issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]ByEverette Hatcher III| Posted inFrancis Schaeffer,Prolife|Edit|Comments (0)I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun controland issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]ByEverette Hatcher III| Posted inFrancis Schaeffer,Prolife|Edit|Comments (3)I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun controland issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]ByEverette Hatcher III| Posted inFrancis Schaeffer,Prolife|Edit|Comments (2)I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun controland issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]ByEverette Hatcher III| Posted inFrancis Schaeffer,Prolife|Edit|Comments (0) Privacy Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use. To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy

TAGS:Hatch www The 

<<< Thank you for your visit >>>

www.TheDailyHatch.org with Everette Hatcher

Hot Websites