Connect with us

Nation

GOP: Remember Justice Kavanaugh? The Republicans don’t owe Dems anything on Amy Coney Barrett.

Published

on

amyconeyBarrett MG 1198

The House Judiciary posted a Tweet Monday morning during the first day of Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Amy Coney Barrett emphasizing that the GOP doesn’t owe the Democrats anything after the party’s treatment of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing last year.

The GOP is right.

Barrett is holding firm to her conservative yet unbiased positions during the pounding of questions coming from both Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. The young judge and professor, is being nominated for a lifetime position on the Supreme Court to fill the late and very liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s seat.

Barrett, a conservative and Ginsberg, who was a liberal, both understand and understood the battle against Washington’s political tsunamis. It will not be easy, just look at what happened with Kavanaugh.

This is President Donald Trump’s third and historic nomination to the Supreme Court. It is one that Democrats are fighting against with a vengeance, as they failed to push off the confirmation until after the Nov. 3 elections. But remember what Kavanaugh and his family went through during his confirmation hearings?

What was the Democrats reasoning then? Why did they attempt to destroy and tarnish a good man’s reputation with unsubstantiated lies and claims from witnesses that could not be verified. It certainly wasn’t because an election was around the corner and by the way, the American people elected President Trump to be President for four years.

On Monday Trump’s duty to the American people was being fulfilled with Barrett’s nomination. It was the right thing to do and the Democrats cries of fowl play because Trump is making the nomination just a month before the election is ridiculous and childish.

If anything, the tragic death of Ginsberg is all that happened that led to this very moment. But the Democrats have no excuse for how they treated Kavanaugh and his family during those horrific hearings on Capitol Hill last year.

Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lindsey Graham, who had staunchly defended Kavanaugh during his hearings, opened Monday’s hearing by reflecting on Barrett’s notable career in law saying “in my view, the person appearing before this committee is in a category of excellent, something the country should be proud of, and she will have a chance to make her case to be a worthy successor and to become the ninth member of the Supreme Court of the United States.”

He added that, “on September the 26th, Judge Amy Barrett was nominated by President Trump to the Supreme Court. Who is she? She is a judge sitting on the Seventh Judicial Circuit. She’s highly respected.”

The House Judiciary GOP posted the question I’ve been asking all weekend as I watched Democrats attempt to tarnish a great woman, who has been exalted by almost everyone she’s worked with since her time clerking for the Supreme Court to her tenure as a professor at Notre Dame University.

“Remember what they did to Brett Kavanaugh,” said the House Judiciary GOP. “We don’t owe the Democrats anything.”

I sure do.

I remember when Kavanaugh became the target of the left. The Democratic allies in main stream media assisted on tarnishing his good name. His nomination to the Supreme Court by Trump was all it took for the left to launch an all out assault on him.

Remember the lied strewn article published by The New York Times aptly titled Brett Kavanaugh Fit In With the Privileged Kids. She Did Not. 

Th paper rehashed an old accusation by a woman named Deborah Ramirez. She alleged that Kavanaugh assaulted her during a dorm party at Yale University. She had no evidence, nor was there any information to suggest that this ever happened.

It didn’t matter.

The New York Times also delved into Kavanaugh’s so-called white privilege, alleged prejudice and every other angle you can imagine. It’s what the left, along with their media supporters, do best.

Kavanaugh is the villain of privilege and Ramirez is the innocent victim, who as a college student was forced to grow up too soon, read about it in the column I published last year.

Now, they are at it again, attempting to vilify a successful woman who will take the 9th seat on the Supreme Court.

President Trump is fulfilling his duty and if we hold the media and our lawmakers accountable we will be fulfilling ours as citizens of this great nation. Don’t be fooled by those who will do anything to stop the administration from doing what the founding father’s established in the Constitution.

Remember that the Democrats reaction against Barrett really has nothing to do with the citizens of this great nation, it only has to do with how they see the Supreme Court – as a means to an end, as a way of legislating from the bench if they have it packed with liberals.

You can follow Sara A Carter on Twitter @SaraCarterDC.

Continue Reading

Nation

Minnesota farmer’s lawsuit prompts removal of race and sex-based grant program

Published

on

GettyImages 2059551148 scaled

Five months after Minnesota farmer Lance Nistler filed a federal lawsuit with the help of the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), the state has removed race- and sex-based preferences from its Down Payment Assistance Grant Program. This significant policy change followed Nistler’s legal challenge, which highlighted the discriminatory nature of the program’s selection process.

Pacific Legal Foundation writes involvement in Nistler’s case drew attention and criticism from Minnesota progressives. Writing in the Minnesota Reformer, Sigrid Jewett accused PLF of using Nistler “as a pawn in a larger culture war game.” She questioned why a California-based legal firm with numerous Supreme Court victories would be interested in representing a small Minnesota farmer pro bono.

PLF opposes all race- and sex-based preferences in the law, and that’s the real reason the firm chose to represent Nistler. The foundation stands against discrimination in various domains, including government board selections, school admissions, government contracts, and grant distributions, such as in Nistler’s case.

Here are the facts: Minnesota’s Down Payment Assistance Grant Program offers up to $15,000 toward the purchase of farmland. Recipients are chosen through a lottery system. However, before the policy change, even if a recipient was among the first picked through the lottery—as Nistler was, being selected ninth—they could be bumped to the back of the line if they were not a racial minority, female, LGBTQIA+, or otherwise designated as an “emerging” farmer by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.

Despite being chosen ninth in the lottery, which awarded grants to 68 applicants, Nistler did not receive a grant. He was moved from ninth to 102nd on the waitlist because he is a white male.

Nistler grew up on his family farm, milking cows. “They would lose money every year,” he says of the family operation. After he left for school, his family sold the cows and switched to farming soybeans, oats, and wheat. Lance’s father and uncle now run the farm, but they’re getting older. Lance, who has a degree in electronic engineering and worked in HVAC, is interested in buying a 40-acre chunk of the family farm, becoming the fourth-generation farmer in his family.

The land isn’t just going to be given to Lance. This is a working farm, and the Nistlers aren’t a wealthy family that can transfer land from one generation to the next without consideration. “My dad and uncle, they don’t have 401(k)s or anything,” Lance says. “I mean, the land and the equipment, that’s their retirement. This stuff isn’t given away. I’m not just going to get it handed down to me and inherited. It has to be purchased, and it is not cheap.”

Despite being from a farming family, Lance considers himself a new farmer—he has never owned farmland before, and he has an electronics background. Buying these 40 acres would be a huge step for Lance, planting him firmly in the farming world, which is what Minnesota’s grant program aimed to do. The idea that he would have qualified as an emerging farmer if only his skin were a different color struck Lance as wrong.

“The country we live in, the idea is it’s equal opportunity for everyone,” he says. “And if that’s what it is, then well, why shouldn’t I have the same chances?”

When Lance filed his lawsuit in January, the complaint argued that the discriminatory process violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. The complaint stated:

“Nistler brings this lawsuit to vindicate his constitutional right to equal protection of the law. He brings it to give all Minnesotans a fair chance at a difference-making grant program. He brings it in the hope that he will be able to own that small farm in the near future. He brings it because he is not giving up on his dream.”

In May, after Lance called attention to the unconstitutional policy, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz signed legislation removing the race and sex prioritization from the program. Now, Minnesota will treat farmers equally—as the Constitution promises.

Continue Reading

Trending