Why Senate Should Confirm Brett Kavanaugh for Supreme Court

Conservative Christian Center appeals to Pennsylvania’s Senators Bob Casey and Pat Toomey to Confirm President Trump’s Nominee, and Ignore the Uninformed or Ridiculous News Media and Liberal-left Blabbering

By Bob Stier

(note: Bob Stier is a subscriber and supporter of Conservative Christian Center in York, PA, whose splendid article was ignored by the York Daily Record. 

We are sad that the local daily, which never misses a chance to bash conservative Congressman Scott Perry, rejected this.  But we are delighted to present this to you and to endorse former Pastor Bob Stier’s outstanding, thoughtful article.  We urge our readers to write to our two Senators about this topic, and to join Bob and us riding our bus to Washington, DC on Wed., Sept. 26 to lobby our Senators in person. 

Sign the petitions HERE.  Register for the free bus – includes lunch – HERE.  Read about it at rallyPA website.  LIKE the brand-new event-news Facebook page HERE).

Several commercials that play regularly on WSBA 910 get to me.  Trying to “sell” you on how great their product or service might be, the spokesperson intones, “you can get this at a FRACTION of the cost.”

If you know what a fraction is, 9/10 can be a fraction—that’s not much of a discount—and 11/10 or even fifteen sevenths is a fraction, meaning it would cost more than the other option!  I find other comments re: supreme court decisions, abortion, immigration and Trump’s summit with Putin to also be fairly “wild & crazy” [with apologies to Steve Martin!].

Maine Senator Susan Collins declared, “I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law, precedent.” She reiterated that view on ABC’s “This Week,” describing Roe v. Wade as “settled law.”

Does this mean Ms. Collins would have kept the 1857 Dred Scott decision on slavery?  Would she have wanted to maintain the separate but equal 1896 decision of Plessy v. Ferguson?

If Ms. Collins wants to keep all SCOTUS decisions previously decided, how would she feel about overturning the 2010 Citizens United campaign finance case [which Liberals dislike] which itself overturned the 1990 Austin case?

SCOTUS has also overturned 1883 anti-miscegenation and 1986 anti-sodomy cases.  [Note: In 2003, the Supreme Court decided the case of Lawrence v. Texas by rejecting Texas’s anti-sodomy law, essentially declaring that the 1986 Bowers decision was incorrect.

Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion stated, “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled.”

The dissent specifically noted that the court was going against stare decisis (prior decisions should be maintained even if the current court would rule differently) by overturning Bowers.  Justice Kennedy led the overturn!]

If judges with an activist agenda aren’t acceptable to Ms. Collins, should she have voted to confirm Sotomayor and Kagan?  Why refuse to confirm a traditional, female, constitutional jurist [Amy Coney Barrett] when we already have 3 “progressive/activist” women on the Court?

Finally, having noted above that some SCOTUS cases were maybe “wrongly decided” [could it be true of Roe?], Hillary Clinton stated at the July 13 American Federation of Teachers meeting that the Janus ruling that non-union public employees don’t have to pay for collective bargaining was “wrongly decided.”

Ladies, we can’t have it both ways.  Doubt that the AFT leans Democrat-left?  AFT union president Randi Weingarten extolled that both Clinton and Bernie Sanders [plus later Elizabeth Warren] were there to speak as the AFT participated in “the battle for the soul of the nation [what about the souls of unborn women?].”

SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh has been maligned and ridiculed as someone whose election will be the “end of the world [as we know it], the end of Roe v. Wade, the end of same-sex marriage.” [Chuck Schumer]  Stephen Colbert joked, “I’m skeptical because his name is Brett.

That sounds less like a Supreme Court justice and more like a waiter at Ruby Tuesday [I object; we love RT!].”  And NARAL tweeted, “We’ll be DAMNED if we’re going to let 5 MEN, including some frat boy named Brett, strip us of our hard-won bodily autonomy and reproductive rights.”  And they KNOW that Kavanaugh will lead the charge up Capitol Hill to overturn Roe?

Wish I had their foresight for market investments!  “Brett,” who was hired to teach law by Justice Elena Kagan, is no legal activist.  And speaking of abortion, the #OneinFour campaign [1 in 4 women have had an abortion], backed by Planned Parenthood and NARAL, stated, “A lot of people [meaning women, of course] have abortions, so abortion is OK.”  As my parents used to say when raising me, “If lots of people jumped off the Bay Bridge, would YOU?”

Hillary Clinton proclaimed, “I believe with all my heart that the test of any society is how we treat the most vulnerable among us, particularly our youngest…” And what, Ms. Clinton, is your view of unborn [women?] in the womb?

But back to Kavanaugh.  Elizabeth Warren said: “He was put on a list that was created by right-wing extremists.”  Democratic TV ads urged, “Oppose Trump’s list of extreme nominees.”

Within a day of Kavanaugh’s nomination, one study found that justices Roberts, Alito & Gorsuch were called “conservative” 36 times on ABC/CBS/NBC, while Sotomayor, Kagan & Garland were only called “liberal” SEVEN times on those stations.

Speaking of extremists, the U.S. Senate was not always so polarized.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg in ’93 was approved 96-3, Steven Breyer in ’94 by 87-9, Anthony Kennedy in 1988 by 97-0 and Antonin Scalia in 1986 by 98-0.

But now we have an “open letter” signed by Yale Law School “students, alumni, and educators” not just declaring opposition to the Kavanaugh nomination, but saying they’re “ashamed” at Yale’s positive press release [he had taught there].

The rhetoric is amazing, reading more like a random Twitter tirade than a critique from bright legal minds. “Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination presents an emergency [yes, an emergency!] for democratic life,  freedom, our safety and the future of our country,” the letter reads.

Later, it even declares that “people will die if he is confirmed.” Again [I hate to be a repetitive, broken record], what about the women in the womb who will die by abortion?

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that those crossing the border unlawfully will be prosecuted. “If you’re smuggling a child, then we’re going to prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you, probably, as required by law. If you don’t want your child separated, then don’t bring them across the border illegally,” he said.

Pro-immigrant activists demand that ICE should keep families together instead of separating them.  I agree!  They should be kept together in Mexico or in whatever is their LEGAL country.

Some suggest that mothers coming across the border from Mexico just want a better opportunity for their kids, whether they are from Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela or any other place.  Probably 25-50% of mothers south of the border could want that for their children.  A National Rife Association TV ad suggested 150 million people in the world would come to this country if they could.

Do we have the resources to accept that many people when they most likely would be a drain on welfare, entitlements, school districts and the National Debt?

The USA already takes in more legal immigrants than the rest of the world combined.

But if we’re supposed to allow more illegal [excuse, me, “undocumented”] immigrants to enter this country, maybe we should put a 10% tax on those making over $10 million per year to fund the processing and care of such immigrants who don’t come through proper entry points.

We should definitely allow more “qualified” immigrants, that is, those who can do skilled jobs, who speak English and who can avoid being a drain on welfare and entitlements after one year here.

Democrats used images of children in detention to attack Trump as heartless — until they noticed the images were taken in 2014 when a flood of migrants headed north because of President Barack Obama’s migration friendly policies. A photo of two kids in a holding cage was proof positive of Donald Trump’s and America’s inhumanity.

But that photo was from the June 18, 2014 edition of the Arizona Republic, when Trump was firing apprentices on TV, not “ripping children from their parents.”

A Washington Times story indicates that American taxpayers are spending $670 a day, per child, to provide clean comfortable accommodations with cable TV, unlimited nutritious food, outings to bowling alleys and museums, and access to athletic facilities and yoga.

Very few Americans have a problem with those who migrate to the U.S. legally. Those on the left describe those here illegally as law-abiding people just looking for a better life for their children, despite the fact that nearly 20% of federal prison inmates are illegal immigrants and some children are being brought by drug smugglers or sexual predators, not their parents.

Finally, radical “anti-Trumpists” have gone over the top with their criticisms of Trump’s recent summit with Putin.

Jill Wine-Banks stated that Trump’s press conference with Putin in Helsinki “will live in infamy as much as the attack on Pearl Harbor [where 3000 were killed].”

John Brennan called Trump’s words and actions “treasonous” [which if literally true would require the death penalty per the Constitution].  Barack Obama, speaking in Africa obviously of Donald Trump, said that “strong man politics are ascendant.”

But which recent president bypassed Congress so many times with executive orders because he couldn’t get his policies through the House & Senate?

Some of us know the famous quote, “He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it.”  A recent study showed only 18% of students/graduates are proficient or better with American History.  May we be saved from another “Revolution” or “Civil War” because we learn our Biblical, Constitutional and Civilized American history.

Editor: Bob Stier is backing up his strong opinions stated here in support of Brett Kavanaugh for Supreme Court Judge by having made a reservation for our “Rally for the Republic” bus on Wednesday, Sept. 26.  This “day trip” offers a free round trip bus ride and lunch to Washington, DC with buses leaving from 3 to 4 different spots around the south central PA area including Lancaster, Camp Hill and York.

FLYER for the Sept. 26 “Rally for the Republic” including bus departure points HERE.

There will be a two hour rally from 11 AM to 1 PM.  Our group will then visit at least one U.S. Senate office and from 1 to 3 GOP Congressmen from PA to urge them to vote for conservative stalwart Jim Jordan for House Speaker.

Click on the image to visit the website

If Republicans stand out as the party that wants to confirm the conservative judicial picks of President Trump and strongly supports his agenda in the House with Jim Jordan as Speaker, we will turn out more conservatives to work hard, to donate, and to vote for GOP candidates.  And we will attract more voters in the center, who would then have a good reason to vote for Republican candidates.

These are the top two issues to conservatives and to voters in the center, according to the polling numbers reported by FreedomWorks, which is organizing the event in Washington DC on Sept. 26 and Tea Party Patriots.  These are the top two issues according to Faith & Freedom Coalition, which has both topics on their website front page.  It is the biggest motivator for both conservatives and center voters we need to win.

From one on up to three buses to DC are being organized locally by: Cumberland 912 Project, Cumberland Conservative Christian Center, Cumberland Action, York Conservative Christian Center, York County Action., Lancaster County Action, which are the leadership council of rallyPA for the Sept. 26 trip to DC.  The event in DC is being organized by a coalition of national conservative groups led by FreedomWorks.


Speakers confirmed for the Wed. 9/26 rally in DC include U.S. Congressmen Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, Scott Perry, Dave Brat & U.S. Senators Ted Cruz & Rand Paul.  They expect 1,000 to attend the rally which is also expected to be on Fox News.


Don’t forget, the annual Statesman of the Year Breakfast honoring State Rep. Kristin Phillips-Hill and with remarks by her and our Congressman, Scott Perry plus a Candidate Forum, is on Sat. October 6 at 8:30 AM at the Country Club of York.  Discounted “early bird” breakfast tickets are still available.  A limited number of $5 tickets are available for students (with ID) and Pastors.  Register HERE.

2 Replies to “Why Senate Should Confirm Brett Kavanaugh for Supreme Court

  1. I’m appealing to Pennsylvania’s Senators, Bob Casey and Pat Toomey to Confirm President Trumps Nominee Bett Kavanaugh for Supreme Court.

    He would do a great job in upholding the Constitution.

  2. “Judge Kavanaugh follows the same pattern as Justice Neil Gorsuch, a fair and independent jurist who will faithfully apply the law as written and honor the Constitution.”
    Applying the law as written — imagine. That’s not what the left wants to hear, which is why they constantly (and improperly) ask Supreme Court nominees how they will rule on certain hot-button issues, from abortion to Obamacare.
    When nominees say they can’t answer these types of questions, this is treated as a dodge. But think about it. You might as well ask a potential umpire how he will call it if a certain player takes a pitch low and on the corner when there’s a 3-2 count and a man on second.
    How can he answer unless he’s actually in that situation? If he knows the rules inside out, and he’s got a proven record of calling balls and strikes fairly, he’s qualified to call a major-league game.
    The same goes for judges. If they know the “rules” — the Constitution — cold, and their record shows they are impartial, knowledgeable and fair, then, generally speaking, they deserve a chance to call some major-league cases.
    Brett Kavanaugh certainly does. He’ll have to run the same old gauntlet, but once he has, I’m convinced he’ll be confirmed and go on to be an excellent justice.

Leave a Reply

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

Solve : *
16 − 14 =