I know we’re all waiting to see what Trump does. Anticipation for triangulation, right? Trump is an astrophysicist of nine-dimensional triangulation.
Amy Coney Barrett is a great choice. Of course.
Even more fun, what if Trump trumped the Democrats and packed the court with five or ten people? Then the Democrats would have to oppose court-packing while also opposing all of his choices. It would be hilarious. Here’s my list, with a final fun addition from my husband: Gail Heriot, Amy Coney Barrett, Andrew McCarthy . . . and Harriet Meiers, just to literally blow the top off Democrat heads.
But, seriously, here is my argument for Gail Heriot. We are entering/have entered a phase of NLTM (No Less Than Maoist) suppression of thought and speech via social media censorship; professional death by human resource officer; technological monitoring and tracking that makes Orwell look like an imaginative slacker; the gradschoolification of America through hate speech codes previously confined to academia; hate crime laws applied with such shameless, anti-white, anti-woman, anti-internecine-victim crime bias they would make Himmler himself blush.
And so on.
For some completely inexplicable, obscure reason, the Federalist Society, National Review, the American Conservative Union, and other big beltway thinkers don’t seem nearly concerned enough about the snowballing suppression of flyover voices. Heh. But there is one jurist who does care and has been fighting the good fight in the shadows for decades while also playing nice with, and this is an interesting list: Federalist Society, ACU, National Review, and the United States Commission on Civil Rights, where she opposes affirmative action but still more or less gets along with her colleagues.
Very interesting woman.
Heriot has a vitae to weep for. She’s involved with the excellent National Association of Scholars, has written for National Review, works with Federalist, and has ticked off all the right people while managing to remain collegial on the USCCR, which is quite a feat.
More than anything else, this election and the next Supreme Court Justice will determine whether we move back to defending speech or move towards a Canadian/British model of subverting real law enforcement to the enforcement of speech and so-called hate-crime laws. I can think of no better person that Heriot to fight for our voices.