Biden to Trump: “Anything You Can Do, I Can Do Too!”

​Oftentimes elections, particularly presidential elections, are framed as matters of moral decision-making. Sometimes, this moral decision-making is centered around policy, with one policy being considered the moral option by one side, and the opposition considering it to be the furthest thing from a moral policy. This is also true of candidates, as those vying for power are framed through this lens of morality depending on their personal qualities and behavior. It is through this moral lens that the left is attempting to frame the 2020 Presidential Election. The argument goes something along the lines of, “Joe Biden is not perfect, but he’s still better than Donald Trump because we all know that Trump…” The remainder of this argument generally consists of a long list of moral grievances regarding Trump’s conduct, some legitimate, others decidedly less so. Democrats would do well to tread lightly, or not tread at all, with this approach. Joe Biden, for all his touted moral superiority, can be legitimately accused of engaging in the same behavior that Trump is so often criticized for.

​Opponents of Donald Trump often cite the numerous lies allegedly told by the President as examples of his flawed character and unworthiness for office. Unfortunately, Joe Biden has his own history of telling tall tales and bald-faced lies. A more recent example of this is Biden’s claim that “the boilermakers union has endorsed me because I sat down with them and went into great detail with leadership [about] exactly what I would do.” This statement was utterly untrue, as the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers has not yet endorsed any presidential candidate. Another infamous example is Biden’s tale of travelling to Afghanistan to award the Silver Star to a Navy Captain who rappelled down a ravine to retrieve a comrade’s body. Biden spoke of the sailor’s humility and stated that the story was “the God’s truth” and “his word as a Biden.” Except that it was not “the God’s truth.” The actual feat of heroism was performed by then Specialist Kyle White, who was awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions. As noted by the Washington Post “In the space of three minutes, Biden got the time period, the location, the heroic act, the type of medal, the military branch and the rank of the recipient wrong, as well as his own role in the ceremony.” While hardly the only two examples of Biden’s dishonesty, the blatant nature of these two particular deceits demonstrates that Biden can hardly be considered on a higher plane to Trump in regard to honesty.

​Another common complaint is that President Trump often makes ridiculous or nonsensical comments. Again, Joe Biden is equally guilty, if not moreso, of engaging in this type of behavior. As far back as 2008, Joe Biden claimed that Franklin Roosevelt spoke to the nation in a television broadcast after the 1929 Market Crash. In fact, it was Herbert Hoover who was president at the time of the crash, and television would not become a common household utility until years later. During a December 2019 speech, Biden commented that he had hairy legs that turned blonde in sunlight and that the children at the pool he lifeguarded at would come up to him and attempt to straighten them. While it is unlikely that anyone would care to examine that quantity or quality of Biden’s leg hair to verify the story, it does raise the question as to why the former Vice President felt the need to make such a bizarre statement that was decidedly out of place.

​As far as ridiculous statements, Joe Biden also has a track record of insensitive and downright racist statements. While the media often touts President Trump’s uncontextualized remarks in the aftermath of the Charlottesville Rally, Joe Biden has made much more brazen comments regarding race. In respect to busing integration, Joe Biden stated that he feared his children growing up “in a jungle, the jungle being a racial jungle with tensions having built so high that it is going to explode at some point.” Regarding the Indian American community in Delaware, Biden stated in 2006 that “you cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.” Perhaps his most infamously closed-minded remark occurred during an interview with Charlamagne tha God [sic], in which he told the presenter “I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black.” Needless to say, if Trump had made any of these remarks, it would have ended any chance he had for re-election, and rightfully so. But on account of the fact that Joe Biden is the alternative, Trump haters seem more than willing to overlook Biden’s history of comments that are at best gross and at worst racist.

​Arguably, the most egregious example of an accusation leveled against President Trump is that of foreign collusion. A nearly three year investigation and impeachment trial cleared the President of any sort of collusion with foreign powers regarding the 2016 Presidential Election. Meanwhile, Joe Biden has either actively utilized his influence to enrich his family and shape actions by other countries, or has looked the other way while his relations grow rich off of his name. Recently, whistleblower Tony Bobulinski, one of Hunter Biden’s business associates, stated in a letter that the information uncovered from emails on a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden was authentic, and that various stakes with the Chinese energy company CEFC had been set aside for Hunter and “the Big Guy." Bobulinski went on to confirm that “the Big Guy” in question was Joe Biden. This is not the only instance of Biden using his influence in improper ways. Other emails from the same cache include one from an adviser at the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, thanking Hunter for arranging a meeting with the then-Vice President. Hunter also received an email asking for “advice on how you could use your influence” from the same advisor in 2014, when Joe Biden still was in office. It is almost certain that Biden used the status of his office to secure benefits for his associates, and possibly himself, in a manner that fits the definition of collusion with a foreign power.

​Then there are the allegations of conduct with women. President Trump has seen his fair share of complaints, most notably as a result of the infamous Access Hollywood tapes. Biden, however, meets him in this area as well. Next to Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden was the individual Secret Service personnel disliked the most, particularly on account of his predilection for skinny-dipping in the presence of female agents in the White House pool and at his Delaware residence. As photo and video records demonstrate, Biden also seems to have a particular tendency to massage the shoulders and sniff the hair of various women who happen to pass within his reach, be they young girls or middle-aged women. This is a tendency that is invasive at best, and inappropriate at its worst. Most infamously, the former Vice President has been accused of digitally assaulting one of his Senate staffers, Tara Reade, in 1993, an account which has been corroborated by Reade’s former neighbor. If the commonly utilized hashtag ‘Belive All Women’ has any credibility, then Joe Biden and his supporters have no moral ground to stand on regarding his conduct with members of the opposite sex.

​As it stands, the quantity of incidents should be illustrative of one clear conclusion: there is no argument over the personal conduct of the candidates to be had in this election, and certainly not one that singles out Donald Trump. Supporters of both candidates should either choose to ignore their particular flaws, or merely acknowledge them as baggage carried by them, and focus instead on what they perceive to be the greater issues at hand. The unspoken truth of this matter is that the greater issue is ideology. This election is one of, if not arguably the most, ideologically-driven contests in the history of American politics. Therefore, I would encourage those on the left of the spectrum, who attack Donald Trump for his personal flaws and wrongdoings, to drop their facade of caring about personal morality and acknowledge the reality of the situation. The personal morality of the candidates is not the arbiter of their decision in this election.

If they were to accept this reality, they would acknowledge that for every potential accusation laid at the President’s feet, Joe Biden has engaged in conduct of an equal or greater nature.

Hold Your Nose and Vote for Trump

That President Trump is a man of many flaws is a surprise to no one in 2020. This point has been covered relentlessly — in good faith and not — by the media and others over the last four years, and the minutiae need not be repeated here. Yes, he is crude and boorish; no, he is not genteel or eloquent or particularly agreeable. But we’re not hiring a new hostess at Applebee’s — we’re choosing the next President of the United States, and we can’t afford to make such a critical decision based on considerations of personality or character alone. Policy must come first, and on this basis there is only one choice — because what Trump leaves to be desired in tone and personal qualities, his substantive record more than makes up for.

In 2016, after he clinched the nomination, there was concern among some Republicans that Trump would not govern as a conservative. In 2020, only the most vehement “Never Trumpers” could still hold this view. While his administration has departed from some positions — like an unqualified commitment to free trade — that were previously axiomatic within the establishment GOP, he has otherwise proven to be an ardent and effective champion of conservative causes. Whether his positions on abortion, religious freedom, and other topics are sincerely held is inconsequential — what matters is his record, which on these and other crucial issues has been near-immaculate. The Trump administration has seen over 200 district and appellate court judges appointed in the last four years, providing a bedrock of conservative judicial restraint that will be felt in the American judiciary for generations. And with Monday’s confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett as Trump’s third Supreme Court appointee, the nation’s highest court now enjoys a 6-3 textualist/originalist majority, finally making possible the ultimate pro-life victory: the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

If his reshaping of the judiciary isn’t enough, consider Trump’s remarkable foreign policy record. Since 2016, the Trump administration has overseen the obliteration of the Islamic State; the death of its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, by suicide amid a US raid; and the death of Iranian general and terrorist sponsor Qasem Soleimani. He has gone where previous presidents wouldn’t dare, moving the American embassy in Israel to the country’s rightful capital, Jerusalem; cultivating a strategic relationship with the volatile North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-un; and gambling on peace in Afghanistan through a deal with the Taliban. He has brokered deals to normalize relations between Israel and Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Sudan, and it appears that at least five more Arab states may follow. His administration has pulled the US out of both the capitulatory Iran deal and the farcical Paris Agreement. But perhaps Trump’s best accomplishment is not what he has done, but rather what he hasn’t — that is, being the first president in generations not to embroil the country in another foreign war.

Concrete victories at home include the Trump tax cuts, which overwhelmingly benefit the middle class, with an average household saving $2,140; the First Step Act prison reform law that reduced a number of the mandatory minimum sentences that disproportionately affected black Americans; and a vibrant pre-pandemic economy with rock-bottom unemployment and significant real wage growth for low- and middle-income Americans; among many others.

But these feats are not enough for some. Many establishment GOP politicians voting against the president this election — a long list of whom the New York Times published in September — cite Trump’s incivility and dishonesty. Anti-Trumpers like these frequently bemoan the perceived loss of the “dignity of the office” — and they have a point. But we cannot simply vote for the person who least offends our sensibilities — there are much graver issues to consider. President Obama, for one, was the ultimate gentleman — a man who truly possessed the kind of poise, character, and dignity becoming of the presidency. But he also presided over a ghoulish abortion regime, undermined religious freedom, oversaw the quasi-socialization of the American healthcare system, and destroyed American credibility overseas with a ruinously flaccid approach to foreign policy — to name just a few. That Obama was a “nice guy” is no comfort to the Americans forced off their private insurance, the Catholic nuns he sought to force to distribute contraceptives, the small business owners who suffocated under red tape and overregulation, and other victims of his administration.

To be sure, Biden is similarly regarded almost universally as a man of grace and decency. “If you can’t admire Joe Biden as a person… you got a problem,” Senator Lindsey Graham said in 2015. “He is as good a man as God ever created.” But if the Obama and Trump administrations have taught us anything, it should be that a good man can be a very bad president, and that a not-so-good man can be, in many ways, an excellent president. It is worth repeating that this isn’t to argue that Trump is the perfect president — he is not. But Americans do not have the luxury of being purists this election. This is a reality that progressive Democrats who now must stomach voting for Biden are experiencing just as much as Republicans who support Trump’s policies but are uncomfortable with his public rhetoric and personal character.

In a perfect world, Republicans could have a candidate who champions the pro-life cause and doesn’t separate migrant children from their parents; a candidate who defends family values while practicing them himself; a candidate whose persona is as suited to the dignity of the presidency as his ability to handle its powers and responsibilities. Maybe in 2024 the GOP will have such a candidate. But on November 3rd, America will choose between two imperfect options, and no citizen, right or left, will be lucky enough to vote for their ideal candidate. Instead, we must make do with whoever would do the least harm and the most good, and that man is President Trump.

Voting as a Catholic

Every time an election looms on the horizon, Catholics have to ask themselves: who will I be voting for? To pretend that there is ever an easy answer would be to fool oneself, for the fallen state of man makes a perfect choice almost impossible. That being said, there are certain principles that Catholics must abide by when exercising their civic duty at the ballot box. This article is not going to tell the Catholic voter who to vote for, as that is ultimately the choice for them to make. The purpose of this article is instead to inform the conscience of the voting Catholic so that he or she can make the best decision in line with Church teaching.

Catholics have a duty to participate in the political affairs of a free society, and to bring the Christian message into the world. In choosing a candidate, the first and most important consideration are the policies that candidate wants to implement. If those policies are intrinsically evil, a Catholic has an obligation to vote against them. Of course, it is almost never that simple. More often than not, every viable candidate advocates for an intrinsic evil of some kind. In this case, according to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, a Catholic can take the extraordinary route of not voting at all, or he can opt to vote “for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.” 

Deciding which candidate is likely to affect the least amount of evil is no easy decision, but it is one that can be made. The USCCB designates abortion and euthanasia as the “preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others” and “because of the number of lives destroyed [by abortion and euthanasia].” Further, the “direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong... [and] must always be opposed.” According to America Magazine and other news sources, Pope Francis has stated that he concurs with the designation of abortion as the preeminent threat. In 2017, 862,000 children were aborted, and since 1973, over 60 million have been killed. Pope Saint John Paul II, in his 1988 Apostolic Exhortation, Christifideles Laici, said that “the inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights — for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture — is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.” Thus the right to life supersedes all else — without the right to life, there can be no other rights; there can be no other priorities. 

According to the USCCB, a Catholic can never vote for a candidate because of his or her support for abortion. The Church teaches that to do so is formal cooperation with evil, and is a grave sin. Further, a Catholic can never vote for a candidate who supports abortion just because he or she agrees with the candidate’s other positions. To do that would constitute material cooperation with evil, and is also a grave sin. 

The USCCB states that it is “permissible [to vote for a candidate who supports abortion] only for truly grave moral reasons.” Catholics must not, however, engage in a “moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity.” A “truly grave moral reason” means that the alternative to the candidate who supports abortion must advocate for an evil that is inordinately greater than abortion. Because abortion is the greatest evil that the nation faces today, there are few issues that can supersede it. Some examples of a greater evil would be something on the order of genocide, or an openly expressed desire to use nuclear weapons without provocation. 

There are a few moral equivalencies that some make in an attempt to justify voting for a candidate that supports abortion. The most common equivalency is that the alternative (not pro-abortion) candidate does not take as stringent a stance against climate change or environmental degradation, and therefore it is justifiable to vote for the candidate who supports abortion and more stringent climate policy. The argument is that climate change will, eventually, be more destructive than abortion. Both climate change and environmental destruction are, undoubtedly, issues that Catholics must work to solve, for we are obligated to protect and care for our common home and God’s creation. There is an extremely important distinction between climate policy and abortion, however. First, the Church places the issue of abortion above that of climate change (as can be seen in the USCCB’s Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship). In other words, the Church unequivocally categorizes abortion as a worse, more pressing evil than climate change. Abortion is also the most immediate and direct threat to life that the nation faces, and results in hundreds of thousands of deaths every year in the United States alone. 

The climate issue, while certainly necessary to address, does not have the same immediate and direct threat. Even if one were to consider the long-term, whatever climate policies that the US enacts, the effect on overall climate change would be negligible, particularly when the largest polluter, China, and the other great polluters, namely India and Africa, remain (and are almost guaranteed to continue to remain) unchanged. Further, even with the most dire credible predictions, there is no reason that technological advances and engineering would be unable to prevent potential mass loss of life or to rectify the situation (be it through carbon-capture technology, renewable energy, emission reducing technology, infrastructure [like sea walls], or the like). This does not mean that the voter must abandon the environmental issue, in fact quite the opposite. Climate change is most certainly happening, and the Catholic will always have a duty to advocate for policies that protect God's creation. But the Catholic voter must consider the most immediate, direct, and known threat to human life as paramount, and that is abortion. Abortion, of course, is a policy choice with clear and obvious consequences (the killing of the unborn) being enacted. There are no major US politicians who are advocating for a purposeful increase in climate change with the intent to kill, so there is not even a remote comparison to abortion. 

Another claim made is that electing pro-abortion politicians has actually served to reduce abortions in the US. This claim is both illogical and false. Firstly, it neglects the fact that the abortion rate has slowly declined for every administration since and including Ronald Reagan. Further, the pro-life movement having gained traction and the Supreme Court allowing greater state restrictions on abortion after Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, have served to aid in this decline. According to the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion organization, much of the decline was due to the “declines in births and pregnancies overall,” along with state restrictions. It also has to be noted that the incredible strides in recent years of the pro-life movement are yielding very promising results, with pro-life judges appointed to the courts, and numerous states enacting pro-life legislation. The Guttmacher Institute, for example, reports that between 2011 and 2019, 483 legislative restrictions on abortion were enacted. So if nothing else, electing pro-life candidates and advocating for the cause of life have actually been one of the main drivers in the reduction of abortions in the United States. Electing pro-abortion politicians, especially when they look to codify Roe v. Wade into federal law or use federal money to fund abortions, would be a grave setback for the cause of life. 

A corollary to the previous claim is that it is reasonable to vote for pro-abortion candidates if they support expansive welfare programs, because those programs will help alleviate the need for abortions, and thereby reduce them. The first problem with this claim is that it assumes that abortions are mostly the result of financial issues. This is false. As the Guttmacher Institute found, 74% responded that their reason for receiving an abortion was because it would “interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents,” 73% responded that it was about affordability, 48% responded that it was because of relationship issues or parenting concerns, 40% responded that they were done having children, and about 30% responded that they were not ready for a child. The reasons for abortions are therefore “typically motivated by multiple, diverse and interrelated reasons.” Therefore, while financial issues certainly play a role, they are far from the only, or even the largest, role. Further, the states with the largest welfare programs also tend to be the states with the greatest number of abortions. California, a state with generous welfare programs, accounted for 15.4% of US abortions (despite being only around 12% of the population), and had an abortion rate of 16.4 per 1000 women in 2017. New York, another state with generous welfare programs, accounted for 12.2% of US abortions (despite being only 6% of the population), and had an abortion rate of 26.3 per 1000 women in 2017. In the same year, the abortion rate for the entirety of the United States was 13.5 per 1000. In other words, the evidence for the claim that welfare programs reduce abortion is just not there (in fact, there is more evidence to the contrary). 

The nation faces an extremely important decision on November 3rd, and it is a decision with serious consequences. Hopefully this article has served to help the Catholic voter in making that decision. Catholics have a duty to participate in the democratic process, and equally have a duty to bring the teaching of the Lord into the formation of public policy. In the end, of course, the choice of who to vote for rests on the individual conscience.

The Supreme Court, Politics, and Illiberalism

There is no reason to be surprised at the vitriol and the partisan brutality surrounding the Supreme Court vacancy left by the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The political capital that one side of the isle has invested into the Court, however imprudently, has made a non-controversial vacancy effectively impossible. Yet, the timely appointment and confirmation of Ginsburg’s replacement is absolutely essential. There is no precedent being violated in proceeding with the confirmation process, and the illiberal rhetoric coming from the left only serves to underline both the necessity of standing up to such threats, and the problem with the left’s conception of the Court itself. 

The confirmation of Ginsburg’s successor is set to become a poster child for the nation’s political divisions. But before delving into the controversy, it is worth highlighting public opinion. Judge Amy Coney Barret, President Trump’s nominee to succeed Justice Ginsburg, has been gaining support for a swift nomination. A Morning Consult/Politico poll from October 2-4 found that 43% of voters felt that Barret should be confirmed as soon as possible, with 37% thinking her confirmation should wait, and 20% undecided. This is a change from 39%, 40%, and 20% respectively in September. The same October poll found that 46% of voters support Barrett’s nomination, and 31% oppose it, compared to 37% for and 34% against in September. When it comes to public opinion, the confirmation process is gaining steam. This should serve as a background to the forthcoming analysis, for there is not widespread public distaste for the confirmation process, despite the left’s rhetoric.

Among a vast swath of criticism, the move to confirm Judge Barret has been cast as ‘illegitimate’ for violating a precedent set by Senate Republicans in 2016. The supposed precedent is that no vacancy should be filled during an election year, for the voters deserve to have a say in filling the seat. In 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell infamously refused to consider President Obama’s nominee for Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat, Merick Garland, arguing that the appointment should wait until after the election. On its face, it would seem Mr. McConnell was setting the aforementioned precedent. Whatever the political rhetoric, however, the precedent was never to avoid Supreme Court confirmations during an election year, but rather, in an important distinction, was to eschew Supreme Court nominations during an election year when the party controlling the Senate was different from that of the Presidency. While this distinction may seem trivial, it is actually essential. Mr. McConnell may have used some cover reasoning, appealing to the upcoming election as partial justification for his refusal to consider Mr. Garland’s nomination, but that could scarcely have been the true guiding principle. Rather, the driving principle was the same one that governs most political actions: partisan interest. No shrewd politician, which Mr. McConnell most certainly is, would set such a flawed precedent as never confirming a new Justice during an election year; a precedent like that would eventually work to his detriment. Further, Republicans took the Senate in 2014 in large part as a check on President Obama’s policies, so their opposition to Mr. Garland was partly the GOP fulfilling its electoral commitments. 

Further, nominating a Supreme Court justice during an election year is nothing new: it has been done 29 times in American history. Daniel McGlaughlin points out in the National Review that of the 45 presidents to hold office, 22 of them nominated a Supreme Court justice during an election year, including Franklin D. Roosevelt. Neither is it unusual for the Senate to hold up or refuse a Supreme Court nominee; it has happened many times before. William Rehnquist and Samuel Alito were both held up by Democratic filibusters. It is worth noting that the reason Democrats are unable to filibuster Barret today is because they opted to eliminate the filibuster for court nominees. If the left had played by the rules rather than changing them, they might still have been able to hold up Barret. 

Precedents aside, the threats from many on the left require attention. The two main threats being levied in response to the Senate considering the nomination are, one, that Senate Democrats will end the filibuster, and two, that they will pack the courts. Both of these threats, of course, rely on the Democrats retaking the Senate, but that will inevitably happen at some point. Ending the filibuster would be nothing new out of the left’s playbook: former Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid ended it for judicial nominees during the Obama years. However, it would certainly contribute to the ever deepening divisions in American society. The filibuster is the requirement of a two thirds majority to pass legislation, which allows for the minority party (assuming the majority is not a supermajority) to stymie legislation they oppose. Ending the filibuster completely would make the Senate into a simple-majority legislating body, whereby every piece of legislation would only require over 50% of the vote to pass. While this may seem desirable, it is in fact quite dangerous. The Founding Fathers explicitly wanted to avoid governance without broad support for the simple reason that governing by slim majority engenders division. 51% of the country cramming down its views on the other 49% does not bode well for long-term unity. 

The second threat, that of court packing, is far more insidious. Court packing is the practice of adding justices to the Supreme Court with the intent of altering the ideological balance of the Court. The left has a history of such threats, with President Franklin D. Roosevelt advocating for court packing in 1937 after the Supreme Court struck down some of his signature New Deal legislation. The number of justices on the Court has not changed since 1869, meaning if ever there was a precedent to uphold, it would be this. Packing the court failed in Roosevelt’s time for the same reason it should fail now: it is illiberal. If the number of justices on the Court are manipulated according to the ideological whims of the party in power, there can be no impartial justice, and the Court would simply sway with the electoral winds. Packing the Court verges on the authoritarian, for it abrogates the role of the Court as a check on the legislative and executive branches, and eliminates its status as an independent branch. If the Court is simply packed with partisans whenever one party takes the Senate and the Presidency, then the Court is not independent, for its power is shifted to the legislative and executive branches of government, who can manipulate the Court at their will to fit their policy prescriptions. Fumbling with the court system is one of the hallmarks of illiberalism, and is often among the first institutions of democracy to fall. In Hungary, authoritarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has reworked the high court to fit his far-right legislative agenda, neutering its ability to check his power. In the process, Hungary has become ever less free. That is not to say that the Democrats want to emulate such results, by all available evidence they do not, but it is to say that diminishing freedom is the result of policies like court packing. 

Leading Democrats have either advocated for or refused to rule out both ending the filibuster and packing the court. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is quoted as saying, “nothing is off the table,” and Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) was even more forthright, directly calling for both policies. Congressman Jerry Nadler (D-NY), who is also the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has stated that if a new justice is confirmed during the lame duck session, “then the incoming Senate should immediately move to expand the Supreme Court.” Potentially more concerning, the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA), has said she is “absolutely open to it [packing the Court],” and studiously avoided answering the question of what the Biden campaign believes at the Vice Presidential debate. Democratic Presidential candidate Joe Biden himself refused to say where he stood on the issue at the first 2020 Presidential debate, claiming, “Whatever position I take in that, that will become the issue.” In response to a recent question from the press, Biden said that the nation “will know my opinion of court-packing when the election is over.” According to Biden, voters “do not deserve” to know his position. That he refuses to rule it out is telling: he had previously been against packing the Court, but it would appear that he is now open to or supportive of it. More broadly, a survey from Marquette University Law School found, before Ginsburg passed away, that 61% of Democrats supported court packing. Only 41% of Independents and 34% of Republicans supported it. One can reasonably guess that the figure for the Democrats has risen sharply. 

Capitulating to these threats would both legitimize and normalize such behavior. Giving into the demands of a would-be criminal rarely does any good, and instead emboldens the criminal to make the same or worse threats down the line. This is not comparing the Democrats to criminals, but is meant simply to illustrate a point: bending the knee to illiberal threats will not prevent their continued use in the future, rather, it only increases their use. If the country devolves into one which makes policy based on the radical threats of one side of the isle (be it left or right), then it cannot be rightly considered a true democratic republic. At that point, the proper functioning of democracy ceases. Instead, those threats need to be met with a resolute commitment to the law, and respect for the foundational institutions of the nation. If the other side chooses to continue, or worse, follow through with its threats, it will bear the consequences both in public opinion and, eventually, at the ballot box. 

However, the illiberal rhetoric of the Democrats begs the question: how did the country get to this point? The answer lies in the way the left views the role of the Supreme Court and the court system as a whole. For the left, the court system is supposed to rule based on what is morally right. Not what is legally right, but what is moral. Morality, unfortunately, is a subjective judgement in the modern secular world, making it an imperfect (at best) tool for carrying out the law. The left often sees the Constitution as a ‘living’ document, a document that has no set and indisputable interpretation, but rather is interpretable based on the ever-shifting moral principles of contemporary society. Effectively, the Court is a tool to forward policies that the left could not hope to pass through the legislative process. Take Roe v. Wade for example. Nowhere does the Constitution enumerate a right to abortion, and the case itself basically acknowledges that, referring instead to ‘emanations’ and ‘penumbras’ in the text that somehow indicate such a right. The faults in this judicial philosophy should be obvious: there is no limiting principle, indeed no principles at all, besides the opinion of the judge or Justice. The danger is that without a set principle of legal interpretation, there are effectively no safeguards against wayward rulings in either direction, and if the law is itself fluid, there is no clear rule of law. The end result is an overarching lack of confidence and trust in the court system, thus undermining one of the key institutions of American political life. 

While the left might appreciate a relativistic judicial philosophy today, it is doubtful that they would be equally supportive if it were used to their detriment. If relativism is the method of legal interpretation, then there is nothing to stop judges from deciding that free speech, for instance, does not apply in one of the causes the left supports. Of course, that sort of decision would be entirely wrong from a textualist perspective (more on that later), but there is nothing according to relativist judicial doctrine that would make it wrong. The problem is that relativism is able to be weaponized by anyone, and there is no guarantee that it will work in the left’s favor forever. It is a path that everyone would do well to avoid pursuing any further.

None of this means that the left (or any political leaning for that matter) will never be able to achieve its policy goals, it can, but it has to do so through the legislative process. It is the job of the legislature, not the court system, to make law. It follows that it is the job of the court system to interpret the law, as written. The court system is unelected, and has no direct line to the will of the people, which should be the ultimate source of political power and policy. When an unelected few begin to make the law for the populace as a whole, there can be no doubt that division will follow, for there are few checks on an unelected power. 

It is because of the left’s judicial philosophy that the Supreme Court has become so contentious, for the furthering of the left’s policies rely on it. The solution to this problem, besides going through the proper legislative process, is a return to a textualist judicial philosophy. Textualism is the reading and interpreting of the law based on the meaning of the text at the time of the law’s passage. The purpose of a law is to further policy in accordance with the will of the people, and the will of the people is crystallized in the meaning of the law upon its passage through the duly elected legislature at the time. Legislative intent does not matter, for it is not how the law is understood. The law is understood based on the words on the page. Further, intent of lawmakers is not fully available for study, it simply is not wholly documented. There is no way to know every thought and motive of those who passed a law. Textualism is not a philosophy of strict constructionism, for one must use one’s reason when reading a text. It is understandable to a rational person that the Third Amendment to the United States Constitution, which only states that people cannot be forced to quarter soldiers, extends to people not being forced to quarter police officers as well. Through a textualist judicial philosophy, there are clear guides to proper interpretation, making it non-relativistic, and therefore predictable and stabilizing.

Of course, if the law is unsatisfactory, it can be subsequently changed, or in the case of the Constitution, amended, in accordance with the will of the people. The Founders gave the nation processes by which to effectuate those changes, among which the courts do not feature. For the judiciary to reinterpret statutes in light of present circumstances or moral views is to circumvent the will of the people and thus undermine the rule of law and democracy itself. Rather than supporting judges legislating from the bench, the left would do well to focus on persuading the nation to support their policies.

The Silent Heroes of Holy Cross

From room inspections to fun hall events, Resident Assistants (RA’s) work to create a safe and inclusive community within Holy Cross.  While some students may believe that RA’s are unwelcome and a nuisance, the truth is that many students are supported and uplifted by their RA every semester.  

Despite their hard work, RA’s oftentimes do not receive recognition by the student body, and are even degraded at times.  In fact, with the creation of the Remote RA program, one student felt the need to personally attack remote and on-campus RA’s, likening the program to a “car crash.”  Because of this blatant and ignorant attack, it is even more necessary to uplift these silent heroes and bring a new perspective concerning RA’s role at Holy Cross.

RA’s play an integral role in maintaining the physical safety of the Holy Cross community.  Whenever there is a safety concern, one can expect an RA to be first at the scene.  They are on call overnight in case of a late-night emergency, and they coordinate with Public Safety to resolve dangerous situations.  

While the commitment to physical safety is an RA’s number one priority, RA’s also play an enormous role in creating an inclusive community and caring for the mental and emotional  health of their residents.  The ability to dive into new social environments is hard for some students, and RA’s have proven to be valuable resources to help residents transition to college life.  Let’s explore the experiences of those whose RA positively impacted their lives and, in some cases, even inspired them to become RA’s themselves.

One current HRA states that his freshman year RA “offered a safe space for people not super extraverted.”   This particular action of supporting those who don’t fit in is what inspired him to become an RA in the first place.  The same HRA’s favorite aspect of the role is “developing friendships with residents and helping residents in need of support.”

A Sophomore Remote RA spoke about what inspired her to become an RA, “My first-year RA was such a community builder! She worked hard to make my first-year experience productive and fun; she made the 4th floor Mulledy vault feel like home! Even on a virtual platform, I'd love to be able to give my residents those same memories of community!”  Her goal as a first-year remote RA is to “bring people together and facilitate the normal get-to-know-yous that would be happening on campus” and to “make everyone feel welcome and supported.” 

A Sophomore resident says that her HRA last year “inspired me” and “convinced me to sign up for hall council and get more involved in our building.”  Looking back on her first year experience at Holy Cross, she states, “I was extremely thankful for it because it allowed me to make friends with people I may not have otherwise met…”  

As a person that doesn’t easily fit in myself, moving to Holy Cross last year was hard for me.  Oftentimes, all I wanted to do was leave Holy Cross for good; I felt so different and separated from everyone around me.  I was a Oneness Pentecostal submerged into a Catholic world, and my unfamiliarity with Catholicism made me feel nervous and somewhat inferior.  Also, I was extremely close to my family back home in Tennessee, and being separated from them was extremely difficult.  

I didn’t know anyone at Holy Cross.  But there were a select few who noticed me on the sidelines and included me.  Most of them were RA’s.  My HRA made it her mission to ensure that I felt included.  Two friends of mine who were RA’s also went out of their way to include me in their already-formed friend groups.  That commitment to those on the margins is what inspired me to do the same and become an RA myself.

This semester, COVID-19, which has prevented many of us from being on campus, made achieving this mission all the more challenging. .  In response, a few RA’s volunteered to become “Remote RA’s” to help keep the sense of community alive through this hard time.  The Remote RA program seeks to accomplish this through planning fun virtual events, facilitating one-on-ones, and continuing to be a resource for all students.  

Despite what some may say, the role RA’s play in the lives of residents is definitely not an unwelcome part of campus life.  Some may think that RA’s are just that annoying knock on the door, but that could not be farther from the truth.  To those who’ve struggled adjusting to Holy Cross or struggled with loneliness, RA’s are heroes.  And, for the most part, these heroes don’t take any credit.  They do it, not for applause, but because they have a passion for helping others, especially those who feel on the margins.  This mission carries on whether we are in person or remote.

Principle over Party: Why Republicans Should Hold Off on Filling RBG’s Seat

A prodigious legal mind and feminist icon, Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s celebrity was well-earned. Liberal or not, her impressive life story and outsized presence on the Supreme Court are undeniably inspirational, and her death on September 18 marks an immense loss to the nation. It also represents an opportunity for Republicans to confirm a new justice before the upcoming elections, which would solidify a 6-3 conservative majority on the court. President Trump’s nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, is a principled conservative with resolute pro-life convictions, and would be an excellent addition to the court. Unfortunately, due to short-sighted and opportunistic actions by Senate Republicans in the recent past, RBG’s successor cannot be the shoo-in she should be. To prevent further partisan conflagration and potentially irreversible damage to the integrity and legitimacy of the Supreme Court, the confirmation of a new justice should wait until after the elections.

In March 2016, following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, Senate Republicans famously denied a vote to President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, on the grounds that the next elected president should get to choose instead. “It’s been 80 years — 80 — since a vacancy created in a presidential election year was filled,” Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said at the time. What does he say now? “We are going to vote on President Trump’s nominee… this year.” The difference, he argues, is that in 2016 there was a Republican Senate and a lame-duck Democratic president, whereas now Republicans control both the Senate and the presidency. But as The Economist observes, this distinction will convince “only the most partisan Republicans.” Greater in number are those who are outraged by what is perceived to be blatant hypocrisy on the part of the GOP. A recent Reuters poll found that 62 percent of Americans agreed that the Supreme Court vacancy should be filled by whoever wins the presidency on November 3. This included eight in ten Democrats and a telling 50 percent of Republicans.

No one is arguing that it isn’t a fully legitimate exercise of constitutional power for President Trump to nominate a new justice, and for the Senate to vote and confirm her. However, this is a situation where optics matter, and clearly the perception held by the majority of the country is that Senate Republicans created a precedent, and are choosing to break it now that it’s politically expedient. Can you blame them? In 2016, Senator Lindsey Graham vowed, “I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.” Now people are saying just that, but Graham himself has made a 360.  “I will support President Trump in any effort to move forward” in filling Ginsburg’s seat, he announced this week. Pressed by Democrats on the judiciary panel about his reversal, he was shameless — “I am certain if the shoe were on the other foot,” Graham wrote, “you would do the same.”

It is thus hard to argue, as statements by Graham, McConnell, and others have made clear, that the decisions not to vote on Obama’s nominee, and now, the decision to move forward on Trump’s, are reflective of any legitimate precedent rather than thinly veiled politicking. This is not unconstitutional, but it is unprincipled, deeply unpopular, and may actually pose a real threat to the legitimacy and nature of the court in the near future. This threat lies with the Democrats, who are increasingly warming to the idea of court-packing. “Mitch McConnell set the precedent,” Senator Ed Markey wrote on Twitter on September 18. “If he violates it, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.” Democratic senators Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, and Kirsten Gillibrand all voiced their willingness to expand the court even before RBG’s death, during their respective presidential bids. Other senators, like Dianne Feinstein, have pushed back against this idea, and it is unclear how much support it actually holds among Democrats. 

Still, the terrifying reality that court-packing is now part of the mainstream public discourse is evidenced by the fact that so many top Democrats have refused to expressly disavow the idea. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer chose to remain vague, telling fellow Democrats last week that “nothing is off the table” if Republicans fill Ginsburg’s seat. In the past, Joe Biden admirably dismissed the idea. “I would not get into court packing,” he said last year. “We add three justices. Next time around, we lose control, they add three justices. We begin to lose any credibility the court has at all.” Concerningly, he now won’t say where he stands. Asked by a Wisconsin TV station whether he would pack the court as president, Biden evasively replied, “It’s a legitimate question. But let me tell you why I’m not going to answer that question: because it will shift the focus. That’s what [Trump] wants.” It isn’t a good sign that his VP pick, Senator Kamala Harris, was among those who said she was amenable to court-packing during her run in the Democratic primaries. “I’m open to it,” she told The New York Times in 2019. “I’m absolutely open to it.”

To be sure, it would be great to have a solid conversative majority on the Supreme Court. But is it worth the potentially disastrous cost of the court’s remaining credibility? If Republicans move forward to replace RBG before the election, they essentially gamble on whether or not Democrats will win back the Senate and presidency and have a chance to retaliate. With The Economist’s statistical model giving Biden an 86 percent chance of victory and the Democrats a two-thirds likelihood of flipping the Senate, this gamble may very well turn out badly for the GOP. If Republicans do confirm a new justice before the election, calls for court-packing will only grow louder, and if the Democrats do win in November, these words may very well become action. If this happens, there will likely be no going back. Once one party starts court-packing, as Biden wisely noted, it is unlikely the other party will have the restraint to end it. It would be a sour victory indeed for Republicans — but more importantly for the nation — if we gained another conservative justice, only to see the credibility and fundamental nature of the Supreme Court irrevocably damaged.

To be fair, concerned Democrats may want to ask why this situation exists in the first place. Mitch McConnell is not the first to abuse and alter established precedents for partisan ends. Democrat Harry Reid was actually the first, when he, as Senate Majority Leader in 2013, triggered the “nuclear option,” which eliminated the filibuster for most executive branch and judicial appointments. This allowed Senate Democrats to push through then-President Obama’s nominees via simple majority, rather than the traditional three-fifths supermajority. After Republicans won back the Senate in 2014, Reid’s successor, Mitch McConnell, unsurprisingly retaliated by extending the nuclear option to Supreme Court nominees. This recent history should serve to warn that in politics, once historical norms are broken, there is often no going back. Republicans today should learn from Democrats’ past mistakes, and not follow in their footsteps. We may temporarily lose one justice, but future generations will thank us for forestalling the destruction of the integrity and credibility of the Supreme Court.

Amy Coney Barrett: the Hero America Needs, but Doesn't Deserve

Let’s be honest: it’s rare—and I mean very rare—that anything President Trump says or does can be called, “brilliant” or “flawless.” Instead, Mr. Trump is usually cringy, tactless, blustering, or frankly, downright offensive. And yet this weekend, Trump did something truly, authentically, indisputably brilliant: he nominated Amy Coney Barrett to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Contrary to what you might think, I’m not celebrating Judge Coney Barrett’s nomination because I’m laboring under the delusion that she’ll help usher in an era marked by the kind of dystopian oppression and misogyny (à la The Handmaid’s Tale) that our detractors seem think we’re advocating for over here at the Review. No—I am elated because Coney Barrett is going to make a good Justice. Hell, she’s going to make an excellent Justice, one that will uphold the Constitution, defend the basic rights of all Americans, and serve her country brilliantly for the next several decades.

The point of this article, however, is not just to make it clear that the Review is absolutely delighted about Coney Barrett’s nomination (although we are); it’s to prove to our classmates, professors, and administrators that they should be too. See, over the next few weeks, politicians, members of the media, and activists are going to launch a character assassination campaign on Coney Barrett that will be so thorough, so vicious, and so incredibly heinous that most Americans—if they aren’t paying attention to Coney Barrett’s actual confirmation hearings—will think that she’s a member of a long-lost Catholic sect of Al-Qaeda. In fact, the smear campaign has already started.

Here are a few examples.

Ibram Kendi, the author of How To Be an Anti-Racist, implied that Coney Barrett, who is white, is racist because she adopted children from Haiti. Meanwhile, plenty of people—including liberal Catholic intellectuals—are shamelessly attacking Coney Barrett’s religious beliefs. News outlets are charging forward with a patently false claim that an ecumenical faith group that Coney Barrett belongs to, the People of Praise, is a viciously sexist and cultish organization. (These journalists have yet to explain how Coney Barrett, a woman, managed to reach the pinnacle of legal success while simultaneously being controlled by—or allied with—a group of vicious misogynists who won’t let woman out of the kitchen.)

Her detractors also claim that Coney Barrett’s Catholicism will prevent her from fairly interpreting the law, despite the fact that plenty of good judges, both Democrats and Republicans, have been practicing Catholics. Those making this particular argument don’t seem to notice the irony: while Coney Barrett has consistently demonstrated that her faith won’t prevent her from upholding the law, her detractors are violating Article IV, Clause III of the Constitution, which prohibits lawmakers from using religious tests to bar people from holding public office. In other words, the only people who have let questions of faith prevent them from fairly applying the law are the anti-Catholic clowns coming after Coney Barrett. 

And guess what? The official confirmation hearings won’t even start for another two weeks.

So, instead of buying into the ridiculous narrative that Coney Barrett—a 48-year-old, Honda-Odyssey-driving mother of seven—is a vicious fascist who’s coming for your uterus, let’s take a step back and evaluate Coney Barrett based on criteria that actually matter: her intellect, her legal acumen, and her personal character.

Let’s start with the fact that Coney Barrett graduated first in her class from Notre Dame’s law school. One of her professors, John Garvey, was so amazed by an answer Coney Barrett gave on an exam that he ran and shared her response with his colleagues. Her answer, he told them, was “better than the one I had come up with myself.” A few years later, when Garvey wrote a letter to Justice Scalia to recommend that he (Scalia) hire Coney Barrett as a clerk, he only wrote one sentence: “Amy Coney is the best student I ever had.”

Her fellow clerks seem to agree with Garvey’s assessment. Noah Feldman, a self-identified liberal who teaches law at Harvard, wrote an opinion piece this weekend where he asserted that, of the nearly 40 clerks who served during the 1998-99 term, “Barrett stood out. Measured subjectively and unscientifically by pure legal acumen, she was one of the two strongest lawyers. The other was Jenny Martinez, now dean of the Stanford Law School.” Feldman isn’t the only former clerk who has sung Coney Barrett’s praises: when she was nominated for the 7th Circuit in 2017, every single person she’d clerked with—many of them prominent liberal lawyers, deans, and professors—signed a letter of recommendation for her. So did all her colleagues at Notre Dame.

If you’re not at least a little impressed, you’re lying to yourself.

But Coney Barrett is more than a legal genius. She is also a mother of seven, and, according to those who know her, a woman of unimpeachable character. One of her colleagues has described her as, “one of the most generous people I have ever met.” That checks out, given that, in order to paint her as a monster, Democrats have resorted to attacking Barrett’s decision to adopt children from Haiti after an earthquake. This woman is so genuinely good that people are trying to spin an act of heroic love as some bizarre expression of white supremacy.

In fact, the only issue I can find with Coney Barrett—and I have looked—is that she’s crazy enough to accept Trump’s nomination and put herself, like a human target, at the end of the Democrat’s cancel-culture firing range. But even then, Coney Barrett seems like an excellent candidate: she has consistently exhibited a remarkable capacity to stay calm under pressure and classy in the face of calumny. If anyone in America is cut out for the absolute torrent of abuse about to come her way, it’s Coney Barrett.

In fact, the Senate Democrats, despite their extensive expertise when it comes to character assassination, might have finally met their match.

So please, shut out the hailstorm of slander and see Amy Coney Barrett as she really is: a brilliant lawyer, an incredibly accomplished jurist, a mother of seven, a beacon of kindness, and frankly, an inspiration to us all. I assure you, whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, a liberal or a conservative: America does not deserve Amy Coney Barrett. This is, quite literally, the best thing to happen in this hellish year. Just… enjoy it, okay?

9/11: Holy Cross, Don't Forget

Growing up in the Long Island suburbs, 9/11 has been a day of collective mourning and sorrow for as long as I can remember. With many families, friends, and friends of friends being impacted by the attacks, thoughts of the tragedy overwhelm us all. It was largely recognized during school on each anniversary, with many teachers drawing on their own experiences from the day.

That being said, when 9/11 came around shortly after my freshman year at Holy Cross began, I was quite disheartened by the lack of recognition the day received on campus. I recall many of my friends from New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and other areas being surprised when the day was met with little formal recognition from Holy Cross itself. None of our professors mentioned it, and the only email we received about it came from the Chaplain’s Office. They displayed the names of Holy Cross graduates who died from the 9/11 attacks in a memorial in St. Joseph Memorial Chapel and remembered them at daily Mass. I attended mass that day, but I was still left a bit uneasy by receiving only one brief email. “Isn’t there more that Holy Cross can be doing?” I thought to myself.

The next year, the response was about the same. Pax Christi advertised a guided reflection of the 18th anniversary and reminded students of confidential resources for healing through the College, but the Holy Cross administration itself still failed to reach out. 

This year, Holy Cross didn’t send a single email. They posted on Instagram and Facebook, but that was the extent to which the College recognized the day. Even if most students aren’t on campus, that doesn’t change what happened and the fact that it needs to be acknowledged. Memorial Plaza certainly serves as a reminder on its own, with the names of the seven Holy Cross alumni––Edward A. Brennan III ‘86, Thomas D. Burke ‘85, Neilie A. Heffernan Casey ‘90, John G. Farrell ‘91, Todd A. Isaac ‘94, Beth A. Quigley ‘97, and John J. Ryan ‘78––who were lost etched on a stone marker, but more attention must be brought to the events and those we lost. 

Perhaps New England feels detached from New York, but isn’t Holy Cross a community which knows no geographical bounds? Especially now that Holy Cross has only allowed a limited number of students on campus this semester, the administration has emphasized how our sense of community will be strengthened. This has not been the case, as seen through their neglect to continue past minimalistic traditions. When did it stop being worth mentioning?

Seven Holy Cross alumni were lost, but imagine the family members and friends of those from the Holy Cross community. How are we recognizing them? What about those who were in the Towers and managed to make it out? Are we going to recognize their struggle? In 2012, over 5,000 Holy Cross alumni lived in New York City. I doubt the numbers were much lower in 2001, but let’s say even 2,500 (half the number from 2012––unlikely) lived there on September 11, 2001. That’s still a very significant number. That isn’t even accounting for all of those who must have commuted into the city from surrounding areas. What does this neglect say about how we are defining community?

I am not merely criticizing the neglect of the Holy Cross administration, though. I think that we as Holy Cross students must do more on our own as well. Pax Christi had the right idea in 2019. However, how can we reach the larger student body? One way would be to get involved in Young America’s Foundation’s 9/11: Never Forget Project. Over 200 high schools and colleges across the nation participate by placing 2,977 American flags into the ground. According to its website, the Project was started “to help students create meaningful memorials to the innocent victims of radical Islamic terrorism, and to inspire commitment to defending our freedoms whenever they are attacked.” Why haven’t we done the same on the Hoval? There is more that we can do to make Holy Cross more cognizant of the events that impacted many from our own community. With most from the class of 2024 not being alive when the attacks occurred, it is imperative that we help them participate in our collective mourning with a fervent reverence for all those who were impacted that day.

I’ll end with this. If Popcorn Tuesday and a STAR outage at 6:00 AM have always warranted emails of their own, why doesn’t the largest act of terrorism to hit our country to date? Holy Cross: do more. Our administration, faculty, and students can all do more. Next time you walk through Memorial Plaza, remember Edward A. Brennan III ‘86, Thomas D. Burke ‘85, Neilie A. Heffernan Casey ‘90, John G. Farrell ‘91, Todd A. Isaac ‘94, Beth A. Quigley ‘97, John J. Ryan ‘78, and the other 2,970 lives that were lost on 9/11.