Joe Biden Cannot Claim To Fight For Our Nation’s Soul While Supporting Unborn Genocide

This article contains graphic content about abortion that might be distressing for some readers. 

I have had an abortion — a horrific saline abortion in which I gave birth to a dead baby boy after hours of labor. It was over 45 years ago, yet it’s an image that will stay with me forever.

Believe it or not, I am grateful I saw that stark truth, exposing abortion for what it really is, instead of living in the darkness and lies. Like those of countless other women, my abortion was coerced, another truth so often denied or ignored by those claiming abortion is a good. The fallacy of “free choice” is easier to sell than the reality of the betrayal of boyfriends, parents, spouses, or other outside pressures.

As I listened to Sen. Dianne Feinstein during Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings speak of women she knew in the 1950s who suffered and even died from illegal abortion, I could not help but wonder whether Feinstein has ever spoken to the countless women who suffer now, or the families of those who have died from the “safe, legal abortion” she has worked so hard to ensure. Probably not. She can speak about how “distressing” it was for her not to get a straight answer from Barrett regarding whether the judge would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, but it appears Feinstein has no idea of the real distress millions of women experience every day due to a past abortion.

As we digress down this slippery slope we were warned about decades ago, “safe, legal, and rare” has become “safe, legal, and free,” as portrayed in the “Thank God for Abortion Anthem” video making its rounds on the internet. At least those proponents are honest. With more than 60 million abortions since Roe, rare it is not.

Joe Biden speaks of this election as a fight for the “soul of our nation,” and so it is. It is difficult, however, to listen to Biden speak as if he is on some high moral ground when, in fact, he advocates for abortion throughout the entirety of a pregnancy. This disregard for innocent human life goes beyond the soul of our nation. It is a fight for personal souls.

This self-proclaimed “devout” Catholic sadly has the support of some bishops, who tell their flocks they can vote for him “in good conscience.” Anyone who takes the time to contemplate the more than 60 million deaths of innocent babies, however, knows this cannot come from a good conscience, but from an absence of one.

I know about the fight for souls. I have faced it in my own life since that abortion all those years ago when I was tortured with guilt and shame. Those who support abortion blame my Catholic faith for instilling guilt and shame, but I know that’s not it. That agony comes from having seen my son lying on the bed next to me, killed from a saline abortion.

I also know about the fight for souls from the more than 200 new people I hear from each year who are seeking healing from abortion. These women live in pain and regret, often alone in silent suffering in a society that refuses to acknowledge their grief.

I know about it from the men who can’t let go of having coerced a girlfriend into aborting while they were in college, or the ones who had no say as their child was killed. I know about it from the siblings of aborted children who feel guilty for even being alive, or who wonder if their names would have been different if their brother or sister had been permitted to live.

Yes, we are in a fight for the soul of our nation, and for each soul within it, as our country chooses not to see what is going on, turning a blind eye to the horror of what we have done. These are decisive times. As we slip deeper and deeper into the depravity of the killing of innocent human life, with elected officials even entertaining infanticide, we lose a little more of our soul every day and will live with the consequences. We already are.

As Biden proclaims, “We are fighting for the soul of our nation,” I can only hope the scales that blind him will someday fall and he will come to realize his significant role in the loss of which he speaks. I pray we will be able to say, “I once was lost but now I’m found, was blind but now I see” before it is too late and we slip into the abyss with no way back.


70+ Climate Journalists Pen Open Letter Condemning Barrett for Enabling the ‘Ecological Crisis of Our Times’

“At the moment when the facts of the case were presented to her, this arbiter of justice freely chose to side with mistruths. Judge Coney Barrett’s responses are factually inaccurate, scientifically unsound, and dangerous.”


More than 70 science journalists have signed an open letter warning that Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett‘s close ties to the fossil fuel industry and refusal to publicly acknowledge the established science behind human-caused climate change make her an enabler of “the ecological crisis of our times.”

First published in Rolling Stone on Sunday, the letter slams Barrett’s responses to basic climate questions during her confirmation hearings as “factually inaccurate, scientifically unsound, and dangerous.” As Common Dreams reported, the right-wing judge insisted she has “no firm views” on the climate crisis and, in later written responses, called the science of climate change “controversial.”

“It is frightening that a Supreme Court nominee—a position that is in essence one of the highest fact-checkers in the land—has bought into the same propaganda we have worked so hard to dispel,” reads the letter, which was signed by author and environmentalist Naomi Klein, co-founder Bill McKibben, and other prominent climate writers.

“How can Judge Coney Barrett rule on pending issues of climate change liability, regulation, finance, mitigation, equity, justice, and accountability if she fails to accept even the underlying premise of global warming? The answer is that she cannot,” continues the letter, which came hours before the Republican-controlled Senate cleared a procedural hurdle and paved the way for a final vote on Barrett’s confirmation Monday.

Below is the full letter and list of signatories:

We are science and climate journalists. We are researchers and weavers of information, creating a fabric that explains the work of scientists who themselves are working to describe our natural world and universe. We are published in the nation’s leading outlets, both large and small, including Scientific American, Nature, National Geographic, MIT Technology Review, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Washington Post, The New Yorker and many more. Over decades of reporting on the threats and now deadly and devastating harms of worsening climate change, we have succeeded in at least one respect. The vast majority of the world’s people, including those in the United States, not only acknowledge the scientific certainty of climate change, but also want action taken to address it.

We have succeeded because the science is clear, despite there being a massive well-orchestrated effort of propaganda, lies, and denial by the world’s largest fossil fuel corporations, including ExxonMobil and Koch Industries and fossil-fuel-backed institutes and think tanks. It is frightening that a Supreme Court nominee—a position that is in essence one of the highest fact-checkers in the land—has bought into the same propaganda we have worked so hard to dispel.

And it is facts—a word under repeated assault by the Trump administration, which nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett—that are at issue here. “I’m certainly not a scientist…I’ve read things about climate change. I would not say I have firm views on it,” Judge Coney Barrett told Sen. John Kennedy during the Senate confirmation hearings on October 13th.

The next day, Sen. Richard Blumenthal asked Judge Coney Barrett if she believed “human beings cause global warming.” She replied: “I don’t think I am competent to opine on what causes global warming or not. I don’t think that my views on global warming or climate change are relevant to the job I would do as a judge.”

When asked that same day by Sen. Kamala Harris if she accepts that “COVID-19 is infectious,” Coney Barrett said yes. When asked if “smoking causes cancer,” Coney Barrett said yes. But when asked if “climate change is happening, and is threatening the air we breathe and the water we drink,” Judge Coney Barrett said that while the previous topics are “completely uncontroversial,” climate change is instead, “a very contentious matter of public debate.” She continued: “I will not express a view on a matter of public policy, especially one that is politically controversial because that’s inconsistent with the judicial role, as I have explained.”

Judge Coney Barrett repeatedly refused to acknowledge the scientific certainty of climate change. This is an untenable position, particularly when the world’s leading climate scholars warned in 2018 that we have just 12 years to act to bring down global average temperature rise and avert the most dire predictions of the climate crisis.

At the moment when the facts of the case were presented to her, this arbiter of justice freely chose to side with mistruths. Judge Coney Barrett’s responses are factually inaccurate, scientifically unsound, and dangerous.

How can Judge Coney Barrett rule on pending issues of climate change liability, regulation, finance, mitigation, equity, justice, and accountability if she fails to accept even the underlying premise of global warming? The answer is that she cannot.

Judge Coney Barrett’s ties to the fossil fuel industry have already proved problematic, forcing recusal from cases involving Shell Oil entities related to her father’s work as a long-time attorney for the company. She may also need to recuse herself from future cases due to her father’s former position as chairman of the Subcommittee on Exploration and Production Law of the American Petroleum Institute—the nation’s leading fossil fuel lobby.

Climate change is already an increasingly dominant aspect of American life, and an issue of growing import in American law. On the Supreme Court docket is BP P.L.C v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore—a case that involves Shell, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and other major oil companies, and could impact about a dozen U.S. states and localities suing Big Oil over its contribution to climate change.

Judge Coney Barrett says, “I’m certainly not a scientist,” but she does not need to be a scientist, rather she needs to have faith in science. Pope Francis, the head of the Roman Catholic Church, is an ardent supporter of action on climate change, releasing in 2015 the “Encyclical on Climate Change & Inequality: On Care for Our Common Home.” The Pope embraces hard science in order to keep close to his faith.

Judge Coney Barrett has displayed a profound inability to understand the ecological crisis of our times, and in so doing she enables it.


Bill McKibben, journalist and author, the Schumann Distinguished Scholar in environmental studies at Middlebury College

Rebecca Solnit, author and journalist

Sonia Shah, science journalist and author

Jonathan Weiner, Pulitzer Prize winning author, science journalist, and professor at Columbia Journalism School

Jeff Goodell, climate journalist and author of The Water Will Come

Naomi Klein, journalist and author

Michelle Nijhuis, science journalist and author

Amy Westervelt, climate journalist

Rachel Ramirez, environmental justice reporter

Iris Crawford, climate justice journalist

Anoa Changa, movement and environmental justice journalist

Tiên Nguyễn, multimedia science journalist

Eric Holthaus, meteorologist, climate journalist at The Phoenix

Jenni Monet (Laguna Pueblo), climate affairs journalist and founder of Indigenously

Nina Lakhani, environmental justice reporter

Samir S. Patel, science journalist and editor

Clinton Parks, freelance science writer

Meehan Crist, writer in residence in biological sciences, Columbia University

Elizabeth Rush, science writer, author of Rising: Dispatches from the New American Shore

Anne McClintock, climate journalist, photographer and author, professor of environmental humanities and writing at Princeton University

Ruth Hopkins (Oceti Sakowin, Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate), tribal attorney, Indigenous journalist

Wade Roush, science and technology journalist and author

Kim Stanley Robinson, New York Times bestselling author of climate science fiction, Hugo, Nebula, and Locus Awards

Jason Mark, editor in chief, Sierra

Kate Aronoff, climate journalist

Richard Louv, journalist and author

Heather Smith, science journalist

Judith Lewis Mernit, California climate editor, Capital & Main

Madeline Ostrander, climate journalist

Julie Dermansky, multimedia environmental and social justice journalist

Kenneth Brower, environmental journalist and author

Alexander Zaitchik, science and political journalist and author

Hillary M. Rosner, science journalist and scholar in residence, University of Colorado

Wudan Yan, science journalist

Debra Atlas, environmental journalist and author

Rucha Chitnis, climate, environmental justice and human rights documentarian

Drew Costley, environmental justice reporter

Jonathan Thompson, environmental author and journalist

Carol Clouse, environmental journalist

Brian Kahn, climate journalist

Geoff Dembicki, climate journalist and author

Peter Fairley, energy and environment journalist

Nicholas Cunningham, energy reporter

Nina Berman, documentary photographer focusing on issues of climate and the environment, professor of journalism at Columbia University

Michele C. Hollow, freelance journalist

Ben Depp, documentary photographer, focusing on issues of climate and the environment

Virginia Hanusik, climate photographer

Philip Yam, science journalist and author

Maura R. O’Connor, science journalist and author

Chad J. Reich, audio and visual journalist covering energy and environment in rural communities

Steve Ross, environmental writer/editor, former Columbia environmental reporting professor

Starre Vartan, science journalist

Michael Snyder, climate photographer

Brandon Keim, science and nature journalist

Tom Athanasiou, climate equity writer and researcher

Hope Marcus, climate writer

Jocelyn C. Zuckerman, freelance journalist

Dana Drugmand, climate journalist

Tom Molanphy, climate journalist

Roxanne Szal, associate digital editor, Ms.Magazine

Dashka Slater, author and climate reporter

Jenn Emerling, documentary photographer, focusing on issues of climate and culture in the American West

Christine Heinrichs, science writer and author

Clayton Aldern, climate and environmental journalist

Karen Savage, climate journalist

Charlotte Dennett, author, investigative journalist, attorney

Carly Berlin, environmental reporter

Ben Ehrenreich, author and journalist

Ibby Caputo, science journalist

Lawrence Weschler, former New Yorker staff writer, environmental author, most recently with David Opdyke, of This Land: An Epic Postcard Mural on the Future of a Country in Ecological Peril.

Justin Nobel, science journalist

Antonia Juhasz, climate and energy journalist and author

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.


Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is an official White House photo


Supreme Court May Revisit Pennsylvania Vote-by-Mail Case — with Justice Amy Coney Barrett as Tiebreaker

The Supreme Court could soon revisit a challenge to a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision on extending the deadline for the receipt of absentee ballots — this time, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett on the Court, possibly casting a tie breaking vote.

As Breitbart News reported last week:

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a Republican application to stay the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to grant the Democratic Party’s request to make several changes to mail-in voting that critics have decried as vulnerable to fraud.

As Breitbart News reported last month, “The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled … that ballots received three days after Election Day will still be counted — even if there is no evidence they were postmarked on time.”

Republicans sought a stay.

The Supreme Court, however, split 4-4 on the request, leaving the decision of the lower court in place. Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the Court’s liberal minority; the remaining four conservative justices sided with the Republican request.

The fact that the Court split 4-4 means that its decision will set no precedent on the legal issues at stake.

Moreover, Republicans have re-filed a challenge — this time, apparently, challenging the constitutionality of the power of the state courts to decide election issues. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states (emphasis added):

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Court could decide that the Pennsylvania state legislature — which is controlled by a Republican majority — has the sole power to regulate elections, invalidating the courts’ changes to the process of accepting absentee ballots.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) told Breitbart News — without referring to any particular controversy — that one of the most important reasons to confirm Barrett before the election was to avoid 4-4 splits that could create a patchwork of electoral guidelines.

Barrett will also hear a variety of other consequential cases immediately upon taking her place on the bench.


Senate Confirms Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court

The Senate voted to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court on Monday night, making her the third justice to join the nation’s highest court under President Donald Trump.

The Senate confirmed Barrett along partisan lines, 52-48.

Barrett will become the third justice to join the Supreme Court since Trump took office, after a Senate Republican majority confirmed Judges Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch to the court.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said that the confirmation of Barrett “will go down as one of the darkest days in the 231-year history of the United States Senate.”

The Senate vote concludes a relatively undramatic confirmation process compared to Kavanaugh’s tumultuous confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced in early October, or early during the confirmation process, that Senate Republicans had the votes to confirm Barrett.

The confirmation hearings also had few contentious moments as the Senate Judiciary Committee swiftly advanced Barrett out of committee last week.

Barrett spoke about her judicial philosophy and her qualifications for the Supreme Court without using any notes, which Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) found impressive.

The relative ease with which the Senate Judiciary Committee managed to advance Barrett led the Washington Post and several leftists to call for Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) retirement. Many leftists were particularly incensed by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Feinstein at the confirmation hearings conclusion.

The Post wrote:

If that wasn’t enough to anger Democrats — who have spent this week trying to paint Barrett’s nomination process as a sham — Feinstein also thanked the committee’s chair, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), and then walked across the room to wrap him in a hug. Never mind that neither senator was wearing a face mask. Many Democrats were so much more incensed about what that hug symbolized — a final white flag, a compliment for Graham after a comparatively tame week of questioning — that, hours later, at least two liberal activist groups called for Feinstein to go.

Brian Fallon, the executive director of Demand Justice, said, “It’s time for Senator Feinstein to step down from her leadership position on the Senate Judiciary Committee. If she won’t, her colleagues need to intervene.”

Schumer said he had a “long and serious talk” with Feinstein regarding handling the confirmation hearings.

The Democrats’ inability to slow down Barrett’s confirmation might result from polling, which found that a majority of Americans want Barrett confirmed to the nation’s highest court.

It may explain why Schumer also led a largely symbolic effort to convince Republicans to vote against Barrett on Friday in a brief but rare closed-door session.

Murphy claimed on Sunday that the battle to confirm Barrett is a “fight to the end. No hyperbole – it’s life or death stakes.”

Despite Democrats’ tepid opposition to Barrett’s confirmation, the Senate approved her on Monday night. Now, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas will swear in Barrett to the nation’s highest court at the White House on Monday evening.

Sean Moran is a congressional reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @SeanMoran3.


Senate Confirms Judge Amy Coney Barrett To Nation’s Highest Court

The Republican-led Senate voted 52-48 to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court Monday after a contentious confirmation battle. Her ascension to the high court replaces a leftist justice with an originalist, shifting the court’s balance of power back towards the Constitution after a century of anti-Constitutional dominance thanks to President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Barrett is expected to be sworn in by Justice Clarence Thomas at the White House on Monday night.

Barrett, a 48-year-old judge previously on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, takes a seat vacated by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who passed away last month at the age of 87 due to complications from pancreatic cancer.

The Senate confirmation comes approximately one week before the November election, sending Democrats into an uproar over the president and the elected Republican majority fulfilling its constitutional duty to fill the vacancy. Barrett is the third Supreme Court justice to be appointed and confirmed by President Donald Trump.

In 2017, Republicans filled the vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia with Justice Neil Gorsuch after capturing the White House in 2016. In 2018, Democrats attempted to derail Trump’s second nominee, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, with unsubstantiated allegations of sexual assault.

Democrats have pledged to pack the Supreme Court with additional justices if swept into power next week. The proposal has been left an open question for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, who has refused to make his position clear in public but has signaled his willingness to overhaul the judicial institution to circumvent constitutional barriers to permanent Democrat rule.

Biden’s running mate, California Sen. Kamala Harris, has also emphasized she is “open” to the idea of court-packing in retaliation for Republican senators lawfully employing the duties voters have given them.

While Barrett’s confirmation battle came in the prime of an election season, Democrats focused their attacks on the appointment’s close proximity to election day and complained that the conservative judge’s commitment to faithfully applying the law would pose an obstacle to Democrat desires.

Barrett was also subject to criticism based on her Christianity. Reuters and Newsweek characterized Barrett as a character in the dystopian “Handmaid’s Tale” and protestors donned red cloaks to mock the judge for her participation in the Christian community “People of Praise.”

One MSNBC analyst even posted pictures on Twitter of Barrett in a face mask to compare the court nominee to a sex slave from scenes in the television series based on the “Handmaid’s Tale.”

Barrett’s arrival to the high court comes at a tumultuous time. Deep divisions permeating all levels of government have heightened concerns of violent unrest following next week’s election echoing what the nation suffered in the immediate aftermath of George Floyd’s death.

The court could be at the center of the chaos within days by presiding over the election outcome conducted amid a once-in-a-generation pandemic with Barrett now serving on the bench.

On Nov. 10., the Supreme Court will also begin hearing arguments that could dictate the future of the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as “Obamacare.”


Report: Clarence Thomas Will Swear In Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court After Confirmation Vote

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas will swear in Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the nation’s highest court at the White House Monday evening following her confirmation, according to a report.

“Justice Clarence Thomas will administer the official Constitutional Oath to Judge Amy Coney Barrett at the White House tonight,” one White House aide told the Washington Times.

The report comes as the full Senate is expected to confirm Barrett at around 7:25 P.M.

“We made an important contribution to the future of this country,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said Sunday. “A lot of what we’ve done over the last four years will be undone sooner or later by the next election. They won’t be able to do much about this for a long time to come.”

Barrett needs a simple majority of 51 votes for confirmation. Republican Maine Sen. Susan Collins, who is in a race for re-election, has already said she will vote “no” on Barrett’s confirmation.

If confirmed, Barrett could join the bench as soon as Tuesday and give conservatives a 6-3 majority on the court.

The UPI contributed to this report. 


McConnell positions Senate to confirm Judge Barrett

October 23, 2020

In a 51-46 vote Friday, the Senate passed a motion to proceed with a vote on whether to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States after she was nominated by President Donald Trump to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell led the charge to end debate on the nominee’s confirmation and to move forward with a vote on the Senate floor, which will likely take place early next week.



‘We did it’: Senate Judiciary Republicans approve advancement of Judge Barrett’s Nomination

October 22, 2020


The Senate Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to approve the advancement of Judge Amy Coney Barret’s, President Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, nomination to a full Senate vote. Twelve members voted in favor of the move, while 10 members voted “not present.”

After the motion passed, the Committee Chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, said, “We did it. We did it. Judge Barrett’s going to the floor. I hope you look back on this time on the Committee and say I was there when it mattered and you were.”



Clyburn: Barrett Confirmation Will ‘Throwback’ SCOTUS to Days of Segregation, Slavery 

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) said if Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed, the Supreme Court will become a “throwback” to the 1896 Plessy vs. Ferguson decision that upheld racial segregation and the 1857 Dred Scott decision which upheld slavery.

Anchor Poppy Harlow said, “Let’s end on this, if Judge Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court this week, if Joe Biden wins the presidential election do you support a President Biden packing the Supreme Court?”

Clyburn replied, “Well, I think the Supreme Court is being packed now.”

Harlow pressed, “But more justices, to the question of more justices, adding them, is that a good idea?”

Clyburn said, “Well, adding justices, I think we need to unpack the Supreme Court. There needs to be balanced in the Supreme Court. You know, I know what the Supreme Court was like during the Dred Scott decision, I know what the Supreme Court was like during Plessy vs. Ferguson. I think that this court that we see developing now is a throwback to Plessy vs. Ferguson and even Dred Scott?”

Harlow asked, “You Do?”

Clyburn insisted, “Absolutely I do believe that. I have said before. I believe very strongly that the Shelby vs. Holder decision that got rid of the Voting Rights Act was the worst decision of the Supreme Court since Dred Scott. I said that I believe that very strongly because I know what the vote does for people of color. I know what happened here in South Carolina and other states immediately after that decision when all of these onerous things were done to people’s voting rights. That’s what’s going on right now. A massive suppress the vote effort made possible, made possible by Shelby vs. Holder that would not happen but for that Supreme Court decision.”

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN


Trump Confirms More Federal Judges in First Term than Any President in 40 Years

President Donald Trump often boasts of his accomplishments in nominating federal judges, and for good reason: at the close of his first term, he will have confirmed more judges to the federal judiciary in one term than any recent U.S. president.

As of October 5, according to the Heritage Foundation, Trump has confirmed 218 judges to Article III courts — that is, the “Supreme Court of the United States, the U.S. courts of appeals, the U.S. district courts and the U.S. Court of International Trade.”

On October 26, that number will rise to 219 with the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

No president in the past four decades has appointed more judges in a first term. The only one who appointed more was Jimmy Carter, who appointed 248 — but he had the advantage of an expanded federal judiciary.

Under Carter, Congress added 152 new judgeships — nearly one-third of the previous total — and Carter filled them quickly. (Democrats want to expand and “pack” the Supreme Court if Joe Biden wins the 2020 election — not because of a backlog in the courts, which Carter faced, but for ideological reasons.)

Trump has also appointed 53 appellate judges, leaving no vacancies on that level.

Currently, Trump has appointed more than one-fourth of active federal judges. That is a large proportion — but Barack Obama’s appointees still account for nearly 40% of the federal bench, according to the Pew Research Center.

That means Trump will need a second term if he is to establish a solid “constitutional conservative” foundation for the federal judiciary.

There are three things that make Trump’s judicial appointments special. The first is the timing.

Trump won the 2016 election as Senate Republicans were blocking the confirmation of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Had Trump lost, the Court would have had a liberal majority — perhaps for decades.

By filling the empty seat vacated by the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016, Trump preserved a nominal conservative majority. He will expand it with Barrett’s confirmation.

Second, Trump has appointed an unusually large number of appellate judges. These are among the most powerful judges in the system, and they form the primary pool of candidates for appointment to the Supreme Court. Trump has created a deep bench from which Republican presidents can draw in the future (including himself, if he wins a second term in office).

Third, President Trump’s judicial appointees have been vetted by conservative legal authorities, including the Federalist Society, which promotes the originalist school of constitutional interpretation. Thus, Trump’s appointees are considered more reliably conservative than the nominees of a typical Republican president.

The gains Trump has made could quickly be reversed if Biden wins — not least because his party intends to expand the Supreme Court for the first time in 150 years.

In fact, despite the rapid pace of Trump’s appointments, new vacancies keep opening up on the federal bench. Currently, there are 64 vacancies on the federal bench — over 7% of the total seats. 40 nominations are still pending in the Senate.

A New York Times poll released last week revealed that 58% of likely voters believed the Supreme Court should not be expanded. A majority (57%) of Democrats agreed with the idea of packing the Court; 89% of Republicans opposed it.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). His newest e-book is The Trumpian Virtues: The Lessons and Legacy of Donald Trump’s Presidency. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.