Roskam celebrates North suburban women’s GOP club 75 years
December 24, 2016
Club President Peggy Sieber with Congressman Peter Roskam
By Nancy Thorner –
In early December, the Women’s Republican Club of Lake Forest-Lake Bluff celebrated their 75th year at a luncheon keynoted by Congressman Peter Roskam (IL-08). Roskam’s news from D.C. following the election of Donald Trump as president was upbeat and
encouraging for the ladies.
Roskam, in his fifth term in the U.S. House, sits on the Health Subcommittee and chairs the Oversight Subcommittee – a key watchdog post with jurisdiction into the spending and operations of tax-writing and healthcare programs within the federal government.
Roskam quipped that, on election night it looked like the media was “passing a kidney stone.” When Congress resumed its sessions the week following the election, Roskam described his Democrat congressmen colleagues as looking “thunder struck and bewildered.”
Current board and current and several past presidents of Women’s Republican Club
Democrats are in the midst of a civil war but haven’t learned a thing. Instead of firing Nancy Pelosi, they rehired her. Pelosi defeated Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan to secure another term as Democratic Minority leader, despite Pelosi’s record of having taken the Democratic agenda right off the cliff. People are tired of the identity politics used by Democrats. Roskam also noted the tone-deafness of Democrats who tell welders in Ohio that Global Warming is more important than jobs!
According to Roskam, the Republican majority in the House is very upbeat about accomplishing things in the days ahead. Trump is winning the expectations game. Furthermore, the appointments Trump is making are sound. Roskam had positive and enthusiastic things to say about vice president-elect Mike Pence, who served in the U.S. House for ten years. When Pence came to meet with House Republicans he entered a warm setting with a tone that was pitched perfectly. Pence will work hand and glove with Congress.
Roskam likewise expressed approval of Mike Pompeo as he heads to the CIA. “With his appointment, we will be able to sleep easier. Decisions will be made to take the fight to the enemy,” Roskam said. Also, meeting Roskam’s approval was Tom Price as Secretary of Health. A consistent critic of Obamacare, Price had his own successful medical practice before being elected to Congress. Roskam described his friend Tom Price as a legislator who “knows where the plumbing is” in Obamacare, and thus
knows how to dismantle it with minimal disruption and maximum efficiency.
Cited by Rep. Roskam as things Congress will do right out of the box:
1. Work to replace Obamacare. There are smart individuals who have the tools to make the transition a smooth one.
2. Reform the IRS code by taking away the complexity of the code. It’s been 30 years (1986) since any tax reform took place. The code that exists now is a big complicated mess. Let’s dump the code and come up with something new.
Democrats are inclined to say that they want to work with Republicans, but when push comes to shove, they obstruct and block what Republicans wish to do. The Democratic Party is now fractured, but tax reform might be one area where Republicans and Democrat can work together.
Roskam then went on to explain about Congress’ “Regular Order” in contrast to “Reconciliation” as a way to pass legislation.
“Reconciliation” is a legislative process of the United States Senate intended to allow consideration of a budget bill with debate limited to twenty hours under Senate rules. Because of this limited debate, reconciliation bills are not subject to the filibuster in the Senate. Reconciliation also exists in the United States House of Representatives, but because the House regularly passes rules that constrain debate and amendment, the process has had a less significant impact on that body.
The idea of “regular order” seems simple enough. It means that the legislature agrees to operate by its own standing rules. In the House, regular order means that spending items are kept on budget, that bills move forward through a set process, and that members are allowed a good deal of freedom when it comes to offering amendments. When a bill passes out of the House, 60 votes are then needed in the Senate to pass the bill before signed or vetoed by the president.
Roskam described reconciliation as a slower method, such as to repeal Obamacare; however, the regular order route is more attractive and is tempting to use for bills dealing with tax policy that expire every three years and to work with Democrats willing to work with Republicans on a pro-growth agenda.
Obama didn’t do the hard work of legislating by going to Congress for a vote. He acted with impunity and by so doing lost both the House and the Senate. As Obama said early on in his administration: “I’ve got a pen and a phone.”
There will be a big push to undo regulations. Some regulations can be removed by undoing an Executive Order, as such Trump agencies will work to undo the rules put in place. Then there is the Congressional Reverse Act: Those regulations that are put in place 60 days before the Trump administration takes office can be declared void.
Roskam spoke of the Senate as “a different land” where floor time is limited. With 53 Republican senators, 51 votes are needed for the Senate to declare regulations void. Hopefully this process will be done as smoothly and quickly as possible.
Many legislators were never in office at a time when Republicans were in charge of both Houses. Roskam told of the interest in getting things done about the economy to achieve a growth rate of 4 – 5; eliminating harmful regulation; getting health care fixed; getting a Supreme Court Justice approved to replace Scalia; and for this nation to regain its position of importance in the world. “If we as conservatives follow these principles, things will work out fine.”
Roskam expressed how China has challenges, but this nation has troubles. Roskam was relieved to be on U.S. soil again when landing at O’Hare Airport after visiting China. Those who live in the city of Beijing have five years shaved from their lives because of pollution.
As Roskam said, “We are the good guys. The Republican Party is better on growth issues. We are the Party that is about a very optimistic future.”
Some federal programs are needed to help those Americans who need help, but they should not serve as a never-ending crutch for those who are addicted to viewing government as their nanny, he said.
It is foolish to rail against people who are successful, as Democrats do. What should instead be said: “How nice of you, that could be me.”
Roskam said we must not be defensive about a value system that has produced a country that is the envy of the world, but that we must be grateful to God that we are citizens of this country. We must be stewards of our citizenship, handing it over to our children, so they can make this nation even better.
The Women’s GOP Club of LF-LB
The Women’s Republican Club of LF-LB, founded in 1941, is sustained by members’ dues. Membership is open to men and women as well as GOP local, state of federal candidates and office holders. Residence in Lake forest or Lake Bluff is not required. The WRC is the oldest continuing organization here in Illinois. It exists to assist GOP candidates and office-holder and to educate voters of issues of importance. Margaret “Peggy” Siebert, a Lake Forest resident, serves as the Club’s president.
Peggy Siebert kicked off the luncheon with the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation—80 voices raised in the song “God Bless America.”
Pat Kammerer, a past president of the Women’s Republican Club (2006 – 2008) and a GOP stalwart for decades, was awarded the WRC “President’s Award.” Pat, a long-time committeeman and perennial campaign volunteer also heeded the call to be a poll watcher for Gov. Scott Walker in the hotly contested recall election in Wisconsin, leaving her station only when her safety was threatened and local police informed Pat they could not guarantee her personal safety. Forty-two women have served as president of the WRC since its founding in 1942.
Lake County GOP Chairman Mark Shaw with club’s immediate past president Pat Kammerer
What Happened During the Election in Illinois?
Before Roskam’s address, Mark Shaw, head of the Lake County Republican Party and 10th District Illinois State Central Committeeman, offered the following remarks that gave an overall view of “What Happened Here in Illinois.”
He noted that Illinoisans are often led to believe that Illinois is basically a blue state. There are 102 counties, but there exists in Illinois a sea of red in until you get to Cook County and its four collar counties. Most of Illinois’ counties went for Trump, yet there were not enough votes cast for Trump to counter the heavy Democratic vote in the City of Chicago and its five collar counties for Trump to win Illinois. While Trump won Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, not since 1980 did Illinois go Republican with the election of G. H. Bush. Pat Toomey won on the coattails of Trump in PA; Ron Johnson did the same in Wisconsin; and Republican Todd Young beat Evan Bayh in Indiana, who was favored to win the Senate seat as he was a former governor of Indiana.
Despite extensive phone banking that took place at the Lake County Republican Headquarters and other “Get Out the Vote” activities, Lake County was one of the four collar counties that went for Hillary. The others collar counties were Kane, DuPage and Will. Only McHenry voted Republican. The phone banking did protect Republican County Board members. And Rauner ally Comptroller Leslie Munger won Lake County, but unfortunately, lost the statewide race.
With decisive Republican wins across this nation, despite its lack of direction here in Illinois, the Republican Party does have a good foundation to move forward. Two-thirds of state legislatures and two-thirds of governor mansions are now controlled by Republicans.
Candidates and Office-Holders in Attendance:
- Senator Dan McConchie – Senate District #26
- Lynn O’Brien – Third Vice President, Lake County Republican Central Committee and Dan McConchie’s Campaign Manager
- David Stolman – L.C. Treasurer
- Willard Helander – Retired County Clerk of Lake County
- Illinois Comptroller – Leslie Munger
- President of College of Lake County – Dr. William Griffith
- Ann Brennan – Ran for Lake County District Board 13
- Mark Nerheim – State’s Attorney
- Laura Lambrecht – unsuccessful run for L.C. Board, District 11
- Marty Zeidman – Chairman, Moraine Township GOP Organization
- Dr. Howard Cooper – Newly elected coroner of Lake County
- John Munger – husband of Leslie Munger, Chairman of the Vernon Township GOP Organization
- Terry Darraugh, candidate for Shields Township Supervisor Supervisor of Shield’s Township
- Matt Garrity, candidate for Shields Township Trustee
- Hilary Till, Chairman, West Deerfield Township GOP Organization
Nancy Thorner is a citizen journalist that writes for Illinois Review on local political events.
By Nancy Thorner –
Our Founding Fathers created the Electoral College after much debate and compromise, but it has provided stability to the process of picking presidents. Though the winner of the national popular vote typically takes the presidency, that vote failed to determine the winner in four elections: 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000. Add also 2016.
The Electoral College and how it should operate in electing a president is defined in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of our U.S. Constitution. As such our Founding Fathers set a high bar for amending the Constitution, a process that doesn’t even require the approval of the president or Congress, but only the approval of state legislatures.
The Electoral College is not a place but a process. As a process the Electoral College consists of 1) the selection of the electors, 2) the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, 3) and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress. Our Founding Fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. 538 electors make up the Electoral College. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Each state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives, plus two for your Senators. Because of the Electoral College system states are empowered, especially smaller ones, as it incentivizes presidential candidates to appeal to places that may be far away from population centers. If there were no Electoral College system, the Trump campaign, or any campaign, would need to be structured quite differently. Presidential candidates would then camp out in the big cities in NY, TX, CA, FL where the largest number of Electoral College votes are found, and ignore the balance of the states and nearly 95% of the cities in the country.
Our Founding Fathers were brilliant as they foresaw the concentration of population as something to account for in the Constitution. Without the Electoral College safeguarding against undue influence of the illegal immigrant vote based on the lax voting system found in California, Trump could not have won.
Whenever we hear others say that the Electoral College isn’t democratic, our response should not be one of denial, but we must explain why. Many voters will be surprised to learn that when they step into a ballot box to select their candidate for president, they actually are casting votes for electors. Likewise greatly misunderstood is that this nation is not a democracy but rather a Constitutional or a Federal Republic. In the entire executive and judicial branches, only two officials are elected, the president and vice president. All the rest are appointed. Thomas Jefferson understood that consent could not be reduced to simple majority or plurality rule.
Unhinged Left has no bounds
Current happenings indicate that the felt desperation of some “Never Trump” Republicans, and especially the unhinged Left, has no bounds They are trying to derail Trump’s Electoral College victory with schemes now in progress, which will not succeed, 1) to recount votes by Green Party candidate Jill Steyn in three state Trump won by margins that didn’t trigger a mandatory recount, and 2) attempts to have state Electoral College members betray the will of voters by voting instead for Hillary (as did an Electoral College member from Texas), to block official certification of the 270 Electoral College votes needed to certify Trump as the president-elect.
One organization, National Popular Vote, is now at work toward eliminating the Electoral College through an amendment to the Constitution or a state compact. Al Gore recently spoke about the “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact” as a way to abandon the Electoral College for the popular vote. Al Gore believes that the U.S. will switch to popular vote elections within the next decade and that such a change could “bring our democracy back to life.”
As that great icon of conservatism, Phyllis Schlafly, founder of Eagle Forum wrote in May 2009:
Many liberals and globalists don’t like our Constitution because it contains built-in stumbling blocks against their goals of big government and even global government. Even some conservative types express irritation with our Constitution when they cannot get Congress to pass the legislation they desire. So, different factions, seeking different goals, have turned to an attempt to use the never-used provision in the Constitution’s Article V, which requires Congress to call a new Constitutional Convention if two-thirds (34) of the states pass resolutions calling for it. This is colloquially called a Con Con.
Lurking behind the call for a Constitution convention by Con Con instigators
Calls to fundamentally change the Electoral College, as set forth in Article V of the Constitution to call a Constitutional convention (Con Con), reached a peak after Republican George W. Bush defeated Democrat Al Gore in the tightly contested 2000 election. Gore narrowly won the national popular vote, and many of his supporters howled that the system—even without the Supreme Court stepping in—was unfair.
Over 220 years, various states have passed hundreds of resolutions asking Congress to call a Con Con to change aspects of the Constitution that they find objectionable, but no single topic ever passed in 2/3rds of the states.
In that Hillary won the popular vote in this year’s presidential election sparked renewed interest in calling for an Article V Con Con. Eight states have already passed a resolution as set forth in Article V of the Constitution to call a Constitutional Convention (Con Con) under the guise that Washington D.C. is broken and it’s time to take the power back from the political elites.
There are those among the Republican ranks who believe they now have a mandate to use Article V to bring power back to “We the people.” With Republicans now in control of 69 of the 99 state legislative chambers, the assumption is that securing the remaining 26 states needed to call a convention should be well within the realm of possibility. Thirty-four state legislatures must be on board to call a Convention of the States.
Andy Schlafly of Eagle Forum expects a big fight in Texas over calling a Convention of States, as well as in other states like Missouri, Utah, Wisconsin, and Michigan. The ConConners are sending out mass emails pretending to be anti-Establishment, when in fact they have secret globalists like George Soros funding their scheme. Now they have Jeb Bush and his anti-Trump vendetta pushing the Con Con agenda. The Constitution must be defended against this attack.
Constitutions written and waiting for a Con Con
Jeb Bush’s endorsement of a constitutional convention last month in the Wall Street Journal, “Where Republicans Go From Here”, demands a further examination of possible Bush family interests. As establishment Republicans, Bush family members did turn their backs on Donald Trump and were prepared to allow Hilary Clinton to win the election by default.
For consideration: One of the first major political events that President G.W. Bush was involved in when he took office was the Summit of the Americas, held in Quebec City, April 20-22, 2001. At this time G.W. put into action one of his main campaign platforms, an expanded trade program, which he said would revitalize America’s slumping economy. This was the same economic agenda pushed by his father, G.H. Bush and Bill Clinton. The goals were the same — a One World Government. Under the planned North American Union, Canada, the United States, and Mexico will surrender their sovereignty to a Parliament set over the three countries. The United States does need a new Constitution to transform this nation from a sovereign nation to a member state of the North American Union. It’s about Re-zoning the World: The Merging of the Americas in a New Global Order.
Other Constitutions written and waiting to be introduced if and when a Constitutional Convention is called:
1. The Revolutionary Communist Party USA has a Constitution for The New Socialist Republic in North America.
2. George Soros, and Marxist law professors all over the country, want a Marxist Constitution in place by the year 2020.
Uncontrollable nature of Con Con like playing with fire
Because of the uncontrollable nature of a Con Con, should a call for a convention succeed, the only issues might be whose Constitution will be imposed by the delegates and what new mode of ratification will be set forth in the new Constitution. Why is this so?
- There is no way to control a Con Con in advance or to require it to consider only one subject. The Article V provision that authorizes the calling of a Con Con refers to considering “amendments” (note the plural).
- If Congress called a Con Con to consider only one issue, the Convention delegates can ignore the instruction, set their own agenda, and make their own rules.
- It is not credible that various politically active groups would pass up the chance to try to force a Con Con to vote for their special interests. It’s not believable that the powerful forces working to take away our right to own guns would overlook a golden opportunity to eliminate the Second Amendment.
As noted above, it is impossible for Congress or state applications to restrict what a Con Con does. The late Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote: “There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. . . . After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda.” (Read the entire Burger letter here.)
Consider also Antonin Scalia’s warning about a Constitution Convention. When appearing on an episode of The Kalb Report with Ruth Bader Ginsburg on April 17, 2014, Scalia acknowledged the difficulty of amending the Constitution in the context of amendments, Scalia clearly warned against the notion of a convention, which is the second, or alternative, method for amending the Constitution under Article V.
It is important to recall what happened in the Convention of 1787. Called by the Continental Congress for the sole and express purpose of proposing a revision to the Articles of Confederation, the delegates chose to ignore their charge and instead wrote a new Constitution
As expressed in Phyllis Schlafly’s article in May of 2009:
We don’t see any James Madisons, George Washingtons, Ben Franklins or Alexander Hamiltons around today who could do as good a job as was done in 1787, and we should be leery about the politicians who think they can improve on our Founding Fathers. A call for a Constitutional Convention is a terrible idea and should be defeated in every state legislature where it rears its ugly head.
If President-elect Trump can’t lead the promising team he is bringing together to fulfill a conservative wish list, with majorities in both Houses, and on the verge of having a right-leaning Supreme Court behind him, what chance does Con Con promoter Mark Levin and his flying monkeys have of instilling conservative principles by calling a Con Con?
Comments
By Nancy Thorner –A conference call held Friday morning, December 2nd to discuss the Supreme Court vacancy sounded an alarm that President-elect Donald Trump is being pressured from the media to nominate a person based more on gender than stand on the pro-life issue.The call was led by the late Phyllis Schlafly’s son Andy Schlafly, who is President of the Legal Center for Defense of Life, Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, and General Counsel, Association of American Physicians & Surgeons. Notable is that Andy Schlafly went to law school with President Barack Obama.Although President-elect Trump pledged to pick a pro-life candidate to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, he didn’t promise to stick to the list of 21 names given him to consider. There will be pressure from the media to pick a woman from the list, because of media awareness that all four women on Trump’s candidate list lacks pro-life credentials and are, therefore, unacceptable candidates for the vast majority of those that supported Trump for president.Every trick will be used by the other side to discredit Trump’s Supreme Court nominees, such as false news reports claiming that a principled pro-life candidate is unwilling to be named as a Supreme Court nominee or that the nominating battle is too daunting a process to go through. This is not true, as pro-life candidates are willing to go through a confirmation hearing even if as vicious as the one endured by Clarence Thomas. It is a given that nothing garners greater resistance from the Left than attempts to overturn Roe through the nomination of a pro-life Supreme Court justice.Donald Trump’s appearance on Sean Hannity’s Fox cable show on Thursday, December 1, Trump told Hannity that he would pick a pro-life candidate to fill Antonin Scalia’s place on the Supreme Court, as Trump had first pledged to do during his final presidential debate with Hillary, and that his announcement would be made shortly. Trump said he had three or four names in mind. Unfortunately, Hannity didn’t ask Trump to follow through by naming names. As such, can we really expect Fox News to help in getting the message to Trump about suitable Supreme Court nominees?Supreme Court appointments have far reaching consequencesAndy Schlafly considers the appointment of Supreme Court justices a very important issue. Many elected or appointed officials only serve two year terms, but a Supreme Court Justice can remain in power for 30 years. Presently the appointment of a Secretary of State is receiving extensive media coverage; however, the Secretary of State has no influence over pro-life issues.Schlafly recalled the year 1981 when President Regan appointed Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Later on in his administration Regan appointed Justice David Souter. As Schlafly warned: “We cannot stand by and wait for it to happens again given Trump’s pledge to appoint pro-life justices.” Yet some of Trump’s advisors and senators are pushing Trump to appoint names on the list that are not really pro-life. Trump does rely on his advisors to give him candidates that are pro-life. It is unconscionable that Trump has been falsely told that all twenty-one candidates on the list are pro-life, but they are not.Non-negotiable issues for Andy Schlafly: 1) Candidate must be pro-life and have a pro-life record. 2) Candidate must be able to stand up against the pro-abortion side and the media. If not, that person is unacceptable as a Supreme Court justice. How is it that so many of the twenty-one individuals on Trump’s list are not pro-life? The Federalist Society supplied half the candidates on the list. It’s not a pro-life organization!Personal vouching of a Supreme Court candidate is suspectPersonal vouching for a Supreme Court nominee, even by another conservative, will not work. It is folly to engage in such wishful thinking. President George H. Bush was told that David Souter was pro-life, then Souter went to the other side under pressure from the pro-abortion side and the media when the media wrote negative stories about him.Trump relies on Reince Priebus, formerly Republican Party Chairman who has been appointed as Trump’s chief of staff, to give him good information. We already know that Trump is pro-life and wants to fill the vacancy left by Scalia’s death with a candidate in the image of Scalia. If Priebus recommends a candidate to Trump who isn’t pro-life, the nomination will have to be withdrawn, and Reince’s betrayal will be made known to Trump and to the public. Such a falsehood by Priebus to the president he serves, and the embarrassment it would cause Trump, would demand that Priebus be the first to leave the Trump administration. Priebus is well aware of Trump’s pledge to select a pro-life judge. Twenty-two percent of voters did indicate that selecting a pro-life justice to replace Scalia was of great importance.The U.S. Senate could likewise be party to a stunt to undermine Trump. Sen. Mitch McConnell, Senate Republican Majority leader, doesn’t like to have pro-life votes and hesitates to bring them up. Senator McConnell might indicate that a pro-life nominee could not be confirmed. But this is not true. According to Andy Schlafly, we have a pro-life Senate. Fifty senators are pro-life, and Mike Pence would be the tie breaker. If Senator McConnell should offer the excuse that a pro-life justice nominee would be impossible to confirm, it could then be asked, how did it happen that Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and John Roberts were all confirmed with a Senate less pro-life than today’s Senate makeup? If McConnell should insist a pro-lifer can’t get through the Senate for confirmation, the remedy is to pick another pro-lifer, and still another one, and then continue appointing pro-lifers until one is confirmed.Not to be dismissed is McConnell’s pipeline to Reince Priebus. McConnell could vouch as acceptable a phony conservative pro-life candidate to Priebus who would, in turn, inform Trump that the suggested candidate was a sure bet to sail through a Senate confirmation. It therefore counts for nothing should Priebus tell Trump that such and such candidate is pro-life, as Souter and Kennedy were said to be pro-life when appointed by presidents George H. Bush and Ronald Reagan, respectively.Eagle Forum’s “Coalition Letter SCOTUS”A Coalition Letter is being readied to be sent to President-elect Donald Trump titled, Coalition Letter SCOTUS, which includes the latest signatories as of Sunday, December 4th. Any pro-life groups who chooses to duck this all important issue is going to lose credibility. Go here to read Coalition Letter SCOTUS in its entirety.Below are some salient points from the Eagle Forum SCOTUS letter:
- As you stated during the campaign and in your ’60 Minutes’ interview after your election, you are pro-life and you pledged to nominate justices to the Supreme Court who are pro-life.
- Justice Scalia never ducked the abortion issue and always sided with the pro- position. His replacement should be nothing less.
- Attempts to nominate a “stealth” candidate lacking in a record on abortion was the failed approach of the past, and would be inconsistent with the transparency of your incoming Administration.
- Candidates who lack a pro-life record include, for example, Judges Diane Sykes, Steven Colloton, Raymond Kethledge, and Neil Gorsuch, and Justices Allison Eid and Joan Larsen. As each of these judges has either ruled against the pro-life position or has otherwise shown an unwillingness to be publicly pro-life, they are disqualified from filling Justice Scalia’s seat, particularly in light of how better candidates are available to be nominated.
Mr. Schlafly expressed concern that Trump’s Supreme Court pick could come down to Judge Diane Sykes, an unacceptable pro-choice woman, when pressure is applied on Trump to appoint a woman. Judge Diane Sykes would be vigorously opposed by Eagle Forum, which would then create a huge embarrassment for Trump. When withdrawing Sykes’ nomination, Trump would have every right to demand why he wasn’t better informed about Judge Diane Sykes before nominating her.Outstanding Candidates for Consideration:
- Judge Jennifer Elrod of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the fifth circuit has credentials equal to or better than those on the list. She would be an outstanding nominee for Justice Scalia’s seat.
- Likewise Judge Edith Jones, Judge Jennifer Elrod’s elder colleague, who, although 67 could become a superb compromise pick of a woman in anticipation of how the media will push the gender issue and senators will pressure Trump to nominate a pro-choice woman from the list of 21, when there are none. Neither Elrod nor Jones made the list given Trump, but they should be interviewed by Trump to silence the media pressure for a female nominee.
- Justice Charles Canady of the Florida Supreme Court is on the current list and would make a fabulous nominee.
As Andy Schlafly remarked: “There must be a public push back if Trump appoints a justice who is not pro-life, for there is so much at stake to do otherwise. If we are not willing to fight for a pro-life candidate now to replace Scalia, it will never happen.”
Nancy J. Thorner 