Letter: Columnist Encourages Consideration of Barrett


By Scott Steward Ragsdale

I think we need balance in our newspapers and I would ask the Enterprise to consider re-thinking the columnist Llewellyn King.  My household was insulted by King’s dissinformation about Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney.

Llewellyn King either misses or is complicit with what lies in plain sight behind the insistence on Barrett.  In a pandemic, the people that enabled the most dangerous Administration have put forward another in a succession of 4 judges who would place property above people.  There is nothing balanced about court-packing.

I’ll be an optimist too and suggest that the illegitimacy of the courts, including the Supreme Court, will become all the more obvious and more radical adjustments will be made that far outstrip Llewellyn’s concern for the anticipated failings of a Democratic majority in Washington.

The truth is that the rush to hearings for Justice Ginsburg’s replacement is being executed with purposeful disregard for the health of the American people, and our democracy.

Judge Barrett would join Federalists Society products Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.  Provided that the people consider this a legitimate court, corporate interests would become even more dominant. “The rest of us will simply be their handmaidens.” Amy Coney Barrett’s truly scary association, CNN by Paul Begala October 10, 2020

Barrett was an active Federalist member in 2005-06 and 2014-17.  The Federalist Society is funded by massive, secret contributions from corporate right-wing groups…Koch Industries, the Charles & David Koch foundations, the Scaife Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and the US Chamber of Commerce.

Former Trump White House Counsel Don McGahn said “They seek nothing less than a fundamental reordering of American life.”

  • Gorsuch ruled that a corporation had the right to fire a truck driver who refused to stay with his trailer, even though remaining with the trailer may have meant freezing to death
  • Roberts gutted the Voting Rights Act, which Congress had reauthorized in 2006 by a vote of 98-0 in the Senate and 390-33 in the House.  That is activism.
  • All four of the dissenters in the marriage equality case (Obergefell v. Hodges) were Federalist heroes: Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas.”

McGahn continues, “Federalists, lawyers that they are, (attempt to) baffle us with BS about being ‘originalists,’ ‘textualists,’ and judges who ‘won’t legislate from the bench.'”

Justice Barrett comes to the court with an agenda to do further harm to civil rights, rights of workers, women and the environment as her personal and legal decisions have plainly demonstrated.

She is not suited for the highest court in the land.  Her appointment would condemn the court to irrelevance.

Her appointment would be answered very simply, NO JUSTICE – NO PEACE!

Scott Steward Ragsdale is a Davis Resident

Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:


About The Author

Disclaimer: the views expressed by guest writers are strictly those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Vanguard, its editor, or its editorial board.

Related posts

6 thoughts on “Letter: Columnist Encourages Consideration of Barrett”

  1. Alan Miller

    I would ask the Enterprise to consider re-thinking the columnist Llewellyn King. 

    “Consider re-thinking” is code for “cancel”

    My household was insulted by King’s dissinformation about Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney.

    That’s a good thing.  Being insulted is what free speech is all about.

    I have no problem with this article except for the first paragraph.  The only free speech I abhor is free speech that attempts to shut down free speech.  Since what’s good for the goose is good for the gender-non-binary foul:

    I would ask the Vanguard to consider re-thinking the columnist Scott Steward Ragsdale.

    My household was insulted by Ragsdale’s attack on free speech.

    1. Keith Olsen

      My household was insulted by Ragsdale’s attack on free speech.

      Mine too.

      I have no problem with this article except for the first paragraph. 

      Same here, I don’t agree with the article but I also don’t have a problem with it being posted.  It’s basically the same article that was posted on the Vanguard just 4 days ago and I had no problem with Ragsdale’s free speech then either.


    2. Eric Gelber

      I find myself in rare agreement with Keith (and Alan). They focus on the first paragraph, but the article had me at the first part of the first sentence: “ I think we need balance in our newspapers …”. The implication is that the Enterprise should give equal time to alternative points of view. While the editorial opinions expressed are subject to criticism, the decision on what opinions to run is with the news entity.

      Having choice in news sources is a good thing; but freedom of the press means newspapers are free to set their editorial policies. It’s good that we still have a choice in news sources—e.g., MSNBC vs. Fox News. But, while these news organizations have a responsibility to be accurate, they have no obligation to be balanced in their perspectives or opinions. Neither does the Enterprise. With the demise of newspapers (e.g., the Sacramento Union), it’s not as easy to find alternatives, and that’s too bad.

  2. Scott Ragsdale

    I agree with the commenters.  I regret the first paragraph – it is a disservice.  King deserves his free speech.  I honestly ask the Davis Vanguard to consider replacing the hasty original with the revision to follow.

    Before I do though, I would point out that Llewellyn King’s has repeatedly demonstrated a selective view of the facts the seems to be aimed at bolstering incrementalism, exceptionalism and irrational fear of lifting labor and civil rights.  Denying there is any good to socialist policy is a problem that his school Democrat has harbored too long.  So it’s not the first time I have found Llewellyn not the best choice for the Enterprise.  I did suggest that the Enterprise find another columnist – not to stop printing.  And there was not any call to stopping subscriptions to the Enterprise.  It’s one of our public forums.

    Revised:  “Llewellyn King’s latest column (Sunday’s Enterprise) skips over the some important facts, omissions that help him try to convince us why Barrett is an acceptable Supreme Court jurist.  His is a mischaracterization and, considering the prominence of Kings writings, the “information” is dangerously misleading.”

    1. Bill Marshall

      why Barrett is an acceptable Supreme Court jurist.

      Only two choices… one believes that the Supreme Court can be a third branch of government can be impartial, and decide facts/precedents, or that they are partisan/heavily biased…

      I can see arguments either way, (Earl Warren shocked his “fans”), but if SCOTUS has indeed become a lifetime political wing of those who appoint them, we’re screwed… Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves…

      The word, “acceptable” goes to being “screwed”, one way or the other… I suspect the current nominee might shock her current supporters… but, I don’t know…

      I disawow the fast track confirmation hearings… that stinks to high heaven (aka heinous)… but, if things were different… if a President Biden nominated her… would she be “unacceptable”?  Should Biden be impeached for her nomination in that scenario… food for thought…

      Am pretty sure that POTUS would consider a defeat in November as not “acceptable”… “acceptable” is a two edged sword…

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
Sign up for