During the confirmation hearing of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Senator Lindsey Graham (R., South Carolina) celebrated that conservative women continue to succeed, despite their mistreatment by the left:
“There’s an effort by some in the liberal world to marginalize the contributions [of conservative women] because [they] come out on a different side of an issue, particularly abortion. So this hearing… is an opportunity to not punch through a glass ceiling but a reinforced concrete barrier around conservative women.”
With Justice Barrett becoming the fifth woman to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States, it seems fitting to highlight some conservative women who are paving the way in America right now—starting with Justice Barrett. I personally look up to all of these women, and consider them role models as both conservatives and highly accomplished leaders.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett
The newest Supreme Court justice has been a powerful legal voice for many years. After graduating top of her class from Notre Dame, Barrett clerked for Judge Laurence Silberman and Justice Antonin Scalia. She spent a few years at a law firm in Washington D.C., before becoming a professor at Notre Dame Law School. In 2017, President Trump nominated Barrett to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, where she served until her confirmation to the Supreme Court, in October of this year. When discussing her legal philosophy, Barrett has professed on multiple occasions that she is a committed textualist and originalist, meaning that she interprets the law as it was understood when written. During her nomination acceptance speech, Barrett explained that “[a] judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not policymakers and must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold.” Barrett’s firm beliefs and immense accomplishments make her the epitome of a strong conservative woman.
Senator Joni Ernst (R., Iowa)
Now, as a proud Iowan, I am definitely biased when it comes to Senator Joni Ernst—but it doesn’t take an Iowan to recognize Ernst’s amazing accomplishments. Ernst joined the U.S. Army Reserves after college and was deployed to Kuwait during the Iraq War. In 2014, she became the first female combat veteran to serve in the U.S. Senate and the first female U.S. Senator from Iowa. Ernst currently serves on five committees in the Senate: Arms Services; Environment and Public Works; Judiciary; Small Business and Entrepreneurship; and Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. During her time in the Senate, Ernst has sponsored and co-sponsored many bills, while paying special attention to the mental and physical health of veterans. For example, Ernst’s Ensuring Quality Care for Our Veterans Act recently passed unanimously in the Senate. And Ernst was just reelected, after beating democratic opponent Theresa Greenfield by about 6 percentage points. This was a closely watched race, and both Republicans and Democrats spent over $230 million on it, making it the second most expensive U.S. Senate race in history. The fact that Ernst retained her seat helps Republicans keep the Senate, while also allowing her to continue being a strong conservative voice.
Arguably the most prominent Black female conservative in America, Candace Owens rose to fame in 2017, after her video “Mom, Dad… I’m a Conservative” went viral. Owens is the co-founder of BLEXIT, an organization “dedicated to the advancement of urban and minority communities by encouraging youth to seek and take advantage of opportunities in 21st Century America.” She is also the host of the extremely popular PragerU podcast, “The Candace Owens Show,” which has featured guests from a wide range of political thought, including Marc Lamont Hill, Dave Rubin, and even Vice President Mike Pence. Owens’s most recent endeavor was the release of her book, Blackout: How Black America Can Make its Second Escape from the Democrat Plantation. In this New York Times bestseller, Owens argues that the Democratic party has failed Black Americans, from the welfare state to America’s educational system. Owens also just recently announced that she will be joining the conservative outlet The Daily Wire, where she will be hosting a show in front of a live studio audience. Owens’s outstanding accomplishments, strong voice, and unabashed commitment to conservatism make her an inspiration to young conservative women like me.
Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley
Nikki Haley is a top choice for a 2024 presidential run, and for good reason. As President Trump’s former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Haley took strong stands against some of the world’s biggest violators of human rights. She spoke out harshly against Syria, North Korea, Iran, and Russia. And she famously defended Israel, when saying that “[she finds it] hard to accept that [the United Nations Human Rights Council] has never considered a resolution on Venezuela, and yet it adopted five biased resolutions in March against a single country, Israel.” Before entering the Trump Administration, Haley served as a congresswoman in South Carolina and later became the first Indian American governor of South Carolina. Whether or not she runs for president in 2024, Haley will continue exemplifying female strength, while positively contributing to the conservative movement.
Conclusion: These Strong Women Are Paving the Way for Future Female Leaders
As a young conservative woman, I’m thankful to have such impressive female role models. Conservative women who have felt ignored in the past should celebrate that they increasingly possess powerful thought leaders. In the 2020 elections, a record number of Republican women were elected to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. And with women like Justice Barrett, Senator Ernst, Candace Owens, and Nikki Haley paving the way, the time for conservative women to shine is only just beginning.
*The views expressed in this article solely represent the views of the author, not the views of the Chicago Thinker.
i swear to god i bet you guys would unironically join the campus TPUSA chapter if we had one lmaoooooooo
The other three I understand (even if I don’t necessarily agree), but Candace Owens is, well, not someone you want to be aligning yourself with. This article says it better than I ever could: https://quillette.com/2018/05/08/problem-candace-owens/
“Senator, what’s the break-even price of a bushel of soybeans?” “I do not know the answer to this extremely basic question that affects a vast amount of my constituency”
“If Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, okay, fine.”
-Candace “Hitler was a globalist, but his domestic policy was just fine” Owens.
Honestly, anyone who would characterize Hitler as a globalist has no business in any intellectual field.
Candace Owens has explained the quote you are referring to. I recommend watching this clip from CNN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX89pxjQeQU. It should also be mentioned that Owens works for both Dennis Prager and Ben Shapiro, both very prominent Jews.
She still argues that Hitler is not a nationalist, but a globalist. This is a point that no academic, nor anyone who knows anything about Nazi Germany, can take seriously. The Nazis were an ultranationalist party and to argue anything else is intellectually dishonest. If we look at the very first point of the NDSAP’s 25 point program it states:
“We demand the union of all Germans to form the Greater Germany on the basis of the people’s right to self-determination enjoyed by the nations.”
The second point:
“We demand equality of rights for the German people in its dealings with other nations; and abolition of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.” Demanding sovereignty for one nationality and disregarding international treaties? Sounds pretty nationalist to me Candace.
If you look at everything the Nazis did, from breaking essentially every multilateral agreement they ascended to, to railing against “international conspiracies” whether they be from bolsheviks or the Jews, to framing everything, including race, religion, and politics into the context of nationality(or germans vs everyone else), to the very goal of the war being the expansion of the German Reich at the expense of other countries and nationalities, there is no argument for them being anything but nationalists. This “us vs them” mentality is what allowed them to dehumanize their enemies and, ultimately, to commit genocide.
Also her point that “A nationalist wouldn’t kill his own people” is equally ridiculous from a historical prospective. Would she also argue that Mussolini, Robespierre, Cromwell, Ho Chi Minh, Franco, and Gaddafi weren’t nationalists? (hint: they were).
I would find it hard to “revere” someone with such a severe and fundamental misunderstanding of things they try to argue, or worse, knowing how disingenuous they are and still perverting the truth for their own gains.
I mean, I think we can agree that it was a dumb thing to say – having watched that explanation, it really was. Every conventional definition of nationalism would categorize Hitler as a nationalist, regardless of whatever Candace Owens feels the word means, so it’s a pretty dumb thing to try to argue that he wasn’t.
But it is also *extremely* problematic to say that “If Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, okay, fine,” and nothing she said in the video defended that. Even given the context of the question, it doesn’t make it a less awful thing to suggest. If literal Hitler was in the United States, would you think “Oh, he just wants the U.S. to be great and have things run well.”? If there’s one thing we can agree on, of all things, it’d be that Hitler is bad, and hopefully that seems like too weak of an assertion.
Anyways, it’s a really toxic thing to say, even with the context, and that’s an understatement.
90 comment cap 🙁
Tbh, I’m just disappointed that Sarah Palin didn’t make the list. She was the OG that Ernst tries to model herself off of. But instead Ernst is just Palin lite. If you look at their most famous quotes, Ernst doesn’t even begin to match up. It’s cool that you want to focus on some of the newer voices, but you should still give respect to the long history of the many women respected within the GOP. I have yet to see an intellect among any republican politician, nay any republican *person*, which surpasses Sarah Palin.
Please find my comments attached alongside your final grade.
On November 7th, Democrat lackeys in the mainstream media declared Joe Biden the president-elect of the United States. [First, citing Breitbart is never a good way to start. Second, I’d be careful before implying Fox News and AP are “Democrat lackeys”. Please find better source in second draft]
Of course, saying so does not make it true—though this may come as news to many in the industry. President Trump has not conceded the election. Many states have not yet certified their election results. And the preliminary results in several crucial states remain under litigation. The voting has finished, but the election is not over. [Unfounded claim that many in the “industry” believe that saying someone is president makes it true. Writer is confusing democrats w/ Michael declaring bankruptcy in the office. One of the better paragraphs of the article]
Nevertheless, Biden took the media’s cue and addressed a crowd in Wilmington, Delaware on the evening of November 7th. There, he declared a “convincing victory” and thanked his supporters for entrusting him with the “mandate” to “marshal the forces” of decency, fairness, science and hope. Armed with these “forces,” he pledged to combat partisan hostility, the coronavirus, the economic recession, systemic racism, and climate change. Biden also emphasized the need for national unity and promised to usher in “a time to heal in America,” saying [No comments. Factually accurate and uses reputable source. Good work!]
To the millions of Americans who have been even passively following the news since 2016, this call for unity is deeply hypocritical and unserious. [I understand you are trying to prove a point but characterizing American news followers as a monolith does not come across well. Please try something like “To many of the millions…” Still misleading, but more precise. I would also look into replacing the word “unserious” as it doesn’t make much sense in the sentence.]
Who actually refuses to accept election results? Hint: It is not Trump. [Good use of cliffhanger! Though the use of tenses turns out to be misleading with what follows]
For four years, Democrats refused to accept the results of the 2016 presidential election, blaming Russian interference, collusion, Ukraine, voter suppression, former FBI Director James Comey—anything to explain why Americans would elect Donald Trump over establishment candidate Hillary Clinton. Beginning under the Obama/Biden administration, the FBI embroiled the country in a three-year long witch hunt that will perhaps go down as the greatest political scandal in our nation’s history. [Lots of revisions to be made here. First, 4/6 articles cited are opinion pieces in the Federalist. Very little credibility. The writer also writes contrary to their own premise in the line “anything to explain why Americans would elect…”
If the premise is that Democrats didn’t accept results, then the argument “Democrats attempted to explain Trump winning” is inherently self-defeating. Though I would love to comment on the “witch hunt” and “greatest political scandal” lines, I’ll acknowledge that those are entirely allowed to be your opinion. However, please a.) don’t cite so many opinion pieces and b.) choose better sources.]
The FBI and DOJ grossly abused the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and targeted Trump advisors like General Michael Flynn in an attempted “Trump-by-proxy takedown.” The FBI and Obama White House criminally leaked information related to Crossfire Hurricane. The mainstream media recklessly misinformed the public. And Democrats like U.S. Representative Adam Schiff (D., California) peddled outright lies about the investigation. All of this contributed to (if I may borrow Hillary Clinton’s words) an “air of illegitimacy” that loomed over the Trump presidency for three years, even though there was zero evidence of collusion. Does Biden now expect conservatives to simply forget this ever happened?…….. (my comment in next reply)
[The first line is somewhat misleading to the reader, as it nearly carries the implication that Flynn is innocent. However, and I apologize for not finding the source, I believe that the official court opinion is that the acceptance of a pardon is in and of itself an admission of guilt. Your claim of “zero evidence of collusion” falls under the logical fallacy of “proof by example”. You should be weary of using a specific example to make a more general claim (Off the record, I’d also recommend reading the Ukraine transcript in its entirety)]
For four years, leftists have claimed that the 2016 election was stolen and pledged #Resistance to #NotMyPresidentTrump. When Stacey Abrams refused to concede the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial race, Democrats hailed her as a righteous crusader for election integrity and voter rights. And in the lead-up to the 2020 race, Clinton advised Biden that he “should not concede under any circumstances,” suggesting Republicans would rig the count. [The first few lines are somewhat misleading, but not quantifiably false. The Clinton line is also astoundingly misleading. The source used refers to the pretty well accepted knowledge that mail in ballots would, as they did, take longer to count. It is also worth noting that there were numerous issues surrounding the mailing of such ballots, and there were legitimate fears that many votes would take longer to arrive. There were also fears that Trump would claim victory based off of incomplete returns…
… This did in fact happen. And before you think that Biden claimed victory off of incomplete returns, please keep in mind that there is a substantial difference between 70-90% of a vote being in and 95-99% counted but uncertified. On a personal note, I will acknowledge that I disagree fundamentally with Clinton’s awful phrasing, but to interpret as you have is, again, misleading.]
But this attitude toward election malfeasance suddenly shifted after November 3rd. In stark contrast to the left’s reception of Clinton and Abrams, when Trump refused to concede the election before litigation played out, the left immediately warned of a coup and indulged in fever dreams of Trump barricading himself in the White House and Biden playing the role of cool, calculated negotiator. [This again falls under the same fallacy of proof by example. Please rephrase.]
In reality, the election is not yet over, and Trump has no obligation to concede. Leftists should allow the legal process to play out before agitating themselves into a frenzy. And perhaps they should engage in some self-reflection in the meantime. [Personally, I agree with much of your words. Nobody should be in a such a frenzy as to lose their critical thinking skills. And I do agree that the left has much reflecting to do. However, I would once again implore you to choose better sources.]
Democrats (not Trump) sow distrust in election results. [nobody in their right mind would continue reading seriously after a claim such as this]
The same Democrats and leftist pundits who claimed that the Kremlin installed President Trump by manipulating the 2016 election now breathlessly exclaim, as the New York Times has, that there is “no evidence that fraud or other irregularities played a role in the outcome of the  presidential race.” “[N]o evidence,” it says. If the Times says so, it must be true! [I know it’s sarcasm, but this is one of the few paragraphs with exclusively credible sources and I am legitimately proud]
No, I do not accept that. There is, in fact, evidence of voter fraud and irregularity–the question for the courts is whether it is sufficient to overturn the election results as they currently stand. And I cannot take seriously any “news” outlet that fails to even mention (nevermind scrutinize) Biden’s norm-shattering performance. Regardless, Democrats and the mainstream media destroyed their credibility long before the first vote was even cast. [Please please please use better sources. This is getting painful. I’m getting exhausted, as I had no reason to believe this project would take so long. I’ve seen most of the claims of “fraud” from the federalist debunked already, and I would encourage you to fact check them each as well. The “norm-shattering” article is so riddled with fallacies that it made me feel ill. As to point 4 in the article, I would encourage you to take a political science class…
. They could explain mobilization of bases far better than I. The gist of it is that Trump tapped a new base to vote, and they voted red all the way down. However, there were many conservatives that hate Trump, but found Biden palatable. They voted cross ticket. This is not earth-shattering stuff.]
For the past four years, not only did they apply inconsistent standards regarding election concessions and push the Russian collusion hoax, but they have also shown little, if any, interest in actually ensuring election integrity. For years, Democrats have fought common-sense voter ID laws and voter roll purges, arguing that these are forms of “voter suppression.” They have supported ballot harvesting, despite the obvious vulnerabilities to tampering. And most precipitously, they used the coronavirus to justify experimenting with tens of millions of unsolicited mail-in ballots to outdated voter roles. [This is really disappointing on numerous levels. I’ve already tackled a bit of collusion and don’t have the energy to do more. Voter ID laws are not common sense…
…The article cited does not do well to prove anything to the contrary. What the author neglects to mention is the irrationality of voting itself. One vote rarely matters. Bipoc voters are less likely to already have such identification, and when faced with the irrationality of a single vote, many will not get one. There are many other reasons, but I would again encourage you to do your own further research. To your point on the coronavirus, all I can say is fuck off. I apologize for breaking tone. Wait no, I don’t. A lot of people have died, and others should not have to needlessly risk their own mental and physical wellbeing so that we can have the results “by the usual time”. I voted in person because I felt safe doing so and was able to ensure I had the ability to go at a safe time. Not everyone is so lucky. Please read up. ]
Why should Americans trust the results of an election when the safeguards protecting its integrity were so methodically stripped away? [Premise for conclusion is unfounded. Do better.]
Trump is entirely within his rights to challenge the preliminary election results. Indeed, he has a duty to the 73 million Americans who voted for him to pursue all credible leads of fraud. And anyone who purports to care about election integrity should welcome these investigations. Telling Republicans to preemptively abandon their president to preserve “trust” in the election system is nonsensical–that ship sailed when Democrats abandoned any pretense of election integrity. [Misleading claims, however, I will agree that Trump should be well within his rights to pursue any “legitimate” claims of fraud. However, Giuliani has yet to file any claims of fraud. Again, please do your research.]
Leftists have spent the last four years sowing distrust in our elections by baselessly claiming that Trump was illegitimately installed in 2016, and by throwing election security to the wind ever since. Americans–especially those supporting the “losing” candidate–must have faith in the results for there to be any chance of unity. And Democrats destroyed that chance. [No sources cited, but it’s your opinion so that’s ok. I think the point on illegitimacy has more to do with the screwed up nature of the electoral college (again, either watch a john oliver or talk to your poli sci prof because I simply don’t have the time). Most have accepted that interference was largely delegated to media manipulation (which shouldn’t be overlooked) and that Trump legitimately won a game that should really be changed. I realize that my experience is anecdotal but I’ve yet to actually meet anyone that believes Trump didn’t get all of the votes he received.
My sincere apologies, a glitch on the website caused these comments to be posted to the wrong article.