Posted on 06/30/2018 5:33:49 AM PDT by GonzoII
Michael Brendan Dougherty has some advice for President Trump that I think is worth repeating, in regards to replacing Justice Anthony Kennedy this fall: Appoint Amy Coney Barrett, Trump's recent addition to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The facts of Barrett’s life — that she is a mother of seven children, and that when she speaks about her Catholic faith, she speaks about God as if she really believes in His existence — will provoke nasty and bigoted statements from Democratic senators and liberal media personalities. Again...It won’t just be her faith. In 2012, a columnist chastised two Republican presidential candidates for their “smug fecundity.” For Barrett, the comments on the number of children she has are likely to be much worse. The fact is that women nominated for positions of authority often inspire hysterical and self-defeating reactions in those who oppose them.
I agree. For one thing, Barrett is only 46 years old and could easily serve on the court until 2060. It also doesn't hurt to put a conservative woman on the court. But in addition, this would be an especially shrewd move ahead of the midterm elections.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
According to Sen. Todd Young of Indiana: “Amy Coney Barrett is a faithful constitutionalist...who will represent Hoosier values. Proud to support her nomination for the 7th Circuit.”
So any woman with seven kids would be a good supreme court justice then?
Your logic is impeccable! (/sarcasm)
Yes, I’m wondering about that. A lot of Catholics who are rock-solid on other issues are weak on immigration.
That”s the trend I’ve noticed.
I remember the scene where Bush nominated Roberts. At the time there was great speculation on who it would be. Bush stood at a podium and announced the next SC nominee without naming him, Roberts came out of door and down the hall to the podium.
I have this fantasy, of the same scene but Trump says something like, “And now introducing our next SC nominee...” and Rush Limbaugh comes down the hall, steps to the podium and then introduces the next SC nominee. The left would have a moment of pure terror.
why do i think she has a nanny that helps with her brood while she’s working??? Just cause she has 7 kids doesn’t mean she’s a “mommy” type.
Three words: Sandra Day O’Connor
Friend, the question was why 7 kids was a plus in this situation, not why she was otherwise qualified.
I thought Bloomberg was quoted liking her...that says the wrong thing.
***********************************************
Got a link? Or are you just throwing that out?
Maybe they just like her physical attractiveness.
Eeeh-yuck!
Really, though, she has all of six months experience as a judge (though she clerked for a couple of judges back in the ‘90s), and hasn’t worked in a law firm for 16 years.
Mostly she’s taught at Notre Dame while having a load of kids. Her husband is an assistant US attorney, I think it is, so he hasn’t been home as Mr. Mom.
Yeah, she clerked for Scalia and is a member of the Federalist Society, but we have no record to speak of on her judicial philosophy and conservatism in action.
If she weren’t female, nobody would be considering her as a nominee.
**SNORT!!** Oh now you've done it, ROFLMAO!!
You're going to hell for that one - you know that right? (/humor)
She likely is, but that is no evidence thereof. I know plenty of women with large families who are “pro-choice”.
LOL!
“And why exactly is having 7 kids a plus?”
One reason is that she has ‘skin’ in the game. Normal parents want their children to be free and healthy so they can pursue their life’s ambitions. There would be a better chance of seeing things through that lens.
Generally, people without kids (and I know there are exceptions) won’t sacrifice too much for the future beyond their own life’s expectancy.
The number of children she has is IRRELEVANT to the description of a United States Supreme Court Justice.
Now tell me, would a "wise latina" with seven children be better?
I agree with the idea of religious diversity but as for cases involving religious liberty Catholics have experienced a whole lot more intolerance, restrictions and bigotry than Protestants.
Absolutely wrong.
There have been other females under consideration, but this one rose right to the top of my list after the abuse she received from Diane Feinstein and Dick Durbin in the prior confirmation hearing for her current appellate court seat.
Anyone who can incite such hostility from those two @ssholes belongs on the U.S. Supreme Court for a minimum of 40 years.
Please do forgive me but I do prefer male judges on the Supremes. The existing 3 there are evil satanic hags and I do feel that the half life for women conservative judges will be very short before they go to the dark side and rule life full retard liberals.
.………….yeah RIGHT...…….”Freddoso” wants to give the most important job in the US to this human being because said human being is a WOMAN,a catholic, 47, and has 7 kids.
Far from shrewd, 7 kids ought to disqualify her instead of the opposite. I have two and they are both adults and doing fine. But, they can be a huge distraction. With 5 more, particularly depending on their ages, I would pull my hair out by the roots. Ask Sarah Palin about “kids”. Indeed, now that I think about it, I question her JUDGMENT about even having 7 kids.
Give the freaking job to the most solid and most qualified person who has the track record to prove it! I believe Trump will do exactly that.
******************************************************
Jeez... next you’ll be calling her a “breeder”? She has skin in the game when it comes to wanting to see a bright and Constitution-based American Republic in the far future.
You just countered your own argument and again for those of you who insist this woman having seven kids somehow qualifies her for the USSC - the number of children (if any children at all) one has is IRRELEVANT to the role of a United States Supreme Court Justice.
Case in point: Justice Antonin Scalia and his wife had 9 children. Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife had 1 child. Both justices are easily classified as Strict Constructionists and Constitutional Originalists.
Therefore the ONLY requirement for Kennedy's replacement should be "Strict Constructionist and Constitutional Originalist" in the mold of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, period.
Not whether or not they have a vagina, have had seven children or the rest of the identity politics BULLSHIT being displayed on this thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.