Posted on 06/30/2018 5:28:38 PM PDT by Vinylly
Why not? She should be at the top of Pres. Trump's short list. She makes no bones about what she thinks. She's a woman and of mid-eastern decent (Lebanese), the d'RAT's should love that and would be a shoe-in for them. Let their name calling and insults begin. Bwhahahahaha.
I’m glad I don’t have to waste a lot of time typing to explain what a stupid idea this is. A lot of smart freepers beat me to it.
Well, if I were dictator I’d consider Jay Sekulow.
But I think we should all be able to agree that the 25 on the list are all pretty strong, not a Miers among them.
It turned out Trump punked Willard. We all cheered (after almost passing out from the shock and alarm of that WTF momen) and I bet Romney never recovered from it.
Therefore, I would love it if Trump invited Hillary and Bill and Obama to the WH when he's also meeting with several SCOTUS potential nominees. It would thrill the statists...and then we'd gleefully watch them get even more dejected when he nominates a Gorsuch 2.
Trump’s list was developed and vetted before his campaign began.
A lot of very knowledgeable people worked to make it.
Stick with that.
Put the joint down and step away from the keyboard.
And what folks don't understand is that your life is affected much more by what SC judges write in their opinions - the precedents they rely on and the legal arguments they make to uphold their judgment - than their vote to affirm or reverse the judgment in a particular case because those arguments become binding precedent followed by inferior courts (well except for the 9th circus, but that is a separate problem) for eternity.
Anyone seeking enlightenment on how to argue a particular case on a particular issue turn first to the written opinions of the SC and COAs on that or related issues.
That is why for instance Scalia will have such a lasting influence. When he took the right side of an argument (and the Statist had a lot of faults) and chalked his soles for the task, his writing was dazzlingly brilliant. Example: Lujan v Defenders of wildlife is the precedent defining standing used not just in federal courts, but most state courts throughout the country.
You don't want a SC justice chosen just because you agree with his personal prejudices on a couple of landmark issues.
No.
She’s a tv pundit. Period. Not close to what’s required of a Supreme Court justice.
Joint? I think we have some meth-heads coming out of the woodwork.
I want a handicapped, black or hispanic, lesbian who is a strict constructionist and is under age 40.
I enjoy her candor and opinion but 15 years at best.
Lets get somebody with 35 years. Let’s trust Trump to get it done.
I may ask her opinion in this matter though.
Being a lawyer is a liberal arts job. Not exactly something to put on a pedestal. When you’re too stupid for anything else you go to law school.
The primary qualification for supreme court judge, or any judge, is basic knowledge of the law and a whole lot of American common sense.
She’s got all of it.
P.S. Considering the absolute SH*T that has come out of that court, she could do no worse!
No. Anti-self-defense.
The best lawyers in the world can sell you the Brooklyn Bridge many times over.
We need one that isn’t selling the Brooklyn Bridge.
Borders on crazy emotional. Strident.
I’d hate to be married to her and have to listen to her every day... even if I agree with her.
I don’t see that she has the correct temperament to pass muster in the Senate.
I’m through with the two step
I don’t see that she has the correct temperament to pass muster in the Senate.
><
Right. Besides, she probably wouldn’t want the job.
Thanks for the sensible words. Our country depends on individuals like you to maintain balance.
Is she pro-abortion?
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.