Posted on 09/20/2020 5:32:33 AM PDT by FRinCanada2
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett
Good choice? Bad Choice? Controversial? Odds of getting a Senate vote before 3 November?
Amy Coney Barrett identifies as constitutionalist. Works for me.
As Psalm 73 said in post #7:
“The Senate just confirmed her in 2017 - pretty-much the same Senate - how can they think she’s OK two years ago, and not qualified now?”
Also, knowing that won’t matter to the Dims, and because she is a woman, Trump will be forcing the Dims to show their hypocrisy in trying to deny a woman the confirmation. And it is precisely because she is a woman the Dims WILL attack her, trying, like Justice Thomas, to smear her in some way. To the Dims, positions held be women and “minorities” is supposed to be reserved for their nominations. Why? In order to preserve their fiction that only the Dims represent the “interests” of women and “minorities”.
The fact that she is at the top of Trump’s list ought to give you a clue if you have been paying attention.
It's bait. Make the vote happen before the election. If the dems attack her they are attacking Hispanics.
Her father in law is federal district court judge Paul Huck who was nominated by Bill Clinton. She can't be trusted.
I figured I'd ask you as a fellow long standing FR member who's opinion I trust.
I know she's a very strong pro-lifer which checks a big box for me. I've read in the past here on FR that there are some concerns about her Second Amendment views. Am curious to know your thoughts. Others on this thread she's strong 2A and for stripping non-violent felons of their right to bear arms.
Is this true?
No it wasn’t. Margaret Atwood wrote that book as a hysterical reaction to Ronald Reagan and the Moral Majority. The Handmaid’s Tale was always Anti-Christian. Atwood is a feminist nutjob.
A bit off topic, but some on the left are really fuming that Ginsburg didn’t step down during Obama’s time.
When, not if, Trump is re-elected; I hope a few of the judges on our side see the wisdom in retiring so that their places can be filled with people of similar minds.
See post 105.
Why is everyone focusing on Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa?
Trump has appointed at least 10 women to the circuit courts. So, why just Barrett and Lagoa?
Back when both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were being considered, and Trump had not yet made his choice, Amy Barret’s name was in there to.
I had wanted Trump to nominate Amy instead of either Gorsuch or Kavanugh, doing the first part of destroying any “tradition” that a Supreme Court justice seat should be filled by a man or woman in that seat.
Then, the second part of my recommendation, back then, was for Trump upon Ginsberg’s death named either Gorsuch or Kavanaugh as his nominee to replace Ginsberg. That might have been the second and maybe final act in destroying the idea that the seats of the justices are “traditionally” sex specific.
Because that’s supposedly what the leaked shortlist is.
OK. Thanks.
Per this source we are both partially right.....Atwood drew her “inspiration from the growth of the Christian Right in the late 70’s and 80’s and the Iranian Revolution in 1979...
https://www.wnyc.org/story/inspiration-behind-handmaids-tale/
Per this source we are both partially right.....Atwood drew her “inspiration from the growth of the Christian Right in the late 70’s and 80’s and the Iranian Revolution in 1979...
https://www.wnyc.org/story/inspiration-behind-handmaids-tale/
We both agree that Atwood is a feminist nutjob!
The fact that she thought Ayatollah Khomeini and Billy Graham were the same thing speaks volumes.
Don’t like that being a female has become a requirement here. Hope Trump is willing to back off of that if required. From the women on his list I’d agree that Amy is one of the best but to me that list (I just went over the women in the list) is very weak. Joan Larsen seems to be worthy of a look too. In a Vacuum Diane Sykes seems good but hard for me to overlook the fact that her husband is a died in the wool never Trumper.
I’m sorry. I had a huge miss. I missed Britt Grant. Someone here posted her and this would ne my number one pick based off reading the below. I’ll look into her more
https://civilrights.org/resource/oppose-confirmation-britt-grant-u-s-court-appeals-eleventh-circuit/
Barrett stated that while the government has a legitimate interest in denying gun possession to felons convicted of violent crimes, there is no evidence that denying guns to nonviolent felons promotes this interest, and that denying such rights is a violation of the Second Amendment.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/amy-coney-barrett-ginsburg-scotus-future.html
Similarly, there is no doubt that Barrett would dramatically expand the Second Amendment, invalidating gun control measures around the country.
History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous. Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons. Nor have the parties introduced any evidence that founding-era legislatures imposed virtue-based restrictions on the right; such restrictions applied to civic rights like voting and jury service, not to individual rights like the right to possess a gun. In 1791—and for well more than a century afterward— legislatures disqualified categories of people from the right to bear arms only when they judged that doing so was necessary to protect the public safety. ...
Initial read, absolutely the right person for the job at this time!
https://civilrights.org/resource/oppose-confirmation-britt-grant-u-s-court-appeals-eleventh-circuit/
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.