betting sites mean nothing here, everyday people bet against teams they like and for teams they don't like depending on the opponent...
Posted on 09/25/2020 12:04:23 PM PDT by Hostage
he Federalist Society which is a GOPe tool is pushing for Barrett.
The Federalist Society also pushed for John Roberts and Christopher Wray.
Barrett’s not a bad pick but she can come later.
Lagoa is better for now. She won’t be swayed by the Jacobson decision like Barrett appears to regard.
Her use of Jacobsen v. MA caused me to jump off the Barrett bandwagon. Her use of that case as a citation suggests (actually shouts) that she will stand with the government every time they claim "emergency". Lockdowns, internment camps, FISA warrants, etc., etc.
She will be Chief Justice Roberts best friend on the Court.
“...Whereas Lagoa was confirmed in early 2017 soon after President Trump had taken office when everything was sunshine and roses.
Don’t fall for the vote tallies, Democrats hate both of them.”
***********************************************************
Nice try, Sparky, as you attempt to dismiss Lagoa’s substantial DemocRAT support in her confirmation vote. By the way, please explain how November 20, 2019 (Lagoa’s REAL confirmation vote) equals “confirmed in early 2017”. Again, nice try... but you;re not fooling us.
Barbara first, then Amy after the election
Stephen Breyer is 82 years old
No way. With the kind of support Logoa got from democrats, I suspect she would be the next Souter. Souter and Logoa also share another Red Flag often found in R appointed judges, a thin record in writing demonstrating unequivically their judicial philosophy. Constrast that with ACB, she shares a trait with Scalia and Thomas, a clear written record of opinions that do demonstrate ACB’s judicial philosophy. Her many written opinions provide an absolute record of her jurisprudence, and it proves she is a strict constructionist/textualist, and its not even close.
The fact is Judge Logoa is the kind of R Supreme Court pick from the pre-Trump Republican Party, when the R’s collectively just couldn’t find the stiffness in their spine to stand up to the democrats. Things are different now and President Trump and most of the R’s the Senate will now fight and not be deterred by the dirty fighting marxist democrats. The pick is going to be Barrett, and no amount of BS like this article, is going to deterr the President from appointing a known Conservative Constitutionalist with a proven written record, in this case Amy Coney Barrett, she is the pick and you can make bank on it, because she is the safest pick for Conservatives at this time when we cannot afford to put a possible typcial R squish on the Supreme Court, this is the opportunity of a generation and the R’s cannot afford to blow it.
They both are promising. May the lady of God’s choosing at His appointed hour be the one announced by the President tomorrow.
I got a sense of the same in her Kanter v Barr dissent. If Trump nominates her, I’ll keep an open mind and support the nomination, but I definitely wouldn’t feel as good about it as with his two prior picks.
Granted, I still prefer her over Lagoa.
Not that I have been asked, but my preference is Lagoa.
Trump is in Florida. I know that this is a timing issue. But, would he announce Barrett's nomination while in or on his way back from Florida? Could be a tell.
Are the parents of either one libs? Are they NRA members? What charities and orgs have they been involved in. Trump needs to flat out ask them in private. Do you vote democrat or republican. If they won't answer they should be out.
The Supreme court is a lost cause for advancing limited government. The best we can hope for is to just not make the situation worse so I don't think we should get wound too tight on this. Just get someone better than RBG and get them on the court before the election. As a side note, I think it was a big mistake for the President to pin himself down to picking a women. Just saying it will be a women is pandering and a clear indication of an affirmative action pick. Does not one person thing think alienating men in this decision is a bad move? I think some male supporters are going to be a bit pissed.
betting sites mean nothing here, everyday people bet against teams they like and for teams they don't like depending on the opponent...
Yes, that’s the way I see it.
It’s important to understand that Bill Gates and his vaccine cabal are still out there with plans for a mandatory RFID laced vaccine.
If you’re not up to speed on the vaccine threat or you think it’s a bunch of hooey, you’d better get up to speed on it because it’s very real.
POTUS has said the vaccines his Administration will approve will be voluntary but there are certain to be states that will make it mandatory setting the whole thing up for a SCOTUS ruling.
But SCOUS ruled in 2005 Jacobson vs. Massachusetts that states could force vaccinations.
So Gates and his psychopathic mind in eugenics thinks he can win. And he will go all out to see it through. He is seriously a maniac.
The problem is Barrett recognized the Jacobson case AND she’s resigned to the fact that Roe v. Wade will stand.
The fact that Barrett is backed by the Federalist Society who gave us Roberts and Wray gives us concern. If she sees Wray forced out and Roberts stepping down, her views will shift and become firm to doing the right thing. The way she is now is she’s trying to have it both ways. She’s still a good nominee but she’s one of those that must be reminded of what conservatism stands for.
Sometimes jurists get so wrapped up in their version of jurisprudence they forget fundamentals laid down by the Founders, they begin to think the Founders weren’t so wise as Americans are led to believe, that the Constitution and law can be ‘adjusted’ or shifted in context to better conform with their view of history, their understanding of intents and meanings. It becomes sophomoric.
My review of Barrett shows she is susceptible to that cultivation of jurists. But she holds strong to values she likely picked up from Scalia which is good. But her spine strength is not a sure thing.
My review of Lagoa is that her parents taught her well how Castro communism can sneak in and take over. She’s conditioned to keep an eye out for the scammer. It’s not what is said, it’s what’s the agenda is behind what is said. It’s not what is said, it’s what’s done or planned to be done, the agenda.
In this crazy time of BLM/Antifa, Pelosi and Impeachment, Fauci and False Pandemics, liar media, psychopaths like Gates and his vaccine lunacy, we need a Justice that has an eye for the scam, who can see what’s in play, and who can apply the Constitution to protect us all. That would be Lagoa. Barrett might do well but she’s not as sure a thing as Lagoa.
> “a thin record in writing demonstrating unequivically their judicial philosophy”
I reviewed her writings and saw nothing of the sort.
Bring examples.
Quite a mouth you have on you there, too bad you don’t have the brain to match.
Which of the two female judges will rule by the Constitution and not legislate from the bench no matter who the case involves.
(nominee AC Brrett) An interesting read about another remarkable woman. "Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California – grilled her on the role of her Catholic faith in judging." I really don't think anyone who had in her employ for 20 years, a Chinese Spy, her chauffeur, should be asking any questions of a future judiciary on the SCOTUS! No telling what the Chinese Spy gleamed from the U. S. Senator over the years..... Amy Barrett's Bio seems impeccable and probably the more conservative of the two choices...being mindful of the US Constitution and swearing to uphold and protect that document...doesn't mean it will be so.....Pray is about all we can do.
Lagoa didn’t do any unnecessary, beside-the-point signaling in court documents, political circles or religious social circles. She hasn’t been campaigning to be put on the SC bench. I like that honesty and have more trust for Lagoa. Besides, DeSantis trusts her.
Anyone who really wants a nominee who strictly follows the Constitution on several issues and has honest documents to show for it would be advocating for Britt Grant. She’s proven herself to be loyal in regards to our Second Amendment and several other categories of rights. Anyone wanting someone who’s least likely to be corrupted would be urging the nomination of Rushing.
Look at the quote in the body text above quoting what Barrett said about Roe v. Wade.
Barrett appears to be an excellent nominee and we can bet the President would not have picked her if he thought otherwise.
But we need to be careful how the media play us, how they try to prod Americans in a certain direction.
Conservatives need to be more careful and dig deeper in their due diligence about judicial picks.
Barrett is in general very good but look at what she said about the Jacobson decision which is crucial to whether a COVID vaccine will be forced on us or not and look at what Bill Gates has in mind for these vaccines which he is behind.
The Jacobson decision is what gives the Bill Gates maniacs the idea they can prevail regardless of Trump’s views. And Barrett is there recognizing the Jacobson decision, doesn’t mean she will affirm it but she could have written or spoken how it goes against the grain of American liberty and freedom, but she didn’t.
Be careful, look at where we are at. Forced to wear masks, forced to stay indoors, forced to shut down businesses, and forced vaccines are on the horizon and the vaccine planned is like no vaccine ever seen before. It’s all out there and Gates is behind it. He’s truly deranged. So why couldn’t Barrett see this and write an informative essay to let us know she’s got our backs?
Barbara Lagoa is anti-communist to her core which means BLM/Antifa and the Democrat Socialists are unable to fool her with their forced vaccines, forced masks, forced testing to come, and so on, they will not get past her because those are measures to take away freedoms. Lagoa sees it plainly, she has demonstrated consistently, solidly that she’s anti-lockdown which ostensibly stems from her anti-fascist, anti-communist upbringing. Right now, that’s what’s needed.
Barrett can come later. She’s only been a judge for three years. Likely Souter will be gone in a year or two, them Amy comes.
Lagoa has been courageously anti-lockdown without wavering.
Anti-lockdown translates from anti-fascism, anti-communism, anti-Marxism and those principles were instilled in her from the beginning by her family who fled Castro’s Cuba.
So BLM/Antifa, their Democrat puppet-masters, and the never-ending Arabella groups to follow are not going to have an easy time with Lagoa. That’s what we need in this time which could go on for years and years.
Yes, that DeSantis trusts her is a big plus.
Britt is 42 years old and I agree she is solid and also experienced. But young. I think she could be if appointed and confirmed one of the youngest SCOTUS Justices ever. That could be a good thing.
Barrett is excellent as well but like so many in DC, she mixes sometimes with the wrong crowd, willingly or not. And she writes well but her public statements do not bring always confidence. But she was a protégé of Scalia and that has to have had a positive effect.
I believe either one or Britt Grant would be good choices. My personal favorite is ACB.
The only problem is that you have your dates completely wrong.
Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed in October, 2017 - right in the middle of your supposed “honeymoon period” - and only got 55 votes to confirm.
Barbara Lagoa was confirmed in November, 2019 - right in the middle of impeachment - and got 80 votes to confirm.
The only other judges to get confirmed with anything close to that vote in 2019 was William Nardini for the 2nd Circuit in NY (formerly clerked for Sandra Day O’Conner), and Danielle Hunsaker for the 9th Circus, who was originally appointed as a state judge by lesbian governor of Oregon Kate Brown and recommended by Wyden and Merkley.
So it seems pretty clear that the Dems would vote for people they saw as sympathetic to their views. For anyone even slightly conservative or originalist, the confirmation votes were almost entirely along party lines, with the weak sisters (Collins, Murkowski) occasionally voting with the Dems.
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.