Posted on 09/25/2020 12:04:23 PM PDT by Hostage
The only reason more Democrats voted to confirm Lagoa, is that there was no excuse for them to oppose her appointment. She didn’t campaign as a political or religious celebrity, and she had no cases involving specific controversial issues.
With Barrett, it appears that the most outspoken commenters here are wanting a nominee for the purpose of only one issue.
So, you disregard Barret’s actual rulings, but include her prediction of what a court which does not include her will do - to predict her judicial leanings?
Protecting the Right to Life of innocent little preborn babies matters more than anything else.
I alluded to Trump’s honeymoon period following his inauguration. He knew Lagoa from Florida from way back.
But you can take your attitude and stick it you know where. No one including me has to read your jerk comments, they don’t add anything. When I see a comment I scan it and when I see it’s full of piss like yours, I ignore what follows. It’s your problem.
Take the crappy attitude to President Trump and let him know how he was so wrong to shortlist Lagoa. Go to a rally, he’s approachable. If it’s so important, do it.
Lagoa was chosen by DeSantis for State level Supreme Court in early 2017 and Trump was in full support as FL was his residence state and now officially his domicile. He knew personally Lagoa. They got along very well together. They are like-minded. I should have made that clearer. Lagoa came earlier than Barrett into the Trump sphere. Her Senate confirmation was at a time when it didn’t matter because Barrett was thick in the middle of the Russia hoax whereas Lagoa escaped because the public was sticking it to Congress over their stupid impeachment by the time she arrived for her confirmation.
Early on Trump knew Lagoa and knew how popular she is. He needs FL badly and she is a plus for him. If you can’t see that, you got your head up in your you know what.
The reason Democrats couldn’t get at Lagoa is because they could not fail her on their abortion litmus test whereas they could with Barrett.
But Barrett says Roe v. Wade will stand to permit abortion. She writes one way and speaks another way. I haven’t seen all of her writings but there’s at least inconsistency in her public record.
Whereas Trump’s position is clear, Roe. v. Wade must be overturned letting the states decide, leaving the federal government with no obligation to fund it or have anything to do with it. Try telling that to a Democrat in Congress and they go nuts. So Barrett was red meat and Lagoa is like who the frick is she? She’s also of Latino descent, so during the time when the public is ready to burn Congress down over a wasted two years of Mueller stupidity, it makes zero sense to try and take out a Trump Latino especially if there’s no Roe to hang her with.
Lagoa says Roe v. Wade is what governs the country now, same as Gorsuch, same as Kavanaugh. So the litmus test didn’t flag her for a partisan vote. It wasn’t necessary for her to take a position on Roe because she wasn’t up for SCOTUS.
Whereas Barrett wrote about Roe and was documented as a target for Democrat Senators to harass and fail her on their stupid Roe litmus test at a time when Trump was a Nazi Putin Puppet Racist Xenophobe, can’t have his white supremacist picks coming in for confirmation to the lower courts especially when said picks have written against their god of abortion.
The timeline is also a factor. It shows Pelosi had lost major support for impeachment among the public causing her to withhold delivering impeachment papers to the Senate. The Senate was under fire by the public to shut the whole impeachment fiasco down. It made no sense for Democrat Senators to pile on Lagoa for what? For being a Trump pick? A Latino Trump pick?
Barrett was in the thick of the Russia hoax and documented as anti-Roe, so she was targeted.
Party line Senate votes don’t matter. Sessions was confirmed 52-47 and the President couldn’t wait to fire him. He was fired within minutes of the 2018 election when it was clear Trump had won the Senate.
No, the Senate votes tell nothing about these two. If it did, Sessions would be a national hero by now. It’s simply not a reliable measure of where a nominee stands on anything.
Lagoa is staunchly anti-communist which translates to anti-Marxist, anti-BLM which is what the country needs now. She will come out to overturn Roe because like Trump, she will turn it into a states rights matter.
In short:
Barrett = Documented anti-Roe (yet testifies Roe will survive) with Russia Hoax swirling about.
Lagoa = anti-communist Latino outsider, not much to throw at her as the Russia Hoax was winding down with Senate Democrats held in public disdain.
#44 clarifies it. Bottom line is dates don’t matter, timeline events do matter.
And the vote margins don’t matter either.
All explained in #44.
> “The only reason more Democrats voted to confirm Lagoa, is that there was no excuse for them to oppose her appointment.”
Yes exactly, but there are more reasons:
1. She’s Latino or at least of Latino descent.
2. Democrat Senators had tails between legs as Mueller probe ended up as a bust.
3. She wasn’t up for SCOTUS.
Barrett wasn’t up for SCOTUS either but Barrett is White and she wrote bad things about their abortion god.
All explained in #44.
That disqualifies her.
I hate identity politics, we shouldn’t pick someone because we think it will pander for votes, that sucks
We should pick who is the most qualified
I am happy with either
Either one is 10000000000x improvement over the dead commie biotch
You make a good point by asking that question.
But she did make the prediction Roe would survive. She didn’t have to. She wasn’t up for SCOTUS. Her prediction was irrelevant.
She could have simply said I cannot predict how it will go, I am not there so it’s not material, I have my views but they are not material.
If she had been asked what would she ‘hypothetically’ do if a case came her way concerning Roe, she could have answered, “It’s a hypothetical and I can’t divine what I would do until I see the facts of the case.”
Etc.
It’s disturbing she felt she had to elaborate on something without facts, without context.
But believe me, there are much worse things that happen in the DC cesspool.
Her performance was merely a foul ball, no impact on whether she scored later or not. She’s good.
I don’t think Trump is exercising identity politics but the Democrats live by it.
To Democrats,
Woman good,
Latino woman better than good.
Except when it’s a Trump pick, especially a Trump pick exhibiting anti-abortion heresy.
I truly think Trump chose these people because they are exceptional and he wants them in the public eye. Confirmed or not, he’s promoting them in the public eye and just may have them up for a cabinet position at a time later.
Then Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are likewise disqualified.
It’s a statement of fact designed to avoid entanglement in a hypothetical leading to nowhere.
A confirmation isn’t a soapbox for political drama.
She wasn’t up for SCOTUS.
Well that’s kinda the point, as a federal judge her record is thin, there’s not much there. So I’m not sure what an example of not much writing you expect to see. Either way Barrett has a much longer written record as a federal judge and her writings leave no doubt as to her judicial philosophy, in fact reading Barretts opinions, if one did not know better one would think one was reading a Scalia or Thomas opinion. All I’m saying is that from the available written record for both of them, Barrett is the much safer Judge nomination for Conservatives. Longoa might be that kind of judge too, but her record as a federal judge is just to short to take a chance on her when Barrett is ready to go and has a lot more writings to judge from compared to Longoa.
When people’s daughters and sons are being murdered between conception and birth, there is nothing of greater importance, and I hope you understand that.
Not sure where you’re getting the idea Lagoa’s record is thin. She’s heard thousands and thousands of cases and written more than 400 opinions. She’s far more published than Barrett.
Barrett was vocal about abortion but as a judge that’s not in her wheelhouse unless she’s on the US Supreme Court.
Lagoa as a state supreme court justice couldn’t do anything about Roe. She could express a private opinion but there was no way to rule on it.
Lagoa’s published opinions are deeply constitutional and to the point. She declared lockdowns unconstitutional. That implies she would rule constitutionally on multiple related matters.
I believe both Lagoa and Barrett are pro life because of their genuinely professed belief in God. But since Roe, judges have very little to say about it.
I think the confusion stems from Democrats turning their hearings into litmus tests of abortion, they make it seem that pro-choice is law, it’s beyond dogma, nothing else needs to be discussed with regards to confirming judges. It’s sick.
There are thousands of issues but democrats make it seem judges are confirmed on a handful of issues such as sexual harassment and assault, sexual identity in the workplace, and so on.
I’m sure Lagoa could respond to hundreds of issues regarding law but democrats only want to talk about abortion when it comes to GOP picks for the judiciary.
Tell me what you feel should take precedence over people being able to protect the lives of their own daughters and sons between conception and birth.
Tell me why you’re against the right to protect lives.
I asked first.
You answer first.
Basic conversation protocol.
I’m not going to indulge your effort to start protracted theological arguments. If you want to learn about that on your own, though, read the first and second biblical laws and go from there.
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.