Amy Coney Barrett would make a politically shrewd replacement for Justice Kennedy

Washington Examiner ^ | David Freddoso

[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.

[Paul R.]

Best post of the evening!!! (Perfect for Saturday, too.)

I repeated it to my wife and she nearly fell off her chair, laughing.

That said Hannity is closer friends with Trump than Rush is, so...

:-)

[Paul R.]

Women move left as they grow older and experience the Beltway crowd. It’s a guarantee — a law of nature

Most of the women I know in their 40's - 60's became more politically and socially conservative as they got older. Economically, maybe not so much.

Granted, the mid-South is not the Beltway, and many I have observed have fairly conservative husbands and seem to be in reasonably good marriages.

[lepton]

Issues with O’Connor extend beyond her actual positions. She also tended to make blurry, meandering, wiggly lines in her rulings, so it was difficult to extrapolate from them. She was out of her depth.

[SauronOfMordor]

I was thinking more about her being worried that some crazy Leftist would cause harm to one of her kids, if her decision caused them to flip out.

[Cen-Tejas]

Excellent point.

[9YearLurker]

That might work in red states, but not in blue states—and she would be moving from red to blue.

[fortes fortuna juvat]

>>Being a Catholic is she obligated to follow the pope’s ideas on immigration?<<

No, but she is reportedly a “fervent” Catholic, and if she believes this Pope to be the true Vicar of Christ, she may be reluctant to take a position that is contrary to his teaching. And that would be a very bad consequence of her being selected to sit on the Supreme Court. Also, her adoption of two Haitian children strikes me as virtue signaling at its most egregious, given the fact that there are thousands of orphans in need of parents right here in America.

[Trailerpark Badass]

With regard to immigration, the Catholic Catechism places the responsibility on immigrants to obey and respect the laws and culture of the host nation. Whatever Bergolio says on the matter is quite a bit less relevant.

[fortes fortuna juvat]

>>She has said that in some cases it might be correct for Catholic judges to recuse themselves from death penalty decisions.<<

If this is true, it is a perfect example of why I am adamantly opposed to her being selected. She purports to be a fervent Catholic. Well, the Catholic Church is opposed to the death penalty and, since the Second Vatican Council, it has become a very liberal religious denomination. That is why I’m convinced that she is the Judiciary’s equivalent of a Congressional RINO. Moreover her adoption of two Haitian children when there are thousands of orphans right here in America in need of parents strikes me as an egregious example of virtue signaling.

[fortes fortuna juvat]

>>Lots of ‘good’ people get into government and law. But when the going get tough, they fold; principles go out the window.<<

And that is especially true in regard to Supreme Court justices which is why I am very concerned that President Trump does not make the mistake of selecting Barrett who is a professed devout member of what, since the Second Vatican Council, has become a very liberal religious denomination. Moreover, her decision to adopt two children from Haiti when there are thousands of orphans right here in America in need of parents raises a HUGE red flag in my opinion.

[CodeToad]

“No Women, they are too easily swayed by other Women’s Feelings. No Women.”

Dittos! We don’t need a weak kneed woman claiming to be tough only to fold to the first tear.

[9YearLurker]

She has hardly any bench experience at all and we have nothing to go on. Plus academia, even Notre Dame, is a screamingly liberal environment.

I am 100% with you—she would in my estimation be Sandra Day O’Connor at best. Ivanka may know this and be pushing her furiously. But we are not the party of affirmative action, to start with, and it is total self-sabotage to appoint anyone without a record to this position. Of course, that is what most of the GOP wants. We can just pray that Trump isn’t too influenced by his crazy-liberal daughter on this one.

[MichaelCorleone]

Understood.

You make some very valid points.

[fortes fortuna juvat]

>>With regard to immigration, the Catholic Catechism places the responsibility on immigrants to obey and respect the laws and culture of the host nation. Whatever Bergolio says on the matter is quite a bit less relevant.<<

Your statement is of course true in and of itself, but it’s also quite beside the point since the vast majority of today’s Catholics know very little of the Catechism. In fact, like most of the hierarchy from the Pontiff down to the parish priests, they are primarily influenced by the secular culture, NOT by the Catechism. And for that discouraging state of affairs you can thank the liberals who controlled the outcome of the debacle known as the Second Vatican Council.