Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: 9YearLurker

“And why exactly is having 7 kids a plus?”

One reason is that she has ‘skin’ in the game. Normal parents want their children to be free and healthy so they can pursue their life’s ambitions. There would be a better chance of seeing things through that lens.

Generally, people without kids (and I know there are exceptions) won’t sacrifice too much for the future beyond their own life’s expectancy.


54 posted on 06/30/2018 6:43:19 AM PDT by MichaelCorleone (Jesus Christ is not a religion. He's the Truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]


To: MichaelCorleone
Generally, people without kids (and I know there are exceptions) won’t sacrifice too much for the future beyond their own life’s expectancy.

You just countered your own argument and again for those of you who insist this woman having seven kids somehow qualifies her for the USSC - the number of children (if any children at all) one has is IRRELEVANT to the role of a United States Supreme Court Justice.

Case in point: Justice Antonin Scalia and his wife had 9 children. Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife had 1 child. Both justices are easily classified as Strict Constructionists and Constitutional Originalists.

Therefore the ONLY requirement for Kennedy's replacement should be "Strict Constructionist and Constitutional Originalist" in the mold of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, period.

Not whether or not they have a vagina, have had seven children or the rest of the identity politics BULLSHIT being displayed on this thread.

60 posted on 06/30/2018 6:51:24 AM PDT by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson