All of Trump’s SCOTUS Women

Weekly Standard ^ | July 2, 2018 | Alice B. Lloyd

[GonzoII]

As the list of possible SCOTUS picks narrows to rumored likelies, what about the women?

Who will Trump pick to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy? We have some clues: “It will be somebody from that list,” the president said Wednesday, referring to the 25 names he published in November. Reports since then have narrowed down these top contenders to five insider favorites. “We have to pick one that’s going to be there for 40 years, 45 years,” Trump also said, suggesting a judge’s relative youth may be a deciding factor. There are six women on the list, and one in pretty much everyone’s top five. Interestingly, none of these six went to the Ivies, already a point of difference from the current nine. Plus, women tend to live longer than men, maximizing the longevity factor for a lifetime appointee. And the appointment of a female justice would (a) Be helpful to a White House with preexisting women problems, while (b) making Democrat's full-scale resistance to the pick harder and potentially more costly.

Here's a look at the women who might make the Court:

[Lurkinanloomin]

the woman balling her eyes out
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is quite different than

The woman bawling her eyes out

[roadcat]

Save the wimmen pick for when Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg goes toes up.

Agree. And if the libs make the process difficult, then offer a man selection. Libs fault if Trump puts in two men without a woman.

[GoldenPup]

The three witches of MacBeth.

You can almost hear the chanting, “Double, Double...toil and trouble. Fire burn and caldron bubble.”

Yep you can hear them.

[so_real]

Should the POTUS recommend a woman for SCOTUS, his administration best be prepared for the resulting MSM attack. The media will claim that his replacing a man with a woman is a shallow attempt to solve his "woman problem". They will claim this is tacit acknowledgment that POTUS is a misogynist. (Yes, more of the backwards logic that liberals are renowned to possess.) They will tell the public that POTUS is throwing crumbs at women and suggest he owes women the whole cake. If it were me, I'd wait for Ginsburg to go offline for the final time and use that opportunity instead.

[AFreeBird]

Yup.

[Responsibility2nd]

We have enough women on the court.

_________________________________________

And they’ve all been disappointments.

[Lurkinanloomin]

We’ve never had one, it might be a good experience and an educational opportunity.
We just never know about any of them.
O’Connor, Souter, etc.

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

I have a concern that women tend leftward. And in the current climate, women are strongly emboldened to "roar" for better or for worse.

When the ban on women in direct combat roles was lifted, I recall at least several female Republicans saying "about damn time." Rather than acknowledge the insanity of such a thing, they were compelled, or felt compelled, to let out a roar for the sisterhood. Is the former Marine gal on thr list one of those?

[Sasparilla]

Zero put two fringe lunatic liberal women on SCOTUS who think the Constitution can be bent to whatever current whim Democrats want.
Trump put Gorsuch on the bench, a man who reads the Constitution as written. Getting another Originalist on the bench scares the hell out of Democrats. It must be done.
And a third Originalist too needs to be added should the need arise.

[SunkenCiv]

Amy Coney Barrett; Allison Eid, Joan Larsen, Diane Sykes, Margaret Ryan, and Britt Grant

[heterosupremacist]

<img src=”https://politics.myajc.com/rf/image_inline/Pub/p8/MyAJC/2017/08/11/Images/newsEngin.19544822_britt-grant.jpg";.

Britt Grant, the Georgia Peach.

[heterosupremacist]

[fella]

It would be nice if Trump were to pick a “Hillsdale” Constitution professor.

[fella]

" McCain due to his illness"

I don't think McCain is ill he's just flaking it until he feels that his part in the dossier treason is swept aside. He votes by not voting. You'll notice that when it's something he wants he somehow gets to vote.

[nickedknack]

No. Her pheromones and estrogen will sync with the 3 Leftists, and she’ll “evolve” into a Squish. NWOSCOTUS.

[dennisw]

We have enough women on the court.

TRUE! Any female Trump appoints is more likely to go native (lefty liberal) in Washington DC. Woman are more conformist than men. If Trump really wants a contra-rebel conservative who will endure this way for 30 years then he must look to a male appointee.

If Trump is really smart he will huddle with Clarence Thomas and ask who he favors. Because Thomas has remained steadfast for three decades. He has seen the cave ins in action such as David Souter who was the most wasted Republican appointee ever.

Crapass Souter is still alive. He left the Supreme Court in 2009 so that Obama could have the SC appointment.

[EQAndyBuzz]

“You bet, that’s all we need, another Sandra Day O’Connor.”

I prefer Miguel Estrada. That will make the liberals heads explode.

[dennisw]

The females on the court are all liberal. Would you really not want a conservative woman on the court?

AFFIRMATIVE! Guys are more reliable down the line. Has to be an exceptional man of course. Women all turn liberal under Washington DC pressure and the female social conformist tendencies. The female need to please others. Hard wired! Sandra Day O'Connor USELESS! Though she was not this way when she began otherwise RR would have never elevated this kook to the Supreme Court.

WIKIPEDIA------Of the 113 justices, 109 (96.5%) have been men. All Supreme Court justices were males until 1981, when Ronald Reagan fulfilled his 1980 campaign promise to place a woman on the Court,[52] which he did with the appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor.

[blackberry1]

Trump will stake his legacy on this pick. He’s already laid down his cards.

An originalist female. The left can’t stop this train. He’ll peel off 4 Democrats easy.

[GonzoII]

She’s only 40, Trump will put Barret 46, on the Court this go round so she can get started, then the sweet peach🍑🍑🍑🍑🍑 next time.