Posted on 07/06/2018 6:12:44 PM PDT by Hojczyk
We really don’t know much of her 2A positions, though the Second Amendment Foundation calls her “promising”. For that reason I would prefer Hardeman who already is on record that the 2A is a “fundamental right” deserving the highest level of protection. But I will be OK with any of them, except Mike Lee.
The borking of Amy Coney Barrett could mark the end of the Democratic party.
Already, hordes of DemocRATS are leaving the sinking ship which its crew of Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine Walters have rammed into an iceberg with their mean-spirited rantings and ravings.
The ten Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee can be expected to come at the Catholic, pro-life Mrs. Barrett like angry pitbulls.
That’s how they’ll win points from the party’s deranged leftist base. But moderate, civilized Democrats will be repelled and #WalkAway, and the Democrats will go the way of the Whigs and the KnowNothings.
If she’s not pro-2A she’s an immediate NO for me.
I live in Sh*thole New Jerseystan (hopefully not for long) and hoping a SCOTUS case could change some of the oppressive draconian (And unconstitutional) gun laws we have to suffer with.
I don’t know if she is pro-second amendment. However, the article says she believes Roe v. Wade is a terrible judicial decision … which it is. So, this indicates a strict constructionist and in principle the second amendment should not be affected by her decisions.
Note, I’m not saying it WILL go that way, I’m just saying in principle, it SHOULD go that way.
I think you’re right about her on immigration and 2A. Something about her is off to me.
She adopted two Haitian kids, I know people are nervous that she may cave on the “Refugees welcome” appeals.
“I’d gladly, enthusiastically go for a “garden variety” Protestant, Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Methodist, Mormon or Martian if they understand the fundamental nature of the right to life.
It’s not that that’s the “single” issue or the “only” issue, it’s that it’s the fundamental issue. The basis for all the others.”
While I agree completely with you, My concern is that the current confirmation process goes successfully to conclusion. It would be a simple matter if ALL of the Republican Senators shared our views on the right to life. Unfortunately. they do not! And separately, it calls to question just what are the “core values” of the GOP today? And why do we allow those who do not subscribe to ALl OF THEM, get to claim membership? But the cold hard fact of the matter is that there are far too many “republicans” today who do not understand or adhere to what I always thought were incontrovertible core beliefs. But that is where we are today, sad as it is. So, some short-term pragmatism is in order in my view. Because if we make this nomination solely on Roe v. Wade, we may end up with craps. If we are able to weather the mid terms, and add some former RAT seats to the Senate, finding Ruthie’s and the other old a$$hole’s replacements becomes a better place where we can make sure we have right to life adherents and Murky and Collins won’t have a deciding no vote. FWIW.
And I might add that for me a perfect SCOTUS is one where the only Leftists left, will be the Fat Yenta, Kagan. And approaching 78, I want to live to see that view become a reality.
I think there’s a better than decent chance that she turns out to be trendy social activist type on anything except abortion. Not worth the risk, IMO.
What stupid comment. Someone that has compassion for poor children is allowing foreigners to invade her home?
Who gives a damn? It's not like she's taking in illegals.
Kavanaugh Has Inside Track for Trump’s Supreme Court Choice, Sources Say
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-06/kavanaugh-is-said-to-have-inside-track-for-trump-s-court-choice
Pirro is an idiot & a loudmouth. She has no gravitas or the intellect to be a supreme court judge, let alone a traffic court judge.
She chose to adopt two foreign children (Haiti) over adopting two American children.
She chose foreigners over Americans.
I don’t like her.
Have you ever tried to adopt an American baby? It can take years and years, if you can do it at all.
And Laura Ingraham has 3 adopted foreign children, a girl from Guatemala, and two boys from Russia.
Do you doubt her bona fides on immigration?
Frankly, anyone with any sense who wants to adopt, and particularly if they have any "assets," goes outside the United States.
When it comes to children, there's no such thing as a binding contract with a woman in this country.
At this point of history of our country, illegal immigration should be top concern for all judges
Better than having your household invaded by the American problem child that gave birth to them, too.
Get a clue. Babies have no nationality except on paper.
Please review her comments on the Constitution.
She’s not going to go against it at all.
That cover’s the 2nd Amendment.
“So how about a “garden variety” Protestant Christian for a change?”
Maybe because we had so many years of JUST them it’s someone else’s turn.
.
“So how about a “garden variety” Protestant Christian for a change?”
I think the Protestant Presidents just don’t trust Protestants for the SC. They must know something, I guess.
Freegards
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.