Posted on 07/10/2018 4:09:41 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Less than a day after President Trump announced Judge Brett Kavanaugh as his choice to fill the vacancy left by Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, Todd Starnes spoke with Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law Professor and author of The Case Against Impeaching Trump, about why Judge Amy Coney Barrett was not selected.
"I don't think the President decided not to pick Barrett, I think he decided to not to pick her for this vacancy. I think he anticipates several vacancies. If Ruth Bader Ginsberg leaves, he might pick her then. The American people have to know one thing that distinguishes these two. I think that, very likely, Kavanaugh will cut back on Roe Vs. Wade. I think he thinks it was wrongly decided, that it should be left to the states. Barrett may have a very different view. She believes that there is a right to life that the fetus is an innocent citizen of this country. And basically, maybe she believes, that states don't even have a right to permit abortion. Most Americans won't support that," Dershowitz said....
(Excerpt) Read more at radio.foxnews.com ...
Thinking several steps ahead:
Step 1: Nominate Kavanaugh.
Step 2: Trump-state Dems vote against Kavanaugh and therefore lose election.
Step 3: There is a safer Republican margin for replacing Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomoyer.
Step 4: Nominate more conservative judges.
Thinking several steps ahead:
Step 1: Nominate Kavanaugh.
Step 2: Trump-state Dems vote against Kavanaugh and therefore lose election.
Step 3: There is a safer Republican margin for replacing Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomoyer.
Step 4: Nominate more conservative judges.
Probably most of them viewed abortion with the same revulsion they would have viewed cannibalism. But now the Democratic Party considers the right to have an abortion the most important of our constitutional rights.
I agree, they will die before they ever retire.
I am so sorry about your friend. It’s hard to believe someone would make that choice. May your heart heal over time.
Virginia testified that Dersh was an attorney of Epstein’s but Dersh is saying they were just friends. Virginia remembers Epstein and Dershowitz working in Epstein’s office, and Epstein would call her in and began being sexual with her. She remembers Dersh staying in the room, just watching and staring.
On following occasions she was told to have sex with Dershowitz, whom she knew only as Alan. He wanted more, at least 5 different occasions she remembers.
Both he and Prince Andrew said they’d never met her nor slept with her, but there are photos of Andrew with his arm around her when she was in a midriff baring top. Dersh is lying all over the place. This article shows a little of it.
Amendment V: No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Amendment XIV: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
That's why.
Not yet — not until we’ve replaced one or two more justices.
I know! Back when one of the wonders of great friendships were their ability to overlook or transcend differences and just enjoy one another.
I mourned the loss of a few, others were more superficial in the first place.
I think our experience is more common than we realize. It makes me wonder at the unknown effects across the country.
Nixon got FOUR on the SCOTUS. Only Rehnquist was decent. He was out in only 6 years. Trump could get 5 if he gets 8 years.
So we should repeal the murder laws?
I said all along that the only reason that he was pretending to defend Trump was because he always included Hillary in his reasons to defend. If Trump walks then Hillary will too by his logic.
You could lessen the load bob, dforest is absolutely correct.
Ultimately all we can do is speculate what Kavanaugh or Barrett would do concerning Roe vs Wade.
It depends on the case itself and what sort of determination was being made.
This is something we’ll have to wait and see about.
Better safe than sorry, agreed!
Gotnews.com says they have proved photo is fake. Comments?
http://gotnews.com/breaking-can-conclusively-prove-princeandrew-underaged-prostitute-photo-fake/
Stupid. Derschowitz cites distinction without a difference.
He says both would overturn Roe v. Wade but Barrett would go further and ban abortions in the sovereign states. As if any SCOTUS would go that far. As far as any Supreme Court would go it to say there is no privacy RIGHT to an abortion that makes it protected federally nationwide but that the states would have jurisdiction.
That Barrett might want to go further and ban abortion outright does not mean she could or even would. Derschowitz is seizing on a stupid reason to say Trump went with Kavannaugh.
Sane people consider it murder so they can never consider it legal.
Why is everyone on this site so friggin pedantic.
If you were having a conversation with someone you wouldn’t split hairs. No you did not “say” anything. We are writing. See, two can play at that game.
Stop being so damned sensitive and discuss the issues, not pick apart sentences as if you were Bill Clinton.
Once we replace Ruthie, Stevie, and maybe the Latinx with originalists (and keep Thomas’s seat in our camp), we hvae Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, usually presumptive Justice Kavanaugh, justice X, Justice Y, and Justice Z. And sometimes Roberts. That should be enough to do the trick, assuming President Trump gets this right and continues to do so.
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.