Posted on 09/20/2019 4:54:32 PM PDT by T Ruth
Her writings on faith and jurisprudence should worry conservatives.
The left is engaged in full-on panic over control of the U.S. Supreme Court—which Justice Scalia once described as having become a de facto sitting Constitutional Convention, subjecting every law in every state to the views of five lifetime appointees: an oligarchy of lawyers from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale.
As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s health concerns continue to loom, liberals are trying to spook Speaker Mitch McConnell into swearing off confirmation hearings for any Trump appointee during an election year. At the same time, The New York Times and The New Yorker are trying to drive Brett Kavanaugh off the court with still more unsupported, second- or third-hand allegations. The spectacle is positively Orwellian.
The next Supreme Court appointment, assuming Trump gets one, will be pivotal; we can’t afford for him to waste it by choosing a justice whom he thinks will be “easier to confirm,” despite his or her weaknesses.
Trump should recognize that no conservative appointment will be “easy.” The left has already shown us their playbook. It reads: treat as “literally Hitler” any jurist who might return to an honest reading of the Constitution on Second Amendment rights, abortion, or executive authority on immigration.
President Trump should not take the salacious nature of the smear campaign against Brett Kavanaugh to mean that he must appoint a woman. Why believe that leftists are incapable of crafting an obscene smear of either sex? Put nothing past these people. Nothing.
***
There will be no easy appointments; Trump should make it count. Trump’s presumptive choice is Judge Amy Coney Barrett, currently sitting on the Seventh Circuit. But I have profound questions about Barrett’s suitability for the high court, ...
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
Sound like he is a mole planted to discourage the nomination of Amy Barrett, the left is coming unglued.
Thank you.
Sounds like she would be an excellent heir of the Scalia tradition.
Anti-Catholicism, the last acceptable prejudice.
CC
Matters not who is appointed, they will stack the court with more justices the next time they are in power and they will overturn earlier decisions.
The Left is basically saying that they will drag any nominee, and their family through Hell, if they are opposed to them, so don’t even bother.
That bit on capital punishment is disqualifying. Sorry to learn this. How about that other woman who was so much talked about, Janice Rogers Brown? Something like that. Is she too old now?
Well it has to be woman because they are loading up against men (a legion of rape victims all ready to destroy) and also replacing a woman Ruth Buzzie.
“All of his grave concerns boil down to “She’s Catholic”.
He’s a Catholic himself.
He's saying that being Catholic is great as with Thomas and Scalia as long as they act as jurist using the Constitution exclusively as their guiding light and not the teachings of the Pope or Catholicism in general.
He is correct inferring that some of her writings indicate the latter may be the case and that would indeed indicate a problem with her judicial reasoning.
I’m confused. Did RBG not come down for breakfast? Or did Kavanaugh get impeached, and trundled off to prison? No one ever tells me anything.
6-27-2019
Of course not.
As a Catholic, I understand his argument and I’m not offended. He’s saying that he thinks Barrett might recuse herself if she thinks ruling a particular way would violate her Catholic beliefs, and, as such, she’s a bad pick because we need justices who’ll uphold the Constitution and vote the right way and not recuse themselves.
I haven’t read Barrett’s law journal articles, etc., and I don’t know how serious she is about this recusal approach. Obviously, this should be a legitimate area of inquiry if she were to be nominated for the next opening.
At the same time, my gut feeling a year ago (and still now) is that Barrett would have been a better pick than Kavanaugh. She’s not someone who cares about staying the good graces of the crowd at Harvard and Yale. Kavanaugh worries me quite a bit. I don’t have confidence that we won’t sell us out.
Correction:
...confidence that *he* won’t sell us out.
These are picks based on timing.
Zmirak is setting up the argument that anyone who believes in any kind of absolute morality is disqualified from the USSC.
The reason that is ridiculous is that the Constitution is written for a people who subscribe to a set of absolute moral laws.
Losing that belief has already made the Constitution a blank slate for leftist activist judges.
“At the same time, my gut feeling a year ago (and still now) is that Barrett would have been a better pick than Kavanaugh.”
Democrats would have just said she was notorious for fondling guys at frat parties.
She is far from my first choice and the article raises some serious and legitimate concerns.
On the other hand, appointing Barrett to replace Ginsburg would cause liberals’ heads to literally explode. And I do mean literally, not figuratively. You would not want to be in the same room as a liberal when the appointment is announced. Barrett would be immeasurably better than Ginsburg and I cannot think of a nominee who would enrage liberals more than she would. It would be worth it just for the entertainment value.
Plus, if Trump nominated Barrett and the far left was somehow able to force her to withdraw, Trump would then be free to then nominate the most conservative judge he could find, even if that judge should happen to be a white male.
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.