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 ...
I say don’t worry so much about youth for the next pick (especially if it’s replacing RBG)...get an old stubborn curmudgeon who is set in their way. Certainty to help fix the country for the next 10-15 years would be a good play.
How about an executive summary of Zmirak’s “suitability” questions?
Not interested in taking the clickbait.
Mr. Zmirak is an idiot. All of his grave concerns boil down to “She’s Catholic”.
Zmirak didn’t think Trump could beat Hillary and backed Cruz. So he doesn’t know a good pick either.
This sounds like the Catholic bashing that went on as to JFK back in the day. The author does not cite to any opinion Judge Barrett has joined in the 7th Circuit he claims was wrongly decided because of her faith.
Excellent post.
I would strongly prefer seeing a supreme court candidate who is an open supporter of the Second Amendment, an active gun owner, a carrier, maybe a competitive shooter, someone who has had a lifelong ownership, use, and respect of guns. Too many of our supreme court candidates never had a gun and thus no respect for them and their role in our nation’s history.
I could never find out much about her when she came up before, what I see in this article I don’t like.
I believe the Left will go totally insane if control of the Supreme Court is at stake. Judge Amy Coney Barrett may not be particularly vulnerable to fake rape allegations, but she has kids.
We have seen how the Left goes after people they don’t like, including threats, and USE, of violence.
I think the Left would be willing to target members of her family, including her kids, for murder if she votes in a way which displeases them.
The left will fight anyone. But if he does NOT appoint a woman to replace a woman it’s going to explode every liberal head. On the other hand THAT would be a spectacle!
we’ll worry when RBG finally dies (winning!)
Here is his sole argument:
Barrett’s suitability for the high court, as Barrett’s apparent unwillingness to separate her faith from her legal judgment should worry conservatives; jurists’ first allegiance should be to the Constitution, not the shifting political and doctrinal line at Pope Francis’ Vatican.
She’ll do just fine.
What a hypocrite...
He wrote...
“she deserves rejection by the Senate.
As a Catholic who has been active in the pro-life movement since 1975, that’s how I’d vote.”
[Mr. Zmirak is an idiot. All of his grave concerns boil down to “She’s Catholic”.]
The moral impossibility of enforcing capital punishment in the first two or three cases (sentencing, enforcing jury recommendations, affirming) is a sufficient reason for recusal under federal law. (p. 306)
The answer gets more emphatic further down:
[T]he principle at stake in capital sentencing is a moral one, not a factual or simply legal one. And the judge is asked to violate it—not to reason from different legal premises to morally unobjectionable conclusions (like Justice Brandeis did in Whitney). There is no way the judge can do his job and obey his conscience. The judge’s conscience tells him to impose a life sentence; federal law directs him to impose death. Because the judge is unable to give the government the judgment to which it is entitled under the law, § 455(b)(1) directs him to disqualify himself. (p. 334)
It is clear what Judge Barrett believes about the obligations of a Catholic judge when there is a direct conflict between her views of what the Church teaches and the U.S. Constitution dictates: they must recuse themselves.
That’s a scary prospect, if Judge Barrett is to become Justice Barrett.]
Note that the excerpted passages are things she actually wrote.
Same for Kavanaugh HtS. I was on a screed here and other sites, what he went through was Catholic Bashing, many of us saw through it.
Same for Kavanaugh HtS. I was on a screed here and other sites, what he went through was Catholic Bashing, many of us saw through it.
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.