Posted on 09/19/2020 6:28:18 PM PDT by Arcadian Empire
Amy Barrett.
WHY? Hookers do it all the time.
Totally disagree with this.
So far, I like Britt Grant and Allison Jones Rushing. They are both not guilty. I have not yet made my final selection (prediction).
Trump told rallygoers that Ginsburg's "landmark rulings, fierce devotion to justice and her courageous battle against cancer inspire all Americans," offering prayers to the justice's family.
The President also noted her friendship with the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, saying it's "a powerful reminder we can disagree on fundamental issues, while treating each other with decency, dignity and respect."
..."So, Article 2 of the Constitution says that the President shall nominate justices of the Supreme Court. I don't think it can be any more clear, can it?" Trump asked, prompting chants of "Fill that seat!" from the rally crowd.
The President told reporters earlier Saturday there about 45 people on his list, but he does have a "short list" for potential nominees.
Now that's a President.
“....he would “love to pick” federal appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who is a favorite among religious conservatives, but doubts he’ll secure support from the US Senate. ....”
I would still pick Judge Amy! The Dems never worry about such things. Trump’s base would support him, and any GOP senator who opposed Judge Amy would lose their job, especially if they faced primaries.
Dud you notice how he paused, went quiet, did that thing with his hands and arms, closed his eyes, and cast his head down to think for a moment or two. concentrating on his own reaction to the news, before giving his honest reaction to the reporter?
Not for nothing, but the Bad Orange Man might actually be a person, like you and me, and not some kind of monster.
RBG was committed to her cause.
That is why Thomas was chosen. Can anyone say at the time he was chosen, he was chosen because he was THE best choice? He was chosen because he is black.
“Knowing how the democrats try to smear those whom they oppose, they’ll probably use their old go to ploy and accuse her [ACB] of teenage years acts of sexual perversion.”
I can see it now... the tearful testimony of six men, all claiming she had raped them back in college:
“It was awful!.. I said ‘no’ but she just took her clothes off and started doing doing things to me! She wouldn’t stop! [sobbing] ...and the worst part was her two girlfriends who were also cheerleaders [more sobbing] they got undressed and started taking turns doing things to me!..[wiping away tears]....“
“Why did I never tell any of my friends about it? ...well, I guess because I was so ashamed to have three cheerleaders pin me down and take turns on me...[sobbing...covering face in shame]..”
Not the first time I've heard or read this conjecture, with the assumption that (generally speaking) women having abortions are liberals and would have raised their children to be liberal. First, there's no guarantee that a child will assume the voting habits of a parent, and may well feel the need to rebel. More importantly I think, is that in lieu of unfettered access to abortion, those children would have been placed for adoption and (again, generally speaking) conservative households are more likely to adopt. I suspect at least as many potential future conservatives have been aborted as have been future liberals.
Diane Sykes sounds interesting...
This is my fervent hope: That he privately puts out the word that it will between two prominent people on the list, to send the media off onto wild goose chases developing smears for each of those people, then turning around and nominating a different person from the list. This would knock the media off balance and he would have at least a half a day before the really nasty smears began. There are quite a few women on the list who would be excellent.
I’m going with Rushing.
Younger, solid, NC.
If they aren’t a violent felon.
if someone serves their sentence Faithfully then their debt is paid. They should then be recognized their God given right to self-defense. Period.
If dangerous, they should be locked up.
Unfortunately, our sentencing guidelines don’t account for that. And how do you decide if a person is no longer dangerous.
Pres. Trump has a wide pool of vaginas (That is what he is saying) to choose from and can mess up real bad from his own “strategy” of virtue signaling.
I would rather Trump avoid the genitalia issue and ask candidates about the original purpose of the 14th amendment, is stare decisis part of Article III, can case law be overturned based on ignoring the intent of the law, is judicial restraint more important than judicial supremacy, and finally, what do you think of Robert Yates (Brutus) opinion of Article III and Alexander Hamilton actauly agreeing with his points (But had faith judges would show judicial restraint).
If they served their time they should be done. Period. They commit another crime. Then they will get sentenced for that.
We are giving HIDDEN LIFETIME sentences, when someone is given probation only, then calling them a “violent felon” for life.
The title is highly misleading. A serial killer is not the same as someone who defended themselves with not good representation. Lots of different scenarios.
But the demonrats knew all that when they pushed it to more disarming the population. Like the other schemes to do so.
Fear is how they get their evil agenda passed and cheered for.
Our Fear is their power.
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.