Trump's Supreme Court frontrunners: A mother of seven who adopted two children from Haiti and belongs to a Christian sect that inspired The Handmaid's Tale - and a Cuban American whose father was stopped from becoming a lawyer by Castro

UK Daily Mail ^ | September 20 2020

[knighthawk]

President Donald Trump's announced Saturday night that the Supreme Court nominee he plans to announce next week to fill the vacancy left by Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be a woman, spotlighting two conservative women as his potential pick.

During a campaign rally in North Carolina, Trump declared 'I will be putting forth a nominee this week, it will be a woman', later adding his pick would be a 'very talented, very brilliant woman' because 'I like women more than I like men'.

As he left the White House for the rally, the president identified two women as front runners: Amy Coney Barrett, 48, of the Chicago-based 7th Circuit and Barbara Lagoa, 52, of the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit as possible nominees.

[rollo tomasi]

"Sandra Day O’Connor was an excellent SCOTUS."



All deciding opinions mind you by O'Connor

Horrible on Right to Life opinions

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)--Stenberg v. Carhart (2000)

Horrible on illegal immigration

Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) and commentary there after

Horrible and woefully convoluted on religious liberty

Lee v. Weisman (1992)-- McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005)

Horrible on campaign finance laws that ran rough shot over expression and speech

A slew of them including McConnell v. Federal Election Commission PDF (2003) where she was again, the deciding vote

Horrible and hypocritical on affirmative action

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

Horrible on regulatory issues that superseded States rights/10th Amendment

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA (2004) --again the deciding vote (Which evolved over time after Thomas was added to the Court) among other cases where she joined the majority or minority expanding regulatory powers of the Feds

I could go on but this is enough to say she was a huge bust.

[pbear8]

I NEVER think of Catholics as conservatives

You don't get out much, do you?

[Deplorable American1776]

I don’t wear my wedding ring...

[Hieronymus]

She didn’t give that as an example.

I can think of a number of areas where strict construction of the Constitution and Francis are hard to line up, (Cruel and Unusual Punishment and the Death Penalty being a prime example) but in none of these does he teach in such a way that actually eliminate a Catholic from opting for the constitutional option. She can say what she said and still support the death penalty.

We have had loads of Catholic Justices—I’m not sure if Taney was the first. We had seven simultaneously not too long ago, but if one accepts that Cavanaugh is no longer Catholic, we are down to 6 or maybe even five.

Some of them have been among the best (Thomas, Alito) and some of them are stinkers.

[jacknhoo]

“ I don’t wear my wedding ring...” ________ Oh. Well that explains it. 😏

[Chode]

Amy all the way!!!

[null and void]

I adopted Doctor Darling Daughter. OTOH, I wouldn’t want to be a Supreme...

[9YearLurker]

She offered a general principle which would appear to pertain in illegal immigration cases.

And the likes of Scalia (and other Catholic USSC Justices) didn’t subscribe to that view at all.

[daniel1212]

You assume the two are mutually exclusive; they’re not. The Church, through its Councils, gave us the infallible Word of God. God’s infallible Word promises us that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against that Church.

Wrong on both accounts. By that time of Christ an authoritative body wholly God-inspired writings was established without an infallible magisterium. And which provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the gospel and thus the church. (Romans 1:1,2; 16:26) Therefore it was Scripture that the Lord Himself invoked, from defeating the devil (Mt. 4) to correcting Jewish leaders (Mt. 22) to substantiating His messiahship and ministry ("in all the Scriptures") and which He opened the minds of the disciples to them, who did the same. (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 1828, etc.). And to which even the veracity of the oral preaching of apostles was subject to testing by (Acts 17:11)as the prior established authority of OT Scripture.

For as is abundantly evidenced by a multitude of Scripture texts, as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and established Word of God.

And as with prior express revelation, more writings were provided and established as Scripture, essentially due its unique heavenly qualities and attestation.

For God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 102:18; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;

However, as concerns an "infallible" definition, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon  after the death of Luther.

As for oral tradition, while men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, to which Catholics vainly appeal to in attempting to support their oral tradition, yet popes and ecumenical councils do not speak or write as wholly inspired of God in declaring what the word of God is.

[daniel1212]

I literally and I mean literally started laughing at this author. Conservative Catholics, like myself, completely ignore Francis and cling to the Magisterium and Church doctors, all higher authorities than any one pope. I have no doubts Barrett Feels the same way.

I do not blame you for rejecting Francis, though it does not go far far enough, since distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).

However, as a professed Catholic you are thus part of a sect that is contrary to such past papal teaching as teaches,

'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3578348/posts?page=14#14)

And as explained by a canon lawyer:

The pope’s power is supreme, as nobody on earth can overrule it. It is full, for he shares it with no one. It is immediate, since he needs nobody to speak for him. It is universal, because (unlike the power of a diocesan bishop, or that of the mother superior of a convent) it is not limited by any territorial boundaries, or limited to certain categories of persons. And it is ordinary, because it has not been delegated to the pope by anyone else. The power is his personally, and he may exercise it no matter where he is, or what time of day it is, or what he is doing:...the pope himself is not only the supreme legislator, but he is also the ultimate head of all church courts!

So does this mean the pope can do absolutely anything he wants? No. For while he may be the supreme head of the Church on earth, there is, of course, an authority that is even higher: God Himself. - http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2008/02/08/are-there-any-limitations-on-the-power-of-the-pope/

Also, see can a Pope commit heresy And Can a Pope be Removed from Office.

[Buttons12]

I fear any woman he picks will land somewhere between O’Connor and Souter.
There is also a chance he’ll pick ACB and after the Dems eat her alive and spit her out, he’ll nominate someone better and the opposition will have been exhausted.

[Pravious]

I’m not a fan of any organized religion and I NEVER think of Catholics as conservatives. Their Pope is a Communist.
I’m putting my money on the Cuban who might have an inside track on how destructive Communism is. That it should be opposed and avoided at all costs

—

I agree. I mean, the article does seem like a hit piece, but it also seems they’re describing her religion accurately, and it sounds to me like some kind of weird cult.

[Wonder Warthog]

Neither link tells me much of anything concrete about Lagoa.

[teeman8r]

i would say go with the latina... so that she can work on the other latina to resign during trumps second term.

[gcparent]

I think by Red flag they were referring to Roberts adoption. Ireland does not allow babies to be adopted by Americans.

[gcparent]

As of Sept 19th Trump never met Lagoa.

[daniel1212]

Remember Joe Biden is Catholic as well, so that takes away that angle. I NEVER think of Catholics as conservatives. Their Pope is a Communist.

About half of Catholics vote liberal in Presidential elections, overall most of those whom Rome manifestly considers members in life and in death testify to being liberal in contrast to evangelicals.

[null and void]

Point conceded...

[gcparent]

This needs to be a fast confirmation. Lagoa received 80 out of 95 confirmation votes in Nov 2019. That’s less than a year ago.

[milagro]

Now that makes sense!