Posted on 09/22/2020 8:49:12 AM PDT by springwater13
Judge Amy Coney Barrett has emerged as President Donald Trump's overwhelming favorite to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, according to several people familiar with the deliberations, who say the President's view was solidified during a lengthy meeting at the White House on Monday.
Trump has not finalized his decision, and with days to go until he announces his pick on Saturday, his thinking could change.
But for now, Barrett -- currently sitting on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago -- is his clear front-runner and is viewed inside the White House as the likely nominee.
A source familiar with Trump's private conversations told CNN that one of his confidants on this issue told him that this pick is so important to not only his legacy but his re-election bid that she will effectively "be your new running mate."
Judge Barbara Lagoa remains on the list but multiple people familiar with the matter told CNN that Trump is fading on the idea of picking her. While Trump was initially enthused at the prospect of nominating a Cuban-American from Florida, a critical electoral battleground, Lagoa hasn't been previously vetted for the Supreme Court and some advisers suggested it would be a heavy lift to clear a new name quickly.
(Excerpt) Read more at amp.cnn.com ...
Any anti Catholic rhetoric ought to be turned around and aimed at Pelosi.
After all, she “prays for the president” and” takes [my] faith seriously”.
It’s a strategy that will look weak since the Democrat nominee claims to be a practicing Catholic. Though, it would be interesting to see Biden defend his Catholic beliefs in a debate.
That’s it. Case closed.
No one knows
I get that. But in my experience, some people who align closely with me morally are nonetheless loosey-goosey with the Constitution. The Court’s job is to interpret laws as they were intended and written. That’s it. Don’t like a law that’s otherwise Constitutional? Get the Legislature to change it, or get an Amendment passed. It’s not rocket science.
Remember, the Constitution does not require ‘Hearings” only a vote, up or down, Advise and Consent.
It could be done in a couple of hours, counting the time to clean up the mess from the exploding heads.
Exactly.
They can have a hearing but limit the time....It will not look good trashing a women and Catholic before the election....no time for people o forget what happened..
The delay clears out every other anti Trump fake news from the headlines. Trump gets to set the narrative.
Heard she prays for every dead baby that was aborted. That should keep her busy.
The NRA calls the shots. There is no way that a squish on the 2A will be appointed. ACB wrote a very pro-2A friendly opinion in a case that involved illegal gun possession by a non-violent felon. (Kanter v. Barr). Her opinion, to those lawyers who understand 2A lingo, can be paraphrased as “I’m with you, gun owners.” Unless Barbara Lagoa can convince the NRA that she is pro2A, she will not be the nominee. Lagoa has not issued one opinion regarding gun rights, and she is risky. Also, my gut says he may go for Joan Larsen out of Michigan. Very pro-gun, from the Upper Midwest, etc. Politically, Trump wins with ACB if she does not get nominated after the media savages her for pro-life/devout Catholic views. This will piss off religious conservatives, and make Larsen, who is probably MORE CONSERVATIVE, look like a moderate choice. My guess: This is a head fake, and it will be Larsen unless Lagoa signs a blood oath to be pro-gun.
“The biggest reason for Amy Barret is John Roberts. Plus the 2020 elections.”
I don’t want to minimize the importance of picking a good constructionist justice for the long term health of the SC - or picking one who will do the right thing if there is a contested election - but President Trump also needs this confirmation to be a huge blow to the Democrats.
IOW, the more the Democrats hate Amy Coney Barret, the more I like her. I want to see the President and the Republicans shove this confirmation right up the Democrats’ you-know-whats.
The reason is, we need to hit them so hard they have no fight left in them and they finally give up this stupid resistance, violence and never ending impeachment BS.
The President used this strategy in the Middle East Peace talks. He made some very strong moves - moving the embassy, exterminating ISIS, coming out 100% pro Israel, and basically saying - this is the new reality - deal with it. All the anti Israel factions are throwing in the towel because President Trump made it so crystal clear where the US stands.
Maybe if he gives the Democrats a few good beat downs they will realize they can’t win and stop embarrassing themselves.
We need someone who is a Christian acknowledging the New Testament principle of which the Founding Fathers were in cognizance: a follower of the Jesus Christ of the Bible who possesses the gift of a never-ending life through faith alone in Jesus alone, and knows that he (she) will be accountable to Jesus Christ for what he (she) does on the bench, not just some party ethic.
Such a nominee would exemplify the chararcter of one of the first Justices, John Jay (click here), Founding Father, who clearly stated the intent of the formation of out nation and its government:
“No human society has ever been able to maintain both order and freedom, both cohesiveness and liberty apart from the moral precepts of the Christian Religion. Should our Republic ever forget this fundamental precept of governance, we will then, be surely doomed.”While still an American colonist, Jay had been a member of the Church of England but joined the Protestant Episcopal Church after the Revolution. Serving as vice president and president of the American Bible Society from 1816 to 1827, Jay believed that Christianity was an essential element of good government (Wiki).
Let us turn back the clock, and start nominating only those Justices who can fit this model, for in deed, they are accountable to the Mighty God. If we have ones who think they are only accountable to their own ideas, or to some human head of their religion, we will not be served by a person who can exercise a God-sent judgment. Anyone like this will and must fail in the trust placed in him/her.
Go to YouTube and check out some of her speeches. She has a great one from Hillsdale College with a q&a where she explains her judicial philosophy. She is a female Scalia.
She answers your question at the 34 minute mark.
ACB would be an excellent choice.
I don’t have the information necessary yet to make an informed decision… But I have been seen quite a few videos that this jurist is a “John Roberts” in feminine form..... Has anyone else seen these videos?
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.