Trump to nominate Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court: sources

Fox News ^ | 9/25/20 | By Brooke Singman, Shannon Bream, Tyler Olson | Fox News

[conservative98]

President Trump plans to announce that Amy Coney Barrett will be his nominee to the Supreme Court to fill the seat vacated by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, multiple sources told Fox News on Friday.

[Eddie01]

Welcome to FreeRepublic!

Eddie01

[bitt]

p

[Lisbon1940]

I’d like to know why she isn’t just Amy Barrett.

[JBourne]

Agree-she woould also help him more politically-Florida, Hispanic and Catholic I'm concerned that Amy may be one of those who get more centrist as she is confirmed

[luvie]

....and just like that, the dumbocraps love term limits. ROFL!

[luvie]

I hope they confirm quickly with NO hearings. It’s not even constitutional to hold hearings on EVERY appointment~

[Publius]

Actually, it's perfectly constitutional. It's just not traditional.

Prior to 1968, there were no hearings. A group of senators from the majority and minority interviewed the judicial candidate and reported back to the committee. In 1968, LBJ attempted to move Justice Abe Fortas, his longtime political fixer, into Earl Warren's Chief Justice slot and move Homer Thornberry, another friend, into Fortas' slot.

Everett Dirksen, the Republican minority leader, teamed with southern Democrats to prevent the departing LBJ from putting his liberal cronies on the Court. His tool was a committee hearing designed to bring out the dirt on the two candidates, focus opposition and keep the Warren slot open for Richard Nixon to fill. It worked.

Later, Fortas was forced off the Court when his involvement with crooked financier Leonard Wolfson became public.

[luvie]

Thanks for the information. I stand corrected. I just want it done without ruining the life of the nominee.

[cgbg]

The only female on the national and international scene worth much in the last 40 years was Thatcher. The rest are what a rational person would call equivocal and unable stand the backlash if they said, “No”, to the Women’s Moment and abortion. The Constitution is not foremost in the mind of female Justices - competing with men is foremost in their mind. Let the flaming begin...

Definitely not going to flame you--you put into words exactly what a little voice in my head has been saying to me lately. Time will tell--hopefully she will exceed our expectations.

[Impy]

Barrett is pro-abortion? Lagoa?

[Enterprise]

They DO, they really DO need to take the vote IMMEDIATELY. What the RATS do is to viciously slander these nominees to the point that even when they are confirmed, they are shell shocked, and it DOES affect their decisions. They want to be seen as FAIR and it can tilt a decision in favor of the RATS, when the decision needs to be a slam dunk for the Constitution.

[catnipman]

“But McConnell will no doubt have a long talk with Graham.”

no doubt ... and others as well, esp. committee members, plus McConnell WILL be the one to set the rules for the full Senate debate ... and they do achieve consensus before they act ...

[TBP]

Somebody on social media suggested that President trump and Senator Graham should arrange for her to be confirmed on October 23, the anniversary of the rejection of Robert Bork.

[familyop]

Club for Growth likes Barrett enough to put millions into promoting her, so she might be good for open borders and China. ...bottom of the article.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/conservative-ad-ginsburg-words-replacementy

[dandiegirl]

The demons should have zero say in anything after what they did to Kavanaugh. Grassley let that get way out of control.

[Salamander]

Don’t you just feel like screaming, because I sure do!

[luvie]

All. The. Time.

[redheadedshannon]

Sorry. Disagree. I understand the sentiment & there are plenty of examples given previous women on the Supreme Court or wishy washy suburban women voters. That said- men are hardly a paragon of unwavering certitude. Need we be reminded of David Souter, Anthony Kennedy & Chief Justice John Roberts to name a few. Not to mention the leagues of former & present "conservative" male politicians: Romney, McCain, the Bushes, etc. If you want to make the argument that females run a slightly higher risk than males of going soft, I'd grant you that. But that hardly means that all women should be discounted due to that. If you use that logic, than any male will be perfect. Hows the male Chief Justice John Roberts working out for you? Not so good, huh? How about just finding excellent candidates, regardless? If you took the stance that any black person on the court would come with biases & go soft- we wouldn't have Justice Clarence Thomas. He has been the most conservative justice in this nation's history- even eclipsing Justice Antonin Scalia. Similarly, if we had rejected Scalia because he comes from New York/New Jersey, given that he was raised in a region of the country that isn't very conservative- we would have been cheated out of having his amazing opinions and rulings. I think Alito is following in their footsteps. Gorsuch & Kavanaugh are newer- but I suspect they also follow that tradition as well. There are plenty of staunch women out there who would stay true to conservatism & the constitution. I'm one of them 😉

[Saveourcountry]

The ONLY way to stop the circus is to confirm her rapidly. IF they hold hearings, the hearing should be limited to ONE day as she has already been through the ringer two years ago and the topic of hearing should be limited to the rulings she has had SINCE her last confirmation hearing.

Then, on the same day of the hearing, before the media can start the sound bite circus - hold the vote. This will lessen the impact of the smear circus from the crazy dems.

Media will have to then cover the riots that follow, showing the world how utterly crazy they are.

[Jim W N]

There are a lot of no good low down dirty men AND women.

No excuse for women to abandon their God-given roles as homemakers and lovers of their husband and children.

The satanic Women’s Movement has turned mothers into murders of their own children.

It’s so horrific and would be beyond belief if it weren’t happening every day as we speak.

And the odds are very great that this woman will do what countless other have done in the past - Turn Left Upon Becoming A Supreme Court Justice - to which women are especially susceptible.

Odds are very great that any woman appointed to the Supreme Court will not abandon the satanic Women’s Movement and will not help bring down the utterly unconstitutional and murderous Roe v. Wade.

There are many levels about which Trump’s political decision to appoint a woman is a terrible mistake. Among other things he’s being advised wrongly that he needs to appoint a woman to win the election. Another mistake of bad advice for short-term political advantage which he doesn’t need in order to win versus long-term payment for that mistake.