Posted on 04/30/2017 7:19:34 PM PDT by ForYourChildren
President Trump will stick with the same list of potential nominees for the next Supreme Court vacancy, he told The Washington Times in an exclusive interview in which he also waved aside the lack of a honeymoon from Capitol Hill, saying Republicans are going to get there and Democrats are still smarting over losing an election they thought they couldnt lose.
..
He also said he expects the near-universal opposition to his agenda from congressional Democrats to wane.
I notice it calming down, he said.
Reflecting on his first weeks, the businessman turned statesman took pride in having upended traditional procedures in Washington. He said he has already notched foreign policy successes that eluded Mr. Obama such as the release of Egyptian-American charity worker Aya Hijazi from detention in Egypt and has made his mark at home with the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Youll have hundreds of cases decided by 5-4, and you got that. So thats a great legacy, the president said, noting that at 49, Justice Gorsuch has decades of important decisions ahead of him.
Mr. Trump shook the election campaign last year when he announced a list of 21 potential Supreme Court nominees, selected with the help of the Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation. The list was an instant hit with conservatives and helped cement the candidates support among the Republican base.
Its a great list. From the moment I put that list out, it solved that problem. And I was proud to say it was my idea, he said.
{..snip..}
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I am pretty certain we would not have survived.The main reason and full certainty on this one, is that she would have put hardcore gun grabbing gun control people on the supreme court.
Eventually the Supreme court would have a decision that would have made all gun ownership by individuals illegal. And once the government started to try to enforce that one, we would not have survived.
Remember how close we came in 2008?
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
Decision 5-4. 5-4!
5-4 Individual right.
What if it gone the other way? 5-4 NOT an individual right. Then what?
And that was in 2008. We were that close back then.
And that example right there draws a bright yellow highlight over the Harriet Miers battle which preceded that decision by a few years. Alito was vote number 5 in that 5-4 decision, and most likely Bush's bimbo Miers would not have been that brave.
I use this point often to shut up those snowflakes who are bitching that we need to not hold Trump accountable or we are being too hard on them. That kind of thinking matched the Bush43 inner circle and Karl Rove and all those GOPe dopes surrounding him backing Harriet Miers. We were loud and we were clear, and we were HEARD.
Get ready to do it again. The country is on the line!
According to Jewish teaching, if your birth mother is Jewish, then you born a Jew and will remain a Jew until the day you die. That even includes if you renounce the religion of Judiasm and/or declare yourself an atheist. (which none of the SCOTUS judges have done, BTW).
If you disagree with that definition of "Jew", you are free to take it up with leading rabbis and try and convince them otherwise. Until you do so, the SCOTUS members will continue to be recognized as "Jews" by the Jewish community. You personally rejecting them won't change that.
Incidentally, polls have continually shown the vast majority of American Jews share their leftist ideology, so if being a socialist makes one "not a Jew" in your eyes, there would be virtually no "Jews" in the world today. Politically right-wing Jews are a tiny minority within a tiny minority.
Change the word Jew to Bolshevik and then you will have it right.
The Notorius RBG is the one I want him to replace. She’s about due for the long dirt nap, has been living on borrowed time for awhile.
So if a man with a Jewish mother declares himself a Presbyterian, is he still a Jew?
RBG was backed by the ex-Pennsylvanian, Orrin Grant Hatch.
If the current list is used, won’t that about guarantee a place for William Pryor, who prosecuted Judge Moore in AL?
I wouldn't consider him Jewish but according to Jewish law, he'd still considered a Jew, yes.
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.