Posted on 06/30/2018 5:33:49 AM PDT by GonzoII
Michael Brendan Dougherty has some advice for President Trump that I think is worth repeating, in regards to replacing Justice Anthony Kennedy this fall: Appoint Amy Coney Barrett, Trump's recent addition to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The facts of Barrett’s life — that she is a mother of seven children, and that when she speaks about her Catholic faith, she speaks about God as if she really believes in His existence — will provoke nasty and bigoted statements from Democratic senators and liberal media personalities. Again...It won’t just be her faith. In 2012, a columnist chastised two Republican presidential candidates for their “smug fecundity.” For Barrett, the comments on the number of children she has are likely to be much worse. The fact is that women nominated for positions of authority often inspire hysterical and self-defeating reactions in those who oppose them.
I agree. For one thing, Barrett is only 46 years old and could easily serve on the court until 2060. It also doesn't hurt to put a conservative woman on the court. But in addition, this would be an especially shrewd move ahead of the midterm elections.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Not that I truly have a dog in the hunt, if you expect the Left not to complain about “yet another Catholic” on the SCOTUS bench or someone who is the antithesis of the Zero Population Growth crowd, you aren’t paying attention. And if you think they will hold back their fire because she’s a woman, you weren’t around when they continually dumped on Sarah Palin and Sarah Huckabee Sanders, including using the b-word and the c-word in reference to them.
I’m not taking sides here because they are all unknowns to me but some of the ga-ga logic I have been reading here in support of Nominee A or Nominee B is not well thought out.
The left hates her with a passion. Feinstein is seething with contempt for her and her faith which we’ll see again when she appears before the Senate Judiciary committee.
Scant judicial record but she’s a stealth candidate with a rock rib conservative public persona. A Pence acoylyte.
She’ll skate thru the hearings and would provide 3 decades of solid renderings.
I’m a woman, and I agree that would be too many woman on the court. Wait until Ginsburg retires or dies, then replace with a woman if you have to.
The other women are leftists. Conservatives need to retake the high ground and Trump is about to bury the left with this nomination.
even tho it seems the catholics have been more good than bad, with 6 catholic and 3 jewish, we sure seem to be long overdue to get a white male protestant in there. Don’t those dems celebrate diversity anymore?
No offense to women in general but I too have noticed this. Of course it isn't 100%. A percentage like Margret Thatcher keep their spine. Maybe it has something to do with having children and grandchildren that changes women. Maybe the secret is to finding women candidates that don't have nor will ever have children. Just sayin'. It's well known women think with their emotions at times.
I think a good women would be good for this pick and a man when Ginsberg dies..she will never retire now..
The Democrats whould have to savage a women going into the midterms..
POTUS is looking for someone who clearly respects The Constitution and has “judicial humility.” That is, in general he wants the opposite of that skank Sotomayor.
“Three words: Sandra Day O’Connor”
Several words: Earl Warren, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter. There have been significantly more men turn on us. Barrett is at least an Originalist and a former clerk of Scalia’s. That’s a lot better than some of the men on Trump’s list for sure.
I couldn’t agree more. You find somebody who is an originalist on the issue of the Second Amendment, and you will find somebody who is an originalist on every other issue out there.
What a lot of people don’t realize is that there’s another clause, this time in the body of the Constitution, which completely backs up a very expansive view of the Second Amendment. This is the clause in Article 1, Section 8 that speaks of the power of Congress to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Most people have never heard of this, but what it is essentially means is that Congress can issue authorization for private individuals to undertake hostile actions against any enemy. This originated during the Revolutionary War itself, during which the Continental Congress issued such Letters. Private individuals, very wealthy ones to be sure, got these Letters and attacked British commercial and naval ships. Now, how do you attack the British Navy, then the strongest force on the Waters of this planet? Certainly not with muskets. They had cannons, lots of them. Privately owned cannons. I would like to know how it is that someone opposed to an expansive view of the Second Amendment can possibly square that reality with their viewpoint. It should be noted that the 2nd Amendment speaks of “arms,” not firearms, not muskets, but arms. Arms refer to every single weapon able to be utilized as part of the militia (and there was no equivalent of a weapon of mass destruction, so this does not include poison gas or nuclear weapons). The Founders were also quite well aware of technological progress, and the Second Amendment is as capable of being brought into the 21st century as are the First Amendment’s protections of freedom of the press. Anyone making the argument that only Revolutionary War-era muskets are protected, has just written out of the First Amendment radio, television and the internet, at a minimum. It is a fallacious argument.
Get us a Justice who understands this, and we will be just fine on every single issue out there.
The more kids a white woman has, the more Republican she is.
The more kids a black woman has, the more Democrat she is.
I LOVE that theater! But Trump won’t do that...but, damn, that would be hilarious.
IfvGOA wants Willet, then so do I. As I have said on this thread, and elsewhere, anyone who can get the Second Amendment right will also get the rest of the Constitution right. Taking the Second Amendment to itch rational conclusion can be very uncomfortable for some people, and anyone who can do that has not only great powers of logic, but also the firmness to stick with such logic regarding all issues.
Besides, as a bonus, we will have a Supreme Court Justice who has a phenomenal sense of humor, and is not afraid to put some of that in his opinions. Perhaps then, Supreme Court opinions won’t be so sleep-inducing.
Totally correct. I would never trust a woman judge. We could easily end up with another SDO.
“There have been significantly more men turn on us.”
The simple fact is that we need someone who has a strong record of being an originalist, someone who is not likely to turn their method of analyzing a case in front of them on its head, because they are grounded. I very firmly believe that Trump should pick someone who is very firmly grounded as being pro-Second Amendment, because everything else originalist flows from that. There is no more fundamental idea in the Constitution than that an individual’s liberties are to be protected, and the Second Amendment is the very heart of that issue. Someone able to withstand the attacks of the Left on that issue will also be able to withstand the attacks of the Left, including their fellow justices, on any other issue as well.
Thomas Hardiman
I want the youngest person with a court history of being a social conservative. Being a Catholic isn’t enough for me to like anyone.
As conveyed by this man:
Rodriguez went back to the U.S. attorney's office in Sacramento, where, following a gender identity change, he is today serving the public and continuing to fight crime.
Thanks. I am not completely discounting the perspective of someone that later had a 'chop-a-dick-off-me' procedure. I am sure Trump will take all of this into consideration when making the choice.
Come on, so many of the posts on this thread are ridiculous. An example of one is proof of absolutely nothing, so acting like Sandra Day O’Connor is proof of anything is just a joke.
I would take an Originalist woman any day over a non-Originalist, Bushie establishment type like Kavanaugh, whom some Freepers have been rooting for.
I completely agree with you and have made that same argument to liberals about the Letters of Marque and Reprisal before. It’s also just a bit problematic for the antis that the same section authorizes Congress to organize and arm the militia, which kind of pours a bucket of cold water on their spurious interpretation of the ‘militia clause’ of 2A, which clearly and obviously doesn’t mean what they think it does, both on its own, and in context of the rest of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
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.