Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Amy Coney Barrett would make a politically shrewd replacement for Justice Kennedy
Washington Examiner ^ | David Freddoso

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; amyconeybarrett; feminism; globalwarminghoax; homosexualagenda; hysteria; illegalaliens; menopause; oconnor; scotus; trump; trumpcourt; trumpscotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-154 next last
To: traderrob6
"The only thing I care about at her age is if she is a ROCK SOLID Originalist/Constitutionalist who’s judicial ideology make Thomas look moderate."

According to Sen. Todd Young of Indiana: “Amy Coney Barrett is a faithful constitutionalist...who will represent Hoosier values. Proud to support her nomination for the 7th Circuit.”

41 posted on 06/30/2018 6:36:54 AM PDT by GonzoII ("If the new crime be, to believe in God, let us all be criminals" -Sheen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: irishjuggler
Because it will cause leftists, particularly Planned Parenthood/NARAL types to absolutely lose their minds and attack her in a way that alienates regular folks who have a soft spot for women who like being mothers (which she obviously does) and who welcome into their lives as many children as God gives them.

So any woman with seven kids would be a good supreme court justice then?

Your logic is impeccable! (/sarcasm)

42 posted on 06/30/2018 6:36:58 AM PDT by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000

Yes, I’m wondering about that. A lot of Catholics who are rock-solid on other issues are weak on immigration.


43 posted on 06/30/2018 6:37:40 AM PDT by mrsmel (I wonÂ’t be reconstructed and I do not give a damn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BlueStateRightist

That”s the trend I’ve noticed.


44 posted on 06/30/2018 6:38:36 AM PDT by mrsmel (I wonÂ’t be reconstructed and I do not give a damn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

I remember the scene where Bush nominated Roberts. At the time there was great speculation on who it would be. Bush stood at a podium and announced the next SC nominee without naming him, Roberts came out of door and down the hall to the podium.

I have this fantasy, of the same scene but Trump says something like, “And now introducing our next SC nominee...” and Rush Limbaugh comes down the hall, steps to the podium and then introduces the next SC nominee. The left would have a moment of pure terror.


45 posted on 06/30/2018 6:39:53 AM PDT by super7man (Madam Defarge, knitting, knitting, always knitting)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: irishjuggler

why do i think she has a nanny that helps with her brood while she’s working??? Just cause she has 7 kids doesn’t mean she’s a “mommy” type.


46 posted on 06/30/2018 6:39:59 AM PDT by ronniesgal ( I wonder what his FR handle is??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Three words: Sandra Day O’Connor


47 posted on 06/30/2018 6:40:09 AM PDT by Arm_Bears (Hey, Rocky--Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: usconservative

Friend, the question was why 7 kids was a plus in this situation, not why she was otherwise qualified.


48 posted on 06/30/2018 6:41:14 AM PDT by irishjuggler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: CincyRichieRich

I thought Bloomberg was quoted liking her...that says the wrong thing.
***********************************************
Got a link? Or are you just throwing that out?

Maybe they just like her physical attractiveness.


49 posted on 06/30/2018 6:41:36 AM PDT by House Atreides (BOYCOTT the NFL, its products and players 100% - PERMANENTLY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pravious

Eeeh-yuck!

Really, though, she has all of six months experience as a judge (though she clerked for a couple of judges back in the ‘90s), and hasn’t worked in a law firm for 16 years.

Mostly she’s taught at Notre Dame while having a load of kids. Her husband is an assistant US attorney, I think it is, so he hasn’t been home as Mr. Mom.

Yeah, she clerked for Scalia and is a member of the Federalist Society, but we have no record to speak of on her judicial philosophy and conservatism in action.

If she weren’t female, nobody would be considering her as a nominee.


50 posted on 06/30/2018 6:41:43 AM PDT by 9YearLurker (Jeanette Green)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Pravious
Big deal. So is that idiot Pope.

**SNORT!!** Oh now you've done it, ROFLMAO!!

You're going to hell for that one - you know that right? (/humor)

51 posted on 06/30/2018 6:41:48 AM PDT by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: bkopto

She likely is, but that is no evidence thereof. I know plenty of women with large families who are “pro-choice”.


52 posted on 06/30/2018 6:42:38 AM PDT by 9YearLurker (Jeanette Green)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: super7man

LOL!


53 posted on 06/30/2018 6:43:00 AM PDT by GonzoII ("If the new crime be, to believe in God, let us all be criminals" -Sheen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

“And why exactly is having 7 kids a plus?”

One reason is that she has ‘skin’ in the game. Normal parents want their children to be free and healthy so they can pursue their life’s ambitions. There would be a better chance of seeing things through that lens.

Generally, people without kids (and I know there are exceptions) won’t sacrifice too much for the future beyond their own life’s expectancy.


54 posted on 06/30/2018 6:43:19 AM PDT by MichaelCorleone (Jesus Christ is not a religion. He's the Truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: irishjuggler
Friend, the question was why 7 kids was a plus in this situation, not why she was otherwise qualified.

The number of children she has is IRRELEVANT to the description of a United States Supreme Court Justice.

Now tell me, would a "wise latina" with seven children be better?

55 posted on 06/30/2018 6:44:05 AM PDT by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Soul of the South

I agree with the idea of religious diversity but as for cases involving religious liberty Catholics have experienced a whole lot more intolerance, restrictions and bigotry than Protestants.


56 posted on 06/30/2018 6:47:03 AM PDT by xkaydet65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
If she weren’t female, nobody would be considering her as a nominee.

Absolutely wrong.

There have been other females under consideration, but this one rose right to the top of my list after the abuse she received from Diane Feinstein and Dick Durbin in the prior confirmation hearing for her current appellate court seat.

Anyone who can incite such hostility from those two @ssholes belongs on the U.S. Supreme Court for a minimum of 40 years.

57 posted on 06/30/2018 6:47:58 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I saw a werewolf drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Please do forgive me but I do prefer male judges on the Supremes. The existing 3 there are evil satanic hags and I do feel that the half life for women conservative judges will be very short before they go to the dark side and rule life full retard liberals.


58 posted on 06/30/2018 6:48:26 AM PDT by prophetic (Trump is today's DANIEL. Shut the mouth of lions Lord, let his enemies be made the Cat Food instead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cen-Tejas

.………….yeah RIGHT...…….”Freddoso” wants to give the most important job in the US to this human being because said human being is a WOMAN,a catholic, 47, and has 7 kids.

Far from shrewd, 7 kids ought to disqualify her instead of the opposite. I have two and they are both adults and doing fine. But, they can be a huge distraction. With 5 more, particularly depending on their ages, I would pull my hair out by the roots. Ask Sarah Palin about “kids”. Indeed, now that I think about it, I question her JUDGMENT about even having 7 kids.

Give the freaking job to the most solid and most qualified person who has the track record to prove it! I believe Trump will do exactly that.
******************************************************
Jeez... next you’ll be calling her a “breeder”? She has skin in the game when it comes to wanting to see a bright and Constitution-based American Republic in the far future.


59 posted on 06/30/2018 6:48:49 AM PDT by House Atreides (BOYCOTT the NFL, its products and players 100% - PERMANENTLY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MichaelCorleone
Generally, people without kids (and I know there are exceptions) won’t sacrifice too much for the future beyond their own life’s expectancy.

You just countered your own argument and again for those of you who insist this woman having seven kids somehow qualifies her for the USSC - the number of children (if any children at all) one has is IRRELEVANT to the role of a United States Supreme Court Justice.

Case in point: Justice Antonin Scalia and his wife had 9 children. Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife had 1 child. Both justices are easily classified as Strict Constructionists and Constitutional Originalists.

Therefore the ONLY requirement for Kennedy's replacement should be "Strict Constructionist and Constitutional Originalist" in the mold of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, period.

Not whether or not they have a vagina, have had seven children or the rest of the identity politics BULLSHIT being displayed on this thread.

60 posted on 06/30/2018 6:51:24 AM PDT by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-154 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson