Posted on 07/01/2018 9:03:59 AM PDT by House Atreides
There has been a lot of discussion on the possibility of Trump selecting Judge Barrett as his nominee for the current SCOTUS vacancy. Surprisingly (to me anyhow) there has been a lot of opposition to her expressed here by FReepers with a significant portion because she is a woman and thus viewed as prone to “evolve”. Many FReepers who I know to be women are among those opposed to her because of the view that women Justices are subject to this “evolving”.
Others oppose her because of concern that they don’t know much about her. If you go to the linked site, you may learn some more about her and help fill in some gaps.
What are her views on edicts from the Pope?
Which carries the greater weight.......the Constitution or the Pope?
She is indeed the one Diane Feinstein chastised for her Catholic religious beliefs.
Yes the Pope has called for open borders
I was just looking at the list of judges:
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/judges-biographies/biographies7.htm
I really do believe that Cruz would be the most likely to ‘evolve.Sorry but the self-proclaimed "Constitutional conservative" has already "evolved" when he signed away his constitutional right of veto in favor of Corker's bill giving Obama, Kerry, Iran the anti-American, anti-Israel nuclear deal...along with pallets of cash.
Cruz better thank god a real president that truly understands the Constitution came along and saved his sorry ass.
Cruz should not be anywhere near making constitutional decisions.
We dodged a major bullet by NOT electing that clown President.
The Souter pick will never be forgotten by conservatives. We worry any future Supreme Court selection by the President could be “Souterized”
After watching her talk about Scalia, I think she would adhere to the Scalia model for upholding the Constitution rather than personal preferences. I haven’t done a lot of research on her, but I like what I see and hear so far.
She’s beautiful
Just like I would not vote against her because she’s a woman, I wouldn’t vote for her, just because she’s a woman, either.
I’ve got to see more than Wikipedia type bios before settling. I need to see how eager the MSM, and the dems, are for, or against, her. If they are the least bit in favor of her, DANGER - DANGER - WILL ROBINSON.
Also, thanks to the lib-Pope that we now have, the Catholic thing gives me some concern too. Will she follow the Constitution, or this clown at the Vatican?
We’ll see...
Yes the Pope has called for open borders
************************************
The Pope’s not a constitutionalist, Judge Barrett is.
The Pope’s not a member of the Federalist Society, Judge Barrett is.
The Pope’s not on Trump’s list, Judge Barrett is
“Not Guilty”
Hillsdale let her speak, and did she write for the newsletter Imprimis? That is a good sign...they are picky and only let constitutionalists do so.
If Trump's has to have a woman in this seat (and I understand, but don't agree with the reasoning behind why he would) give me Grant. She's on record as pro 2A and from what I've read of her, there will be no "evolving" down the road.
I agree with the premise that a woman pick for supreme court Justice is a wild card through either misrepresentation of judicial understanding or their evolution on the court. It’s not a bad thing If it’s through their evolution on the court by their own sagacity or simply finding another Judge who they consider brilliant and follow their lead on certain issues.
Scalia attracted a cult following through deference from other SCOTUS members. Smart people recognize geniuses. Geniuses recognize smart people. Everybody else simply believes their opinions are special.
People critic Kennedy as the swing vote and Scalia as a hardliner ... In my mind Kennedy was just the genius on the liberal side of the court and Scalia was the genius of conservative side of the court. That is what hurts the liberals so much. They’re left with far left smart judges and ones that think their opinions are special, but no genius.
This is a good time for another pick by Trump, but by no means does it make the court solidly conservative for “a generation”. For that to happen we would need to replace an absolute leftist with a Scalia type conservative.
Abortion will never be outlawed or a crime until until the court is 7-2. And then with some luck we may squeak out a 5/4 ruling. The best we can hope for is to stop subsidizing abortions with federal dollars and to put the onus on the states to establish their own abortion regulatory laws that are needed to protect the competence of the people in that profession.
“Oh she even has three names.
How quaint.”
Yes, it’s “obligatory” to have a middle name when you’re “important!” It’s a little more forgivable when you are a married woman who may well have had a professional career before marriage. But mostly it’s personal self-agrandizement.
Wife, though not insistent, is often identified w three names and she’s as rock solid as they come. Same core and principles at 62 as she had at 25 when we met.
I’d like to know what she thinks of the pope and what she thinks about the catholic church helping to “resettle refugees”.
No one who becomes a Justice is bound by their answers to Senate inquisitors. The GOP have seated some of the worst liars in history. Orin Hatch of "A president is entitled to his choices" fame gave us RBG.
The pope is not a Catholic either but he is still the pope.
Good post. In a year FReepers will be gushing over “Trump’s Barreta” at SCOTUS.
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.