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.
The history of evolvers has always been men. The worst ones were Earl Warren, Harry Blackmun, and David Souter. Republican men all. O’Connor was never a solid conservative. The other women have all been picked because they were radicals and leftists.
Oh she even has three names.
How quaint.
Three words: Sandra Day O’Connor
At least it’s not Beauregard. In all seriousness I really do believe that Cruz would be the most likely to ‘evolve.’ One possible out would be an upper age limit to serve, like 70-75. No dementia. No sudden drama. Will the drama go down when the left realizes it doesn’t buy them anything?
here are her other credentials.......”After graduation, Barrett served as a law clerk to Judge Laurence Silberman of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She then spent a year as clerk to Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court from 1998-1999”.
Now you can all accuse me of being a homer for a domer, but she’s pro life all the way and clerking for Silberman and Scalia is as good as it gets. Flame away
46, 7 children, devout Catholic and Notre Dame instead of another justice from Harvard
I’d rather it just be made clear for all federal judges, you either uphold the Constitution as it is written, or you get removed from the bench pronto.
I am so sick of black robed, activist, unaccountable presidents.
O’Connor was never a solid conservative.
*****************************
The pro-lifers of the day opposed her nomination — with good reason.
46, 7 children, devout Catholic and Notre Dame instead of another justice from Harvard
...
I’m sold on her iffffffandonlyif she is proven to not be an open borders immigration catholic.
That may be something of a media creation. She’s listed as “Amy C. Barrett” on the Seventh Circuit website.
Cruz would “evolve”into the Corporatist/Globalist shill he already is. Ultimately these shills would give away our Constitution to a New World Order or a Union of the Americas ala the EU.
Teach your children and grandchildren about this.
Look at her hearings for confirmation to her present position. The baby killer caucus would totally lose it if she were nominated. Would be a great choice for that reason alone.
“Amy Vivian Coney wed Jesse M. Barrett,”
Or it may not.
I need to see she understands Natural Rights vs the tradCath Natural Law.
Any candidate for Supreme Court justice that cannot defend Natural Rights is unfit for the federal bench, much less the highest court.
Hard to argue with that.
You use the term “Globalist”, question... how is this related to interpreting the constitution?
Can you imagine a particular case where globalism (e.g., trades, tariffs, working visas) might be an issue?
All of which makes me interested to know her stance on immigration. Especially the Catholic part. I’m definitely not saying that it follows, as day follows night, that because she’s Catholic she’d be prone to oppose measures to limit immigration, but it’s not out of line to ask the question.
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.