Oh she even has three names.
How quaint.
Three words: Sandra Day O’Connor
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
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.
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...
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.
Good post. In a year FReepers will be gushing over “Trump’s Barreta” at SCOTUS.
I’m not opposed to female SCOTUS justices.
We currently have FOUR!
Only about 36% of U.S. Court of Appeals judges are women.
This is the pool that Supreme Court justices should be chosen from. We already have a court that is 44% female!
Is it a good idea to make it 56%?
Males are a large majority in the pool of prospects. Why should they be a MINORITY on the Supreme Court?
They shouldn’t!
I never—I should say rarely—trust a woman who uses hyphens or three names.
How about, after a court decision, each Justice be required to write a brief report, stating the part of the Constitution they used to form their opinion, and cast their vote?
This would require them to at least think about their guiding principles, rather than their emotional “wisdom”.
Some accountability, as this, would put an end to much of the activism.
Just watched her and Joan Larsen’s confirmation hearing. Both are very impressive I would have no problem with either sitting on the Supreme Court.