Posted on 07/04/2018 1:49:49 PM PDT by springwater13
Ann Coulter unloaded on Judge Raymond Kethledge, one of the judges President Donald Trump interviewed to potentially replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, on Twitter Wednesday.
“Hardiman & Kethledge are open borders zealots,” the New York Times best-selling author and populist conservative columnist said in the most explosive of her tweets.
The tweet followed one in which she chastised those on the right pushing for Kethledge, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, as repeating the mistakes of the past that led to Republican administrations nominating judges, such as Justice David Souter, who became massive disappointments to conservatives.
Coulter, a University of Michigan Law School grad, threw her weight behind Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the D.C. Circuit, comparing his record on immigration, the issue on which Coulter most closely focuses, to the other reported candidates. She also pointed to Kavanaugh’s strength on the Second Amendment.
Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who has emerged as a conservative favorite in the nomination process, was also featured in Coulter’s analysis. Coulter did not explicitly attack Barrett, but explained her preference for Kavanugh by pointing to Barrett’s relative lack of experience. Barrett has only been a judge for seven months and has never ruled on a wide variety of issues. Coulter saw her as a potential “blank slate” and warned against nominating anyone on the basis of being a woman.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
https://www.dailywire.com/news/32643/watch-judge-amy-barrett-speaks-about-difficult-frank-camp
During a November 3, 2016 lecture at Jacksonville University, Judge Amy Coney Barrett offered an excellent answer to a question posed about SCOTUS selection.
Richard A. Mullaney, director of the Jacksonville University Public Policy Institute, asked Barrett:
[In the third presidential debate], Chris Wallace asked this question, which I think relates to how you select judges and what it might mean ... what criteria are you looking for when you go to pick the next Justice?
...Hillary Clinton mentioned she wanted someone who protected individual rights and minority rights. Donald Trump mentioned he wanted somebody pro-life. Neither of these, of course, are very Scalia-like, and so I’d like you to comment on that versus the selection criteria based on your view as a constitutional law professor as to what we’re looking for in a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.
Barrett replied:
Those kinds of answers are, I think, what’s wrong with our nomination process. To say, “I want to appoint someone who is pro-life” or “I want to appoint someone whose primary focus is protecting minority rights,” the candidates are talking to their bases and talking to the electorate, and saying, “Signal – I’m gonna put people on the Court who share your policy preferences.”
As I was saying before, I think that’s not the right qualification for a Justice. I mean, we shouldn’t be putting people on the Court that share our policy preferences; we should be putting people on the Court who want to apply the Constitution and, by the way, on the individual rights or the minority rights, when the Constitution demands that minority rights be protected, that’s what we want Justices to do. That’s their job.
I use the example with my constitutional law students of Odysseus resisting the sirens. That the Constitution is like – you know, Odysseus ties himself to the mast to resist the song of the sirens and he tells his crew, “Don’t untie me, no matter how much I plead.” That’s what we’ve done as the American people with the Constitution.
We’ve said, you know, it’s the people sober appealing to the people drunk; that when you are tempted to get carried away by your passions and trample upon the First Amendment rights or minority rights, this document will hold you back, and it’s the job of the Justices – of judges generally – but then ultimately the Supreme Court, for the exercise of judicial review, to tell us – like in the flag burning case.
We understand you people, you American citizens, that you want to protect your flag, but you’ve made a more fundamental commitment to free speech that ties your hands and you can’t do so. That’s what it’s about. It’s not about “I like flag desecration/I don’t like flag desecration,” it’s about – are you going to enforce the limits that are there? But then, if the people do something you don’t like, if it’s not one of those situations where the hands are tied, Odysseus is tied to the mast, that you have the courage and integrity to say, “I’m not going to interfere in the democratic process. If the Constitution doesn’t restrict your ability to do, electorate, what you’ve decided to do in this particular statute you’ve enacted, then I’m [not going to] interfere. I will resist the temptation as a judge to impose my preferences on you and say that you are limited in the policies that you want to pursue.”
Trump is Pro-Life but he campaigned on the Wall.
Every single rally was that wall.
Ann Coulter, either does not understand or else does not care for the reality that President Trump cannot “build a wall” on his own, if Congress provides no funding for its construction. Nor may the president use appropriated money for anything other than the line items to which those expenditures were directed by Congress.
Apparently, Ann has never read the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Pub.L. 93–344, 88 Stat. 297, 2 U.S.C. §§ 601–688).
Perhaps Miss Coulter should run for President. But then her self-promoting opportunism would be exposed. Then these nauseating venomous public tirades, to which she often now resorts over Trump’s “failure to build the wall,” would be revealed as being nothing more than her exercise in intellectual dishonesty and demagoguery.
To be blunt, Ann Coulter needs to shut her yap; because, lately, she makes a fool of herself each time she opens it.
The fact that the Democrats fear him the most, is the decider.
My only question is: he spent all this time in DC?? Always dicey. DC is a meat market bar none, and given Kavanaugh has been on the SCOTUS radar going back to Shrub, any woman who he so much as bumped into in an elevator has already cashed in at the DNC for her fake story...
Nice.
I remind you that there sat no women on the SCOTUS when Roe v. Wade declared abortion a constitutional right.
ditto
Instead of comparing what this talking head has to say about a particular judge vs what another talking head thinks, I say who cares what they think?
Since we don’t have sway with the President, I’d rather spend my time praying for the Good Lord Above to give guidance to President Trump and inspire him in this very important choice. Leave it to the Lord. May His will be done.
Amen
Did you read the article? Coulter references 2 appeals court decisions he made that are weak on immigration.
One should be wary about women when “cchildren” are part of a case in front of her.Overturnning Roe v Wade would be unfavorably balanced if she turned out to be essentially an open borders or and Amnesty judge.
In Japarkulova v. Holder, Kethledge recognized—over a dissent from a liberal judge—that courts must defer to the executive branch's determination that an immigrant is not eligible for asylum. Even though the petitioner had a compelling life story, Kethledge upheld the law.
In Mora v. Holder, the petitioner entered the US legally at age 14 but then overstayed his visa. Kethledge noted that if the petitioner had been a citizen, “we would call him a model one.” But Judge Kethledge recognized that the courts lacked authority to grant him relief.
In his more than 10 years on the bench, Judge Kethledge has encountered hundreds of immigration cases. He shows no favoritism to immigrants--or to the government, for that matter--and instead focuses only on applying the laws passed by Congress as they are written. Kethledge paid his own way through law school after working as a waiter and (new) car salesman. He delivered pizzas for Dominos and did landscaping during college. And he’s spent the last 3+ decades in Michigan. He would bring some much needed perspective from middle America.
Absolutely. I'm sure Barrett is against abortion, however on open borders it is still a question mark. One troubling sign is that she has adopted Haitian children.
On one level, perhaps laudable. But is also signifies compasssssssion for turd worlders, and combine that with her church's public positions, and the emotional appeal of "the children" separated from their mamacitas. Well, if I were a betting man, I'd bet that Barrett would come down on the side of mamacita and her poor little niños.
She has to know. She’s not stupid
She backed Romney too.
Then, as I stated, she is being disingenuous. Which tells me it’s all about selling her next book - as I stated, an unprincipled opportunist.
Click the link to the article. It posts tweet by Coulter proving her case.
We have had three women on the court. They have all been liberals. Why take the chance with another female? I fail to see the benefit.
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.