Posted on 09/20/2020 6:21:38 PM PDT by MagillaX
President Donald Trump is closely considering two conservative women to fill Ruth Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court.
According to people familiar with the process, one of those potential picks is Barbara Lagoa, a seasoned Florida judge with Cuban roots.
Here’s what you need to know about Lagoa: A trailblazer for women and Latinos
A Florida native, Lagoa was the first Hispanic woman to serve on the Florida Supreme Court. If nominated to the nation’s high court by Trump and confirmed by the Senate, she would be the second Latino justice to ever serve. Current Justice Sonia Sotomayor became the first when she was nominated by former President Barack Obama.
If nominated and confirmed, Lagoa would be the fifth woman to serve on the Supreme Court. She's been vetted
Trump nominated Lagoa to serve on 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2019. She was confirmed by the Senate in a bipartisan vote, which could help ease her path to the court if she’s selected by the president again. She could serve for a long while
At 52, Lagoa would be the youngest justice on the Supreme Court, just a few months behind one of Trump’s other nominees, Neil Gorsuch. A lifetime appointment to the court would allow her to serve for decades to come. A deep legal background
After graduating from Columbia Law School, Lagoa worked as a pro bono lawyer for Elian Gonzalez’s family and later as a federal prosecutor. Lagoa then spent more than a decade as a judge on a Florida appeals court before being picked by Gov. Ron DeSantis to serve on the state’s supreme court.
"She has been the essence of what a judge should be,” DeSantis said when he nominated her.
Lagoa is married to Paul C. Huck, an attorney. They have three daughters.
(Excerpt) Read more at politic.com ...
There was discussion at the jobsite this AM about this-most of us-myself-included would be delighted if Texas and some other red states seceded, turned state lines into borders and took pres Trump with us and start over, sticking strictly to the constitution-that would be our ideal solution to the current leftist/anarchist crime wave-but since the ideal solution myself and my coworkers want isn’t the same one that all conservatives want, I’m just not going to bitch and fall on my sword over it-I’m going to trust pres Trump to make a pick that will best unite conservatives of all kinds-that is the only way to win...
With all that is going on, a SC pick that does not unite conservatives is not a strong weapon against that pack of hyenas called the democrat party-we do need someone pro-life, pro 2nd amendment and pro states’ rights-in case the SHTF at some time so we can make sure our unborn can’t be murdered before/at birth, and defend ourselves and our God given rights...
History has proven that many SCOTUS Jurists selected by Republican President’s start out Conservative but eventually succumb to the Dark Side.
Sandra Day O’connor was selected by Ronaldus Magnus Reaganous and still ended to being a disappointment.
(The same can be said of many Republican Senators).
Th DEMONcRATS do not have the same issue. They stick together like Glue. You will never see a Leftist Judge have a change of heart and start Ruling in support of the Constitution,
She has NO record on the Life issue and unequivocally confirm Roe as settled law and vowed to uphold SC precedent at her federal hearings. Of course they all are forced to say that with our idiotic legal system, BUT she has no history on the abortion issue. Being Catholic is useless as tits on a bull. Pelosi and Kennedy’s are Catholic. It means nothing to be a Catholic, it’s just something you do.
And the sun will set in the west.
Immediately disqualifying.
NEXT!!
I don't think the issue is what many of them started as off solid conservatives and then went wayward and slowly "evolved" into backstabbing liberal douchebags, but rather that many simply weren't very conservative to BEGIN with -- the GOP president appointing the judge and the GOP base cheering him on every step of the way just ASSUMED the judge was.
Harry Blackmun certainly started off as a pretty decent conservative in his early years on SCOTUS, and later went off the deep end. John Paul Stevens started off a bland centrist without any strong opinions, and later became so far left, he'd make Bernie Sanders blush. And I think the John Roberts of 2020 is significantly LESS conservative than the John Roberts of 2005.
The rest, I think, were "disappointments" from the START.
It was clear almost IMMEDIATELY after his appointment that Earl Warren was a rabid liberal activist in GOP drag. David Souter also showed his true colors right after being appointed, when he kept the SAME liberal law clerks from the previous DemonRat judge whose seat he inherited, and after those clerks "moved on", he had them simply choose their own successors (so he got a brand new set of liberal Democrat clerks every session). Sandra Day O'Connor and Neil Gorsuch were "disappointments" for virtually the same reason -- both were clearly card-carrying loyal Republicans who held a number of undoubtedly conservative views on various issues, which lead a bunch of gullible fools on our side to assuming they were ACROSS the board conservatives, especially since both marketed themselves as strict constructionists. In reality, neither was a social conservative, and could easily be swayed to vote with the commie Democrats on the court when it came to their SJW agenda like 'gay rights'
>> Th DEMONcRATS do not have the same issue. They stick together like Glue. You will never see a Leftist Judge have a change of heart and start Ruling in support of the Constitution <<
Untrue. Impy was talking just the other day that some lifelong Democrat judge appointed by the Chicago machine has turned out to be a decent judge worthy of being retained for another term. Maybe of the 5% of Crook County machine Democrat judges are decent, and tick off the liberal base (they were up in arms a few year ago, vowing to remove of their judges who refused to let some militant lesbian couple adopt a child). Another Crook County machine Democrat judge struct down the Democrats extra Amazon sales tax for internet purchases as unconstitutional. It's rare, but it DOES happen.
On SCOTUS, the best examples from the last 100 years are only two clear cases: Woodrow Wilson appointed James Clark McReynolds with the expectation that he'd be a loyal "progressive" RAT who rubber stamped all kinds of socialist and globalist policies, but McReynolds instead turned out to be a staunch conservative who continually struck down anything and everything New Deal related. JFK appointed Byron White with the expectation that he'd be a bootlicker for the DemonRat agenda, but instead White turned out to be a fiercely independent right-of-center judge who voted pro-life and pro-law-and-order.
As for why the Dems have a track record of getting the kinds of judges they want 95% of the time, but the GOP only has a track record of about 50%, I chalk it up to different approaches. The Dems look for people whose career track record demonstrates they are sincerely committed to leftist dogma across the board (like Clinton choosing some man-hating feminazi lawyer for the ACLU to be his SCOTUS pick). The GOP, on the other hand, simply pick murky career federal judges who say their "judicial philosophy" is "originalist" or "strict constructionist". That is basically the equivalent of some politician running for office as a "FISCAL conservative". It's a nice sounding buzz word that basically amounts to nothing, so its basically a crapshot whether the judge will ACTUALLY be conservative or not.
Mitch may not have 50 votes for your ideal candidate. With limited time before election and next inauguration, there is no time remaining for a do-over.
In case you fail to understand that, what it means is if the first Trump nominee fails to get 50 votes, next nominee could very well be a Biden nominee.
One thing that annoyed me with respect to Sandra Day O’Connor is that President Reagan was warned straight up she was NOT a Conservative, showed the proof, but he arrogantly insisted on sticking her on the court anyway. Some diary entry he made over this was troubling. Unfortunately, the Anthony Kennedy appointment was the worst of his, as his Obergefell dictate will remain one of the most egregious in the history of the Republic.
>> I’m going to trust pres Trump-he did fine on the two justices he already got on the SC <<
..............................................
I agree with your criticisms of the above statement which, by the way, was NOT posted by me!
If whoever Trump nominates does not receive 50 votes in senate, there is no time left for a do-over. Your next SCOTUS justice could be a Biden nominee.
If RBG had kicked the bucket 6 months back, there would have been time available for multiple fights for more than one nominee.
So what is your plan “B” if Amy Barret fails to get 50 votes? The clock runs out and next nominee could be Kamala Harris’s choice.
You stick with fundamentals and use any means possible to destroy your opponent (Even within your political Party). Thune better get his ass in gear and start whipping the crap out of the Senate Republicans.
Are you aware that a Kamala Harris nominee will not only bite you in the ass (as you put it) but chew your gonads off and spit them out?
I don’t trust anyone on judges.
It’s always a crap shoot.
Elian and she ignored STUPID calls to recuse on the Florida Felon vote case.
I’m close to sold.
Yep. We are 6 weeks from losing the White House & Senate. And getting a Biden judge.
We need someone who impresses and helps with the election ... and gets confirmed. And, in the future, retires during a GOP Administration.
Barrett will be a train wreck. And she’s no Scalia.
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.