My Choice....

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,863
60,200
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
Some excellent prospective Justices......but I like this one in particular.


zumaamericastwentyone170927.jpg


  1. "Amy Coney Barrett
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit (Indiana)
Age: 46
Education: Rhodes College; Notre Dame Law School
Clerkships: Laurence Silberman (D.C. Circuit) and Justice Antonin Scalia


Amy Barrett is a judge on the 7th Circuit, which hears appeals from Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

Trump nominated her to that judgeship in the spring of 2017 and she was confirmed last October by a 55-43 vote, with Democratic Sens. Joe Donnelly (Indiana), Tim Kaine (Virginia), and Joe Manchin (West Virginia) voting for her confirmation.

At her confirmation hearing, Senate Democrats chided Barrett for her writings as a law student in 1998 and asked inappropriate questions about her Catholic faith. She responded that “It’s never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they derive from faith or anywhere else, on the law.”

Barrett exhibited grace under fire during her contentious confirmation hearing, and she received robust bipartisan support from the legal community, including from Neal Katyal, a prominent liberal who served as President Barack Obama’s acting solicitor general.

Most of her career has been spent in academia, but following two clerkships, Barrett worked in private practice, where she was part of the team that represented George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore. She briefly taught at George Washington University and the University of Virginia before joining the Notre Dame Law faculty in 2002. She also served on the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure for six years.

Barrett is a prolific writer, having published in leading law reviews across the country on topics including originalism, federal court jurisdiction, and the supervisory power of the Supreme Court. In an article discussing stare decisis and precedent, she explained that “public response to controversial cases like Roe [v. Wade] reflects public rejection of the proposition that stare decisis can declare a permanent victor in a divisive constitutional struggle rather than desire that precedent remain forever unchanging.”

In another article, she examined the conflict between the law and a Catholic judge’s religious views on capital punishment. She and her co-author concluded, “Judges cannot—nor should they try to—align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge. They should, however, conform their own behavior to the Church’s standard.”

Since joining the bench, she has written eight published opinions, including cases dealing with products liability, enforcing arbitration agreements, federal pre-emption, the sentencing guidelines, a disability benefits claim, and debt collection. She has written one dissenting opinion, Schmidt v. Foster, ...


Barrett’s limited judicial opinions and academic writings indicate a commitment to originalism and textualism, much like her former boss, Scalia."
Meet the 6 Stellar Judges Leading the Pack on Trump’s Supreme Court Short List





My second choice would be Aaron Judge.....

 
I like Barrett. Before I make my choice though, I'd would like to hear about the other 4 or 5 other judges Trump is considering.

Aaron Judge LOL.
 
She would be a great choice, for a number of reasons.

Wouldn't it be cool if, when asked about her undying support for Roe v Wade, she would respond truthfully that it was a horrible decision, based on no written, implied, or rational provision of the Constitution?

Then maybe could explain that any decision she would make on the Supreme Court would be based on the facts and circumstances of that case, and not general political preferences, so her exact findings could not be predicted in confirmation hearings.

Then she could explain to those who already should know that even a total repudiation of RvW by the Court would merely mean that the abortion issue would be thrown back to the States, and if the inquiring Senators weren't happy with that result, then they could GET OFF THEIR ASSES AS PROPOSE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, rather than relying on the compromised Supreme Court to implement their [fucking] agenda.

Not holding my breath on that. But I am more than a little concerned about some of the wobblies in the Senate Republican caucus.
 
"While Kavanaugh may be the safest choice, he may not be the best choice. Aaron Blake at WaPo explains why an Amy Barrett nomination would make sense to Trump:


Amy Coney Barrett is thought to be one of the leading contenders and is almost surely one of the two women Trump has now said is on his shortlist ahead of the announcement of the pick July 9. She’s the one female candidate who was on pretty much everybody’s shortlist, in fact.



And she checks a lot of boxes. Like his previous pick, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, she’s young (46), good on her feet, telegenic, unmistakably conservative and, with seven children, has the kind of family you want sitting behind you during tense confirmation hearings. Unlike Gorsuch, of course, she’s a woman — a fact that could help mitigate the onslaught of questions about whether she would help overturn Roe v. Wade. Barrett is also from Indiana, which could apply pressure on its vulnerable Democratic senator, Joe Donnelly, to vote for her.



As far as reinventing the court for decades to come, she’s everything Trump’s base could want.

But she also gives something Trump something less tangible: The opportunity to stoke a culture war.
That would be liberal Democrats’ war against Barrett’s Catholicism. We covered that when she was nominated by Trump for the Court of Appeals, Some worry about anti-Catholic bigotry against 7th Cir. nominee Amy Barrett.

The questioning of Barrett from Democrat Senators smacked of a religious litmus test (meaning, Democrats opposed a Catholic nominee who actually practiced Catholicism)."
A Dem fight over Amy Barrett's Catholicism may be just what Trump wants




One more of the characteristics of Liberals/Democrats that sets them apart from the Founders, ....they despise religion and religious folks.



"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams
 
Some excellent prospective Justices......but I like this one in particular.


zumaamericastwentyone170927.jpg


  1. "Amy Coney Barrett
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit (Indiana)
Age: 46
Education: Rhodes College; Notre Dame Law School
Clerkships: Laurence Silberman (D.C. Circuit) and Justice Antonin Scalia


Amy Barrett is a judge on the 7th Circuit, which hears appeals from Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

Trump nominated her to that judgeship in the spring of 2017 and she was confirmed last October by a 55-43 vote, with Democratic Sens. Joe Donnelly (Indiana), Tim Kaine (Virginia), and Joe Manchin (West Virginia) voting for her confirmation.

At her confirmation hearing, Senate Democrats chided Barrett for her writings as a law student in 1998 and asked inappropriate questions about her Catholic faith. She responded that “It’s never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they derive from faith or anywhere else, on the law.”

Barrett exhibited grace under fire during her contentious confirmation hearing, and she received robust bipartisan support from the legal community, including from Neal Katyal, a prominent liberal who served as President Barack Obama’s acting solicitor general.

Most of her career has been spent in academia, but following two clerkships, Barrett worked in private practice, where she was part of the team that represented George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore. She briefly taught at George Washington University and the University of Virginia before joining the Notre Dame Law faculty in 2002. She also served on the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure for six years.

Barrett is a prolific writer, having published in leading law reviews across the country on topics including originalism, federal court jurisdiction, and the supervisory power of the Supreme Court. In an article discussing stare decisis and precedent, she explained that “public response to controversial cases like Roe [v. Wade] reflects public rejection of the proposition that stare decisis can declare a permanent victor in a divisive constitutional struggle rather than desire that precedent remain forever unchanging.”

In another article, she examined the conflict between the law and a Catholic judge’s religious views on capital punishment. She and her co-author concluded, “Judges cannot—nor should they try to—align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge. They should, however, conform their own behavior to the Church’s standard.”

Since joining the bench, she has written eight published opinions, including cases dealing with products liability, enforcing arbitration agreements, federal pre-emption, the sentencing guidelines, a disability benefits claim, and debt collection. She has written one dissenting opinion, Schmidt v. Foster, ...


Barrett’s limited judicial opinions and academic writings indicate a commitment to originalism and textualism, much like her former boss, Scalia."
Meet the 6 Stellar Judges Leading the Pack on Trump’s Supreme Court Short List





My second choice would be Aaron Judge.....

Stone cold shitlord. She's perfect.
 
She would be a great choice, for a number of reasons.

Wouldn't it be cool if, when asked about her undying support for Roe v Wade, she would respond truthfully that it was a horrible decision, based on no written, implied, or rational provision of the Constitution?

If asked about Roe v. Wade, all she has to do is lie and say she's unbiased and that it's "settled law." I think going into too much detail will hurt her chances of being nominated... She might as well keep the answer short and simple, so she can move on to other subjects that won't affect the number of votes she gets nearly as much.

Murkowski and Collins have too much power because they want to act like Democrats even though they technically have an "R" next to their name. Any time a huge issue comes up, they're always quick to break from the Republicans. It's about time we had a far right woman Senator for once.
 
  • "Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch wrote an op-ed article on Friday to bolster President Donald Trump's soon-to-be-announced Supreme Court nominee in which he referred to the pick with the pronouns "her" and "she."
  • Trump has a shortlist of potential nominees, but there's only one woman on it: Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett."
Trump's shortlist of potential nominees has been narrowed down to just a few candidates. Amy Coney Barrett, a circuit court judge, is the only woman on the list at the moment.

A top Republican senator offered a potentially massive clue about the identity of Trump's Supreme Court pick
 
She would be a great choice, for a number of reasons.

Wouldn't it be cool if, when asked about her undying support for Roe v Wade, she would respond truthfully that it was a horrible decision, based on no written, implied, or rational provision of the Constitution?

If asked about Roe v. Wade, all she has to do is lie and say she's unbiased and that it's "settled law." I think going into too much detail will hurt her chances of being nominated... She might as well keep the answer short and simple, so she can move on to other subjects that won't affect the number of votes she gets nearly as much.

Murkowski and Collins have too much power because they want to act like Democrats even though they technically have an "R" next to their name. Any time a huge issue comes up, they're always quick to break from the Republicans. It's about time we had a far right woman Senator for once.


I believe the point must be made, that even if the court posits an end to Roe, it would simply be a state decision about abortion....
...exactly as it was meant to be by the Constitution.....

...see Article 1, section 8
Section 8 - The Text
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; —And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.



Justices should support federalism.
 
It seems that these top the list: Barrett, Thapar, Kethledge, Kavanaugh

I am against Kavanaugh because he a Bush Jr insider GOP cuck that helped pick a bad SCOTUS for Bush Jr in snake Roberts. Although he has ruled against Illegal cases before and clerked for retiring Kennedy... still he upheld Obamacare law, and is not a constitution hardcore textualist which is a problem. He feels like those cucks that likes to “intellectually compromise” and those always get their shit pushed in by liberals.

Barrett, Thapar, Kethledge are considered Constitutional textualist.

Kethledge & Barrett proven Conservatives: Kethledge defended tea-party against Obama's fascist IRS political targeting. He clerked for retiring Kennedy and he might be like Gorsuch 2.0. Barrett clerked for GOAT Conservative Scalia, and has not had 1 SJW liberal ruling. Thapar considered very Scalia like, hardcore Conservative, that stopped talking to his cuck liberal dad.

Barrett's views and opinions seem to align closely with Judge Clarence Thomas. Reminder that the most Conservative SCOTUS upholding/protecting American Constitution fiercely since Scalia was “natural deaded” is Justice Clarence Thomas. She everything that leftists fear and hate: conservative, religious, mother of 7 (two adopted), believes in traditional family, and therefore she would be my preference for the SCOTUS.
 
She would be a great choice, for a number of reasons.

Wouldn't it be cool if, when asked about her undying support for Roe v Wade, she would respond truthfully that it was a horrible decision, based on no written, implied, or rational provision of the Constitution?

Then maybe could explain that any decision she would make on the Supreme Court would be based on the facts and circumstances of that case, and not general political preferences, so her exact findings could not be predicted in confirmation hearings.

Then she could explain to those who already should know that even a total repudiation of RvW by the Court would merely mean that the abortion issue would be thrown back to the States, and if the inquiring Senators weren't happy with that result, then they could GET OFF THEIR ASSES AS PROPOSE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, rather than relying on the compromised Supreme Court to implement their [fucking] agenda.

Not holding my breath on that. But I am more than a little concerned about some of the wobblies in the Senate Republican caucus.

If we relied on the legislature to get off its ass,

Segregation would still be legal.
Contraception would still be illegal.
Goofy sex laws would still be on the books.

Here's the ugly truth you anti-Choice nuts don't want to admit. before Roe v. Wade, there were abortion laws on the books that everyone was ignoring. Doctors performed abortions and wrote something else down on the charts.

There was no drop in the birth rate in 1973.

Women were never arrested for having abortions and doctors were never prosecuted for performing them.
 
I suspect tomorrow news will be that leading SCOTUS contender Amy Coney Barrett has been accused of savagely beating her ex-boyfriend with a stilletto in 2003.

2jc6gd2.jpg
 
Some excellent prospective Justices......but I like this one in particular.


zumaamericastwentyone170927.jpg


  1. "Amy Coney Barrett
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit (Indiana)
Age: 46
Education: Rhodes College; Notre Dame Law School
Clerkships: Laurence Silberman (D.C. Circuit) and Justice Antonin Scalia


Amy Barrett is a judge on the 7th Circuit, which hears appeals from Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

Trump nominated her to that judgeship in the spring of 2017 and she was confirmed last October by a 55-43 vote, with Democratic Sens. Joe Donnelly (Indiana), Tim Kaine (Virginia), and Joe Manchin (West Virginia) voting for her confirmation.

At her confirmation hearing, Senate Democrats chided Barrett for her writings as a law student in 1998 and asked inappropriate questions about her Catholic faith. She responded that “It’s never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they derive from faith or anywhere else, on the law.”

Barrett exhibited grace under fire during her contentious confirmation hearing, and she received robust bipartisan support from the legal community, including from Neal Katyal, a prominent liberal who served as President Barack Obama’s acting solicitor general.

Most of her career has been spent in academia, but following two clerkships, Barrett worked in private practice, where she was part of the team that represented George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore. She briefly taught at George Washington University and the University of Virginia before joining the Notre Dame Law faculty in 2002. She also served on the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure for six years.

Barrett is a prolific writer, having published in leading law reviews across the country on topics including originalism, federal court jurisdiction, and the supervisory power of the Supreme Court. In an article discussing stare decisis and precedent, she explained that “public response to controversial cases like Roe [v. Wade] reflects public rejection of the proposition that stare decisis can declare a permanent victor in a divisive constitutional struggle rather than desire that precedent remain forever unchanging.”

In another article, she examined the conflict between the law and a Catholic judge’s religious views on capital punishment. She and her co-author concluded, “Judges cannot—nor should they try to—align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge. They should, however, conform their own behavior to the Church’s standard.”

Since joining the bench, she has written eight published opinions, including cases dealing with products liability, enforcing arbitration agreements, federal pre-emption, the sentencing guidelines, a disability benefits claim, and debt collection. She has written one dissenting opinion, Schmidt v. Foster, ...


Barrett’s limited judicial opinions and academic writings indicate a commitment to originalism and textualism, much like her former boss, Scalia."
Meet the 6 Stellar Judges Leading the Pack on Trump’s Supreme Court Short List





My second choice would be Aaron Judge.....
She would have to change her rhetoric or be removed from the bench for not keeping the separation of church and state
 
Some excellent prospective Justices......but I like this one in particular.


zumaamericastwentyone170927.jpg


  1. "Amy Coney Barrett
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit (Indiana)
Age: 46
Education: Rhodes College; Notre Dame Law School
Clerkships: Laurence Silberman (D.C. Circuit) and Justice Antonin Scalia


Amy Barrett is a judge on the 7th Circuit, which hears appeals from Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

Trump nominated her to that judgeship in the spring of 2017 and she was confirmed last October by a 55-43 vote, with Democratic Sens. Joe Donnelly (Indiana), Tim Kaine (Virginia), and Joe Manchin (West Virginia) voting for her confirmation.

At her confirmation hearing, Senate Democrats chided Barrett for her writings as a law student in 1998 and asked inappropriate questions about her Catholic faith. She responded that “It’s never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they derive from faith or anywhere else, on the law.”

Barrett exhibited grace under fire during her contentious confirmation hearing, and she received robust bipartisan support from the legal community, including from Neal Katyal, a prominent liberal who served as President Barack Obama’s acting solicitor general.

Most of her career has been spent in academia, but following two clerkships, Barrett worked in private practice, where she was part of the team that represented George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore. She briefly taught at George Washington University and the University of Virginia before joining the Notre Dame Law faculty in 2002. She also served on the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure for six years.

Barrett is a prolific writer, having published in leading law reviews across the country on topics including originalism, federal court jurisdiction, and the supervisory power of the Supreme Court. In an article discussing stare decisis and precedent, she explained that “public response to controversial cases like Roe [v. Wade] reflects public rejection of the proposition that stare decisis can declare a permanent victor in a divisive constitutional struggle rather than desire that precedent remain forever unchanging.”

In another article, she examined the conflict between the law and a Catholic judge’s religious views on capital punishment. She and her co-author concluded, “Judges cannot—nor should they try to—align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge. They should, however, conform their own behavior to the Church’s standard.”

Since joining the bench, she has written eight published opinions, including cases dealing with products liability, enforcing arbitration agreements, federal pre-emption, the sentencing guidelines, a disability benefits claim, and debt collection. She has written one dissenting opinion, Schmidt v. Foster, ...


Barrett’s limited judicial opinions and academic writings indicate a commitment to originalism and textualism, much like her former boss, Scalia."
Meet the 6 Stellar Judges Leading the Pack on Trump’s Supreme Court Short List





My second choice would be Aaron Judge.....
She would have to change her rhetoric or be removed from the bench for not keeping the separation of church and state

I agree that church and state should be separated. But, could you just point to the place in Constitution where it says exactly that?
 
Some excellent prospective Justices......but I like this one in particular.


zumaamericastwentyone170927.jpg


  1. "Amy Coney Barrett
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit (Indiana)
Age: 46
Education: Rhodes College; Notre Dame Law School
Clerkships: Laurence Silberman (D.C. Circuit) and Justice Antonin Scalia


Amy Barrett is a judge on the 7th Circuit, which hears appeals from Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

Trump nominated her to that judgeship in the spring of 2017 and she was confirmed last October by a 55-43 vote, with Democratic Sens. Joe Donnelly (Indiana), Tim Kaine (Virginia), and Joe Manchin (West Virginia) voting for her confirmation.

At her confirmation hearing, Senate Democrats chided Barrett for her writings as a law student in 1998 and asked inappropriate questions about her Catholic faith. She responded that “It’s never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they derive from faith or anywhere else, on the law.”

Barrett exhibited grace under fire during her contentious confirmation hearing, and she received robust bipartisan support from the legal community, including from Neal Katyal, a prominent liberal who served as President Barack Obama’s acting solicitor general.

Most of her career has been spent in academia, but following two clerkships, Barrett worked in private practice, where she was part of the team that represented George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore. She briefly taught at George Washington University and the University of Virginia before joining the Notre Dame Law faculty in 2002. She also served on the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure for six years.

Barrett is a prolific writer, having published in leading law reviews across the country on topics including originalism, federal court jurisdiction, and the supervisory power of the Supreme Court. In an article discussing stare decisis and precedent, she explained that “public response to controversial cases like Roe [v. Wade] reflects public rejection of the proposition that stare decisis can declare a permanent victor in a divisive constitutional struggle rather than desire that precedent remain forever unchanging.”

In another article, she examined the conflict between the law and a Catholic judge’s religious views on capital punishment. She and her co-author concluded, “Judges cannot—nor should they try to—align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge. They should, however, conform their own behavior to the Church’s standard.”

Since joining the bench, she has written eight published opinions, including cases dealing with products liability, enforcing arbitration agreements, federal pre-emption, the sentencing guidelines, a disability benefits claim, and debt collection. She has written one dissenting opinion, Schmidt v. Foster, ...


Barrett’s limited judicial opinions and academic writings indicate a commitment to originalism and textualism, much like her former boss, Scalia."
Meet the 6 Stellar Judges Leading the Pack on Trump’s Supreme Court Short List





My second choice would be Aaron Judge.....




Amy Coney Barrett — The strongest record, a scholar, former Scalia clerk, hated by liberals because she’s seen as ‘too Catholic’ and thus a risk to Roe v. Wade. Was seriously considered when Kavanaugh was nominated in 2018, but passed over because Kavanaugh was seen as safer (hah!), and also did not have as extensive an appellate record as Kavanaugh. Her appeals court nomination was hotly contested (55-43 vote), so she’s been vetted more so than most appellate nominees. All the above combined with her having 7 children (5 biological, 2 adopted from Haiti) cause liberal feminist heads to explode.


Analysis. The following is premised on Trump pushing for a pre-election confirmation vote: Assuming, as almost everyone does, that it comes down to Barrett and Lagoa, it’s a competition between ideological strength (advantage Barrett) and electoral strength (advantage Lagoa). Regardless of who is nominated, Democrats are going to go scorched earth. Don’t assume it will be worse against Barrett than Lagoa, Democrats historically have displayed particular viciousness for ‘minority’ conservative nominees (Clarence Thomas, Miguel Estrada, Neomi Rao). But that presents a dilemma. Assuming Trump pushes for a preelection vote and is not sabotaged by Senate Republicans, Kavanaughing Lagoa in the run up to the election could harm Biden in crucial Florida. That has to be a consideration for Trump. Also balance that Barrett has tasted Democrat fire already, whereas Lagoa has not; nominating a relative unknown carries greater vetting risks. Also consider this: Susan Collins is known to be hostile to Barrett, and while Collins has said the Senate “should” wait, she will will have a vote and it might be easier to bring her along at the end if it’s not Barrett and Mitch McConnell needs her vote to confirm. Rushing is the wild card — she is ideologically strong, but would Trump nominate someone so young in such a sensitive contested timeline?
 

Forum List

Back
Top