Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court Justice

[Jeanne_S]

Exactly,great observation! I think the Republicans are through playing Charlie Brown to the Dems Lucy.They have had the football pulled away far too many times.Not anymore!

 

[Vanny]

I’m asking this because A: Trump released his and appointed someone
And; B: We are being asked to wait until after the election for the next
elected President to appoint someone. Since Trump let us know his picks,
maybe Joe Biden should give us a hint on his. But-I think Amy Coney Barrett
is a fantastic pick so it doesn’t matter to me. But I would like to know who
Joe Biden would consider should he be elected this November, that’s all. If he doesn’t-he doesn’t.

 

[phil19034]

If I was Trump, I think I would wait, as appointing a replacement in the next term would be an incentive to vote for him.

And to be clear, if you were the President and waited, you would become the first president to ever do so in American history.

John Adams even appointed a person to the Supreme Court and had them confirmed after Adams lost his re-election to Thomas Jefferson.

 

[phil19034]

Good point. This could backfire on Trump big time. People only voting for him because of his Supreme Court picks might say “OK, he’s done what I wanted with the courts. But I don’t like all the other stuff he’s done, so I’m voting for Biden.”

And if that’s what happens, that’s what happens.

 

[whatistrue]

B: We are being asked to wait until after the election for the next
elected President to appoint someone.

And not for the first time. Sometimes it has worked and sometimes not. Depends mostly on the political situation at the time. Putting out a list of potential SC nominations has never, as far as I can recall (and that is a very long time relatively speaking), unlike the expectation that a President, or even a viable candidate, should release their tax returns. So it seems to me that you are either developing this “expectation” on your own out of whole cloth, or maybe repeating talking points. Either way, it is weak.

 

[Diaconia]

I believe both the Chief and Associate Justices receive security details.

Many (maybe most?) have private security already (that they pay for themselves) as federal judges before being nominated to the high court.

She’s a brilliant pick, and I can’t wait until she’s seated on the supreme court.

Deacon Christopher

 

[Vanny]

I would hope the considerations are not far left radicals, is all.

 

[whatistrue]

But far right radicals are okay?

ETA: I prefer to have a bunch of boring non-radical intellectual heavyweights for my SC justices, thankyouverymuch.

 

[Convert3]

CNN Reports Amy Coney Barrett Attended Bizarre Ceremony Where She Ate Flesh, Drank Blood Of Jewish Guy | Babylon Bee

For those who need a laugh!

 

[on_the_hill]

In the most charitable terms, I think he was not mentally, psychologically, emotionally prepared for the job, was overwhelmed from the start and hasn’t been able to handle it.

I blame the media for his presidency, because if they had ignored him as a sideshow then he never would’ve been elected. Instead they put his antics on display and people bought him.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

I cannot recall a single moment of my adult life when I did not long to be a father.

That’s a fine thing, but it’s important to understand that many people do not experience such a longing. They should not be thought the lesser of for that.

Understood and agreed, but I’d hate to see this become the default position of a large portion of mankind. I think Genesis backs me up in asserting that “be fruitful and multiply” is far more of a mandate and an obligation, than a suggestion and an invitation. Thankfully most people still have children.

I always say that one difference between Protestants and Catholics, is that Protestants say “when you get married”, whereas Catholics say “if you get married”. The medieval Catholic ideal (sorry, I can’t find a source, I just know I read this one time) was that one-third of society would marry and have children, one-third stays single, and one-third follows a priestly or religious vocation. Given that ideal, perhaps BF&M is more of an “invitation”. But even if so, it was an “invitation” that I didn’t need, I would have done it regardless.

HomeschoolDad:

I’m referring to taking one position at one time, under one set of circumstances, and then adopting another position at a later time, under a different set of circumstances that were unforeseen at the outset.

What are the different circumstances here?

Having perhaps one last opportunity for the next four years, and maybe many years beyond that, to nominate and confirm a justice who may reasonably be foreseen possibly to make some small dent in the present abortion-on-demand legal environment.

I may lose my ACA insurance subsidy over this — ACB is said to be opposed to ACA. So be it. I can always invade capital (with which I’m trying to be very, very frugal), get a job that offers employee health insurance, or get a part-time job to pay the premiums. I’m not eligible for Medicare for five more years. It would be worth it, to have some chance of saving the unborn. ACA is being paid for with government debt anyway, debt that should never have been taken on in the first place. If I’m not willing to take this chance, I’m no better than the various sectors of the electorate who vote Democratic to preserve the interests of their respective identity groups and intersectionalities.

 

[whatistrue]

Having perhaps one last opportunity

Okay. I disagree with your conclusion, but it is consistent and arrived at logically, given the initial assumptions.

I have every expectation that he was asserting the beautiful Haitian children have good genes as well.

And here we differ. I have no faith whatsoever that he really meant that. He may claim it to avoid pushback, but I don’t believe he meant it that way in his heart of hearts. And that is based on his words and actions over many more years than he has been in office.

 

[MikeInVA]

But far right radicals are okay?

And what is so radical about his pick?

 

[Ridgerunner]

In the most charitable terms, I think he was not mentally, psychologically, emotionally prepared for the job, was overwhelmed from the start and hasn’t been able to handle it.

I blame the media for his presidency, because if they had ignored him as a sideshow then he never would’ve been elected. Instead they put his antics on display and people bought him.

I realize it’s Democratic gospel to believe these things. But if you look at his policy actions, they’re entirely rational. Not only rational, they’re surprisingly prolife, which is supremely rational in the face of the irrational disregard for life evidenced by the abortion supporters.

I do think the liberal media did promote him for a short while, thinking he was just a buffoon who would automatically lose if he got the nomination. But he totally fooled them. Much of the public had had it with the do-nothing urbane elitists and were ready for some Trumanesque rough-and-tumble.

But he has handled reversing the Obama abortion policies, appointed three prolife justices, terminated ISIS, gotten us into no new wars, passed a middle class tax cut, rebuilt the armed forces, imposed tariffs on China, brought a lot of jobs back home, cut regulations, and improved the economy.

But I understand Democrats dont like him because he has kept his word to his prolife supporters. I understand they can’t and won’t forgive that. But then, I never thought they would.

And what is so radical about his pick?

Only that the Democrats fear she might threaten abortion on demand and homosexual marriage. To them, that’s radical despite the whole of human history, the bible, and the Catholic Church as well, telling them it is not radical at all.

 

[Victoria33]

In the most charitable terms, I think he was not mentally, psychologically, emotionally prepared for the job, was overwhelmed from the start and hasn’t been able to handle it.

I blame the media for his presidency, because if they had ignored him as a sideshow then he never would’ve been elected. Instead they put his antics on display and people bought him.

As long as he is not pushing infanticide like some in the other party are doing, I think he is doing fine. ISIS did not rise under Trump, they lost their Caliphate.

 

[Ender]

Sorry, I don’t think that’s “weak,” I think it’s a major argument. She wrote a paper in 2017 saying that when Roberts called the individual mandate a “tax” that he was wrong; it should have been a “penalty” in her opinion. And since she is on record as opposing the general principle of stare decisis, that could very well end the ACA.

That her opinion on Roberts’ “tax” ruling could lead her to oppose that aspect of the ACA is precisely the results oriented opposition that is so inappropriate. One should support or oppose her reasoning on the matter, and not simply the conclusion she arrives at. I think Roberts’ decision was flawed as well, but if we are not able to distinguish between good arguments and bad ones we only further politicize the court.

Roe et al should be overturned because it is bad law. If the only argument against it is “I oppose abortion” then we have completely failed to understand the role of the court.

But beyond that, she opposes–in her writings and speeches–the “liberal” opinion in a host of issues that will be coming before the Supreme Court soon.

And this is precisely what I’m referring to. We should hope to get judges who interpret the law, and not merely those who will find in the law whatever we want them to find. That has gone on for far too long

 

[dochawk]

That her opinion on Roberts’ “tax” ruling could lead her to oppose that aspect of the ACA is precisely the results oriented opposition that is so inappropriate. One should support or oppose her reasoning on the matter, and not simply the conclusion she arrives at.

This.

Oh so much, this.

We should hope to get judges who interpret the law, and not merely those who will find in the law whatever we want them to find.

That, too.

when we choose the judiciary based upon whether we like outcomes, rather than whether it applied the law properly, we lose it’s ability to protect us from misapplied law and abuse of power.

 

[1cthlctrth]

Three Supreme Court Justices Were Confirmed In Less Than 45 Days, Including Ginsburg

 

[Jeanne_S]

But but …this is different don’t you know!?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

on_the_hill:

In the most charitable terms, I think he was not mentally, psychologically, emotionally prepared for the job, was overwhelmed from the start and hasn’t been able to handle it.

I blame the media for his presidency, because if they had ignored him as a sideshow then he never would’ve been elected. Instead they put his antics on display and people bought him.

I realize it’s Democratic gospel to believe these things. But if you look at his policy actions, they’re entirely rational. Not only rational, they’re surprisingly prolife, which is supremely rational in the face of the irrational disregard for life evidenced by the abortion supporters.

I do think the liberal media did promote him for a short while, thinking he was just a buffoon who would automatically lose if he got the nomination. But he totally fooled them. Much of the public had had it with the do-nothing urbane elitists and were ready for some Trumanesque rough-and-tumble.

But he has handled reversing the Obama abortion policies, appointed three prolife justices, terminated ISIS, gotten us into no new wars, passed a middle class tax cut, rebuilt the armed forces, imposed tariffs on China, brought a lot of jobs back home, cut regulations, and improved the economy.

He very well may have “won by accident”.

This may be a case of “God doesn’t choose the qualified, he qualifies the chosen”.