To which I did…
And then,
Do I sense the rumblings of a bulldozer shifting the goals??
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Catholic Amy Coney Barrett Front-Runner as Trump Signals Supreme Court Nomination Plans
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
And then,
P
PaulinVA
Guest
I missed where you said they were great legal minds. I think that’s because you didn’t. You said you thought it didn’t need to be said. Then you said one of them had a great legal career.To which I did…
And then,
Widely respected writings would be evidence of a great legal mind. Not shifting the goals. Just asking why/if you think they are great legal minds and not just pro life women.Do I sense the rumblings of a bulldozer shifting the goals??
I answered that.Just asking why/if you think they are great legal minds and not just pro life women.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
I just looked through the whole thread and don’t find that anywhere.I answered that.
I’ll just have to say I disagree with whatever you think you said.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Interesting take from the Times:
WASHINGTON — As President Trump prepares to reveal his Supreme Court nominee on Saturday, and Senate Republicans move to hold lightning-quick confirmation hearings ahead of the election, they are making risky calculations aimed at navigating difficult political straits with less than 40 days left in the campaign.
In order to achieve a new 6-3 conservative majority on the court, Republicans are poised to defy a clear majority of voters who have indicated in polls that they want the winner of the election to pick a nominee for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat. They are even willing to energize Democratic turnout in the short run by elevating issues like abortion, if it means achieving the long-term goal of tilting the court further to the right.
That gamble would almost certainly play out if Mr. Trump nominates Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the leading contender and a favorite of social conservatives. The political consequences would be less clear if he chose the preferred candidate of some of his advisers: Judge Barbara Lagoa, a Latina whose elevation might help him carry the must-win state of Florida in November.
WASHINGTON — As President Trump prepares to reveal his Supreme Court nominee on Saturday, and Senate Republicans move to hold lightning-quick confirmation hearings ahead of the election, they are making risky calculations aimed at navigating difficult political straits with less than 40 days left in the campaign.
In order to achieve a new 6-3 conservative majority on the court, Republicans are poised to defy a clear majority of voters who have indicated in polls that they want the winner of the election to pick a nominee for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat. They are even willing to energize Democratic turnout in the short run by elevating issues like abortion, if it means achieving the long-term goal of tilting the court further to the right.
That gamble would almost certainly play out if Mr. Trump nominates Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the leading contender and a favorite of social conservatives. The political consequences would be less clear if he chose the preferred candidate of some of his advisers: Judge Barbara Lagoa, a Latina whose elevation might help him carry the must-win state of Florida in November.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
More from the Times article:
Another issue is that Mr. Trump’s instincts are still geared toward his political base, and he continues to behave like a candidate who is running in a Republican primary. When offered the choice between making broad appeals or burrowing further into his overwhelmingly white and largely male base of support, he almost always sides with his core voters.
That, more than anything, is what alarms Republicans about Judge Barrett and gives Democrats a measure of political hope — the possibility that she will bring Mr. Trump few voters he doesn’t already have, while driving more people into Mr. Biden’s column.
Another issue is that Mr. Trump’s instincts are still geared toward his political base, and he continues to behave like a candidate who is running in a Republican primary. When offered the choice between making broad appeals or burrowing further into his overwhelmingly white and largely male base of support, he almost always sides with his core voters.
That, more than anything, is what alarms Republicans about Judge Barrett and gives Democrats a measure of political hope — the possibility that she will bring Mr. Trump few voters he doesn’t already have, while driving more people into Mr. Biden’s column.
Last edited:
M
MikeInVA
Guest
Is that the standard for becoming a justice?Can you point to some of her writings that have been widely respected?
P
PaulinVA
Guest
What would be your standard? A certain position on a particular political issue?Is that the standard for becoming a justice?
M
MikeInVA
Guest
Beyond needing to be an American citizen, I haven’t given it much thought.
You expressed a concern that no one was considering her legal ability, that we are simply looking at a pro-life candidate.I just looked through the whole thread and don’t find that anywhere.
I answered that I have looked at it and didn’t think it needed mention.
You now wish to argue about a definition you failed to make when you expressed your concern.
That is the very definition of moving the goal posts.
If you don’t know what was or was not said, but claim to disagree with it, there is no point in discussion.I’ll just have to say I disagree with whatever you think you said.
You have just stayed you will be contrary no matter the point made.
I am done here.
There is no point in discourse with someone that has demonstrated they are unwilling to listen.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
I feel the exact same way! WE agree!I am done here.
There is no point in discourse with someone that has demonstrated they are unwilling to listen.
That’s what CAF is all about.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I can’t see this. Those who have truly made their peace with abortion will vote for Biden no matter what.she will bring Mr. Trump few voters he doesn’t already have, while driving more people into Mr. Biden’s column.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
A more moderate Justice might capture those that don’t care about abortion but are concerned about the politicization of the Court.I can’t see this. Those who have truly made their peace with abortion will vote for Biden no matter what.
I don’t know. I think a Justice is a Justice, and great legal minds should be picked, not people who help reelection chances.
I’m not so certain.I can’t see this. Those who have truly made their peace with abortion will vote for Biden no matter what.
I suspect Biden is losing his mind. The debates will likely solidify that fact among likely voters.
People that may have voted for him may not be swayed not to, but they may be swayed to not vote at all or perhaps vote a write-in for the person that actually has their faculties intact.
Logic being “I cannot in good conscience vote for him…no matter what I think of those running against him.”
U
upant
Guest
St. Pope John Paul II is clear on it (bold mine for emphasis)A focus on abortion exclusively is confusing the part with the whole, then end with the means.
the US bishops seem to agree with himThe inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.
At the meeting, the bishops also approved a letter saying that "The threat of abortion remains our preeminent priority because it directly attacks life itself, because it takes place within the sanctuary of the family, and because of the number of lives it destroys."
Pope Emeritus Benedict:
however, it isn’t just about abortion anymore, let’s not forget the rest of the Democrats anti-catholic policies that promote intrinsic evils, SSM, euthanasia, etc.“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia… there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
are you implying a judge who is pro-life can’t be an impartial jurist? the opposition stated they will pick a pro-abortion judge when they stack the court. are they being impartial? why is it only the GOP has to be impartial?Are you looking for an impartial jurist or someone who channels your political views?
this is the reality, the Dems will pick a pro-abortion judge and codify abortion into law, expanding it.
is this what Catholics should be voting for? because that is what a vote for a democrat will achieve. it is nonsense to say abortion isn’t on the ballot. there are no proportionate reasons to put abortion aside when it is the pre-eminent issue for both sides.
yet, the Dems are pushing the pro-abortion aspect of their choices, even to the point of expanding the court. it isn’t a one-sided argument.Now, I am pro life, but I don’t see that as any kind of qualification to be on the Court.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Usually when people use this terminology, they mean “pro-abortion”. But assuming you don’t and if abortion was not an issue, I don’t think “moderate justice” is an easy thing to describe.A more moderate Justice
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Perhaps more to the point, why is it that Catholics are to be uniquely disenfranchised when it comes to promoting our moral principles when the secularists are free to fly in the face of those very same principles, even penalize us for trying to exercise them?why is it only the GOP has to be impartial?
R
RidgeSprinter
Guest
And she was recommended by Scalia.Elena Kagan had been nominated to the appellate court by Clinton but the Republican senate refused to hold hearings on her nomination, so it failed. Another GOP stalling tactic. she then went on to become the first female US Solicitor General. You know, the post Bork held.
So, you don’t think she was qualified?
Before Obama’s election, Kagan was the subject of media speculation as a potential Supreme Court nominee if a Democratic president were elected in 2008.[81] Obama had his first Supreme Court vacancy to fill in 2009 when Associate Justice David H. Souter announced his upcoming retirement.[82] Senior Obama adviser David Axelrod later recounted that during the search for a new justice, Antonin Scalia told him he hoped Obama would nominate Kagan, because of her intelligence.[83] On May 13, 2009, the Associated Press reported that Obama was considering Kagan, among others.[84] On May 26, 2009, Obama announced that he had chosen Sonia Sotomayor.[85]
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Even Scalia was human and capable of making misjudgments.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
How about a Justice who does not strongly hold political positions? I know that might be seen as naive…Usually when people use this terminology, they mean “pro-abortion”. But assuming you don’t and if abortion was not an issue, I don’t think “moderate justice” is an easy thing to describe.
How about, “Hey, I know that he is going to nominate a “liberal”. Pick Kagan because she’s really intelligent and will make a worthy adversary.”?Even Scalia was human and capable of making misjudgments.
What’s wrong with that?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.