Catholic Amy Coney Barrett Front-Runner as Trump Signals Supreme Court Nomination Plans

  • Thread starter Thread starter yankeesouth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jeannetherese said:
There is not requirement to be or to have been a lawyer in order to serve on the court.
Click to expand...
Who’s the last non-lawyer to serve as a federal judge? Plus, Sanders is not all that capable.

You don’t have to be a priest to be a cardinal, either.
jeannetherese said:
Would you consider the 3/5 clause, which certainly set a precedent, as and a precedent which ought, appropriately, be adhered to?
Click to expand...
That was a law; not a legal precedent. The 13th amendment solved it.
 
Last edited:
PaulinVA said:
I’m not sure why this was posted. I’m not equating “great legal mind” with “already being a jurist”.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you might share the list of attributes you utilize when determining whether one has a quality legal mind, as well as your qualifications for making such a determination?
 
Mr. Trump has just announced publicly, from the Rose Garden, that Amy Barrett is his pick. Her acceptance speech gracious, humble and moving. Looks like POTUS got it right, again. She has a reputation for being a solid Constitutionist.

And the Democrats had better behave themselves during this confirmation hearing. If they engage in a lot of character assassination or bigotry this time around, I think they will end up cooking their own goose when they come up for re-election. Some of them are already there.

It’s high time they stopped with the power grabbing and hatefulness and started working for the good of this country. The voters, I think, have just about had it with them.
 
upant said:
nonsense, it is what they are, they support abortion. they definitely aren’t anti-abortion.
Click to expand...
The opposite of ‘anti-abortion’ is not ‘pro-abortion’ anymore than the opposite of anti-death penalty’ is ‘pro- murder of convicts’ (ask AG Barr!), except if you are Humpty Dumpty. Terms of art connote not denote.

It is wrong and insulting to call someone ‘pro-abortion’. Continuing to do it violates forum rules, IMHO.
 
jeannetherese said:
Existing laws are legal precedents-until they are changed. (or, solved, if your prefer)
Click to expand...
Nope. That’s not a legal precept. Not all jurisdictions have to follow precedents if a contrary ruling is made in one state or appellate district. However, all jurisdictions have to follow Constitutional law.
JanR said:
It’s high time they stopped with the power grabbing and hatefulness and started working for the good of this country.
Click to expand...
Check the history of Obama’s chance to nominate Garland and add the closeness of the coming election. Then get back to me about ‘power-grabbing’.
 
Last edited:
Nepperhan said:
The opposite of ‘anti-abortion’ is not ‘pro-abortion’
Click to expand...
what is the opposite?
Nepperhan said:
the opposite of anti-death penalty’ is ‘pro- murder of convicts’
Click to expand...
nonsense, the opposite of anti-death penalty is pro-death penalty. it has nothing to do with the murder of convicts. carrying out the death penalty is a biblical principle and not murder.
Nepperhan said:
It is wrong and insulting to call someone ‘pro-abortion’. Continuing to do it violates forum rules,
Click to expand...
what do you call a supporter of abortion? you are either for abortion or against it. it isn’t “choice”, that is a lie because the child has no choice.

I do not know anyone in politics who does not have an opinion on abortion. as harris has shown she will use abortion as a litmus test and you must be pro-abortion to pass her test.

what forum rule is being violated?
Nepperhan said:
Check the history of Obama’s chance to nominate Garland and add the closeness of the coming election.
Click to expand...
Obama did nominate Garland

the senate’s job was to “advice and consent”, not holding a vote shows they did not consent. they did their job.
 
jeannetherese said:
Perhaps you might share the list of attributes you utilize when determining whether one has a quality legal mind, as well as your qualifications for making such a determination?
Click to expand...
While practicing, did they advance novel legal theories that were widely accepted or won cases that set precedent. While a professor, wrote articles that were widely viewed favorably.

While on the bench, didn’t rule in an ideological way.
 
upant said:
you are either for abortion or against it.
Click to expand...
No. What is the Supreme Court? It just recognzes that abortion is constitutional. Not for or against.

Its not a black and white world.
upant said:
the senate’s job was to “advice and consent”, not holding a vote shows they did not consent. they did their job.
Click to expand...
No. One partisan held back a vote. The senate’s job is to vote. I think you know that.
 
Last edited:
Does Raymond Arroyo know Amy Coney Barrett personally? Both of them were born in New Orleans.
 
Nepperhan said:
No. What is the Supreme Court? It just recognzes that abortion is constitutional. Not for or against.

Its not a black and white world.
Click to expand...
doesn’t matter, politicians either supports abortion or don’t. they are either pro-abortion or anti-abortion. really simple, just ask them.
Nepperhan said:
The senate’s job is to vote.
Click to expand...
where does the constitution state this?
Nepperhan said:
It is contrary to forum rules to use insulting, derogatory terminology.
Click to expand...
why would it be insulting, derogatory?
it is a position like pro-death penalty.
if a person supports abortion they are pro-abortion, what would you call them?
 
PaulinVA said:
While practicing, did they advance novel legal theories that were widely accepted or won cases that set precedent. While a professor, wrote articles that were widely viewed favorably.

While on the bench, didn’t rule in an ideological way.
Click to expand...
"Widely accepted: and “viewed favorably” sounds like a popularity contest.
Judges who are impartial may find that they are annoying those who are less impartial.
I would think that most if not all judges will rule from a point of reference, perhaps a sense of constitutionality?
This point of reference might be perceived to represent an ideology.
What would a non-ideological ruling look like to you?
 
It’s hypocrisy, pure and simple, on the part of the GOP Senate. However, I have no doubt the Dems would have done the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot.

With regard to Amy Coney Barrett, I regret she is so conservative. A little more moderate in some of her views would have been better, in my view. My biggest fear is not so much the Roe v. Wade abortion issue but rather the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, especially at a time when so many people in our country depend on it. Nonetheless, by all accounts, Barrett is brilliant and more than qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, and so I think she should, in all fairness, be confirmed. Of course, the Dems will not let this nomination slide and are bound to put up a major fight (most likely to no avail), perhaps even based on Barrett’s staunch Catholic faith. This would be a shame apart from being really bad politics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top