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

[Rockoh22]

This is exactly what happened in Obergefell v Hodges . The states enacted bans on gay marriage and the Courts ruled that was unconstitutional, against the 14th amendment.

Yes, that is how it happened. The loop hole. What comes next? Where in the constitution does it states that a 90 year old man can not be with a 9 year old girl? SCOTUS can say, it is not in the constitution. That is insane, but it is very possible. The Constitution does not say anything about incest either.

I know it seems insane to think this things can be legal in the US. But that is what happens when we let SCOTUS make the laws. However, what is the solution? I do not know. Because flawed as it is, I think it is a pretty good system.

 

[PaulinVA]

I know it seems insane to think this things can be legal in the US. But that is what happens when we let SCOTUS make the laws. However, what is the solution? I do not know. Because flawed as it is, I think it is a pretty good system.

I don’t think the Court is making laws. They are preventing the legislatures and Congress from creating laws that don’t pass Constitutional muster. Yes, there’s a lot of things that the Constitution is silent on. Over the years, though, a body of decisions that build upon each other has arisen to handle an awful lot of situations.

 

[Victoria33]

No reason to not have polygamous marriage by this reasoning as well.

Maybe we should characterize some decisions as progressive though, what? Roberts probably went in on that side as well.

There are even some flaws in Roe V. Wade to dismiss it as just a flawed decision.

Why Roe v. Wade is a travesty of constitutional law

Roe v. Wade & Abortion as Constitutional Right -- Supreme Court Wrote Fiction | National Review

Maybe Ginsburg even found problems with Roe:

https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/j...s-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit

I don’t think they knew what they were doing in '73; the Catholic Church was against abortion strongly even back then, probably always.

Why? The facts of embryology show that the human embryo or fetus (the being whose life is ended in abortion) is a distinct and living human organism at the earliest stages of development. “Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote,” explains a leading embryology textbook. “This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”

The three fundamental problems with Roe v. Wade

Are Judges Scientists? NO. Can they tell us when life begins? The case itself may be on flawed reasoning.

I think we could see it overturned and back to the States.

 

[MikeInVA]

I don’t think the Court is making laws. They are preventing the legislatures and Congress from creating laws that don’t pass Constitutional muster.

I heard a talk by Justice Scalia a few years ago where he basically said that abortion (and now SSM) exists in a legal vacuum. There is no law that says abortion is legal (nor SSM), only judicial decisions that removed prohibitions from these acts. He said that if there were in fact laws permitting abortion, they could be challenged and abortion could be outlawed. By not having an abortion law to challenge it is harder to get rid of than if there were one.

 

[gam197]

ReaderT:

I like Amy Coney Barrett but I’d bet that Trump will go with the other top woman contender: Barbara Lagoa. She “checks a lot of boxes”:

Right, the Cuban-American woman. Maybe. I’m not real familiar with her record either.

I think it might be her because she is from Florida, a state Trump needs to be re elected but is she solidly pro life? There are no more judges that will be retiring unless Stephen Breyer retires and I do not see that happening. He will more than likely stay on until the next election.

So with no more judges retiring unless Clarence Thomas retires and then that again gets very crucial. This one judge can decide the future of the courts for the next thirty years. Most of these judges are relatively young for Supreme Court Justices who never seem to retire.

 

[Victoria33]

Cuban Americans might be a fairly solid Conservative block, ok, let’s say only 55% so… with all things, I guess there will be risk but let’s wait and see what happens. The announcement is reportedly Friday.

But I totally agree, we need a very good judge here.

 

[gam197]

Cuban Americans might be a fairly solid Conservative block, ok, let’s say only 55% so… with all things, I guess there will be risk but let’s wait and see what happens. The announcement is reportedly Friday.

But I totally agree, we need a very good judge here.

Sonia Sodamayer is Hispanic who was baptized a Catholic and attended Catholic schools in New York but has voted pro choice.

Maybe it would be wiser to wait until after the eletion and risk it. If Trump gets re elected than his choice of someone such as Tom Cotton or Ted Cruz might not be that controversial. Again he could then at that time go with a male nomination.

Are we as Catholics willing to risk gaining a Trump as president but losing the Supreme Court?

 

[PaulinVA]

If Trump gets re elected than his choice of someone such as Tom Cotton or Ted Cruz might not be that controversial. Again he could then at that time go with a male nomination.

I would be willing to stipulate to either of the top-running women before the election to keep Cruz or Cotton off the Court. That’s just crazy.

 

[Victoria33]

Sonia Sodamayer is Hispanic who was baptized a Catholic and attended Catholic schools in New York but has voted pro choice.

Don’t confuse a Puerto Rican for a Cuban, 2 entirely different backgrounds. PR is the USA, Cuba is under a dictatorship that people flee from.

 

[gam197]

gam197:

Sonia Sodamayer is Hispanic who was baptized a Catholic and attended Catholic schools in New York but has voted pro choice.

Don’t confuse a Puerto Rican for a Cuban, 2 entirely different backgrounds. PR is the USA, Cuba is under a dictatorship that people flee from.

Don’t confuse a woman’s take on abortion with a male’s take on it either. This is so crucial, that this judge matters too much to just whirl in someone that maybe later will be a lifetime regret.

 

[Victoria33]

Don’t confuse a woman’s take on abortion with a male’s take on it either. This is so crucial that this judge matters too much to just whirl in someone that maybe later will be a lifetime regret.

If we had some of these Evangelical women up there like I said yesterday, a Sarah Huckabee Sanders, a Michelle Bachmann and maybe she’s Catholic, Michelle Malkin, I’d feel pretty confident they would vote for the right to life.

 

[gam197]

If we had some of these Evangelical women up there like I said yesterday, a Sarah Huckabee Sanders, a Michelle Bachmann and maybe she’s Catholic, Michelle Malkin, I’d feel pretty confident they would vote for the right to life.

Yes, Kagan had never actually been a judge. Possible Kate Todd but she is not making the list. This would make everyone cringe but Laura Ingraham clerked for Anthony Scalia.

We are so close to getting the courts and Trump is campaigning well. I am beginning to think why the rush? We would really mess this up by rushing through a woman we think, only think will be pro-life.

Again there are some good male judges on his list.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Why are you so fixated on a male nomination?

 

[gam197]

Why are you so fixated on a male nomination?

Again I would take someone like Laura Ingraham but that is not going to happen. There are many who are conservative but not pro life. Take Judge Jeanne Pirro or Tommy Lahren, both have taken pro choice stance but are admently conservative. How does one tell in a judge?

 

[Jeanne_S]

Amy Comey Barrett is pro life

 

[gam197]

Michelle Backman is a lawyer also. . Well I am going to hope you are right on Amy Comey Barrett and that she is the choice then because there seems to be a rush to get this through.

This could be the mistake of a lifetime. People thought Roberts was staunchly pro life. His wife was involved with Feminist For Life but that does not appear to matter.

 

[PaulinVA]

Since the leading women are young, they will be on the court for decades. I would hope they are good jurists, not only that they passed a litmus test.

 

[TMC]

Michelle Backman is a lawyer also.

Michele Bachmann has about the same chance of confirmation that I do. Same with Ingraham.

A lot of the names being thrown out are people who probably wouldn’t even want the job. The pay is not great, its a tough job, you have to move to DC, etc. Plus, if you pick someone like Bachmann or Ingraham you would be lucky to get ten years out of them. Maybe less.

The way to go is with a young person with a track record. Even then you don’t know what they will be like in a decade. Progressives were against Ginsburg because they saw her as too liberal! So one never knows.

That’s why I agree with @PaulinVA. Pick someone with impeccable credentials who is generally in agreement with your judicial philosophy. Using a litmus test or picking a household name is just a recipe for disaster.

 

[Victoria33]

Michele Bachmann has about the same chance of confirmation that I do. Same with Ingraham.

If one follows the conversation, it was just about saying that I found these ladies to be very solid in their points of view, regarding the right to life and so on. I was not trying to provide an opportunity to make an uncalled for remark about her.

Again I would take someone like Laura Ingraham but that is not going to happen. There are many who are conservative but not pro life. Take Judge Jeanne Pirro or Tommy Lahren, both have taken pro choice stance but are admently conservative. How does one tell in a judge?

I totally agree with this.

Right, Judge Jeannine, just running for office in New York really has led to her rather lenient views on the topic. I’ve studied it up a bit.

 

[TMC]

If one follows the conversation, it was just about saying that I found these ladies to be very solid in their points of view, regarding the right to life and so on. I was not trying to provide an opportunity to make an uncalled for remark about her.

Sorry if that was snarky, but its not even really about her (though I admit I am not a fan.) People like Ingraham and Bachmann who are nominally lawyers, but also have long and extensive records of controversial statements are simply not going to be considered. No should they be. There are plenty of qualified people out there with more experience and real qualifications.