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.
I hope the Republicans maintain the high road here:
For the record, Republicans did not try to assassinate the characters of Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, or Garland. There’s no whataboutism possible on this issue. The #norms were broken by one side. Indeed, they’ve created their own new norm, as we will soon see again.
Click to expand...
  • @RandyEBarnett (Georgetown Law Professor)
We better pray for the process and a fair examination in the Senate, no telling what could happen.

Whomever the nominee, I pray God will give them wisdom and protect them and their loved ones.
 
Last edited:
The Supreme Court justice should have at least a history as a judge. There should be a history of decisions to decide upon.
 
We all know what Feinstein thinks about having a Catholic on the Supreme Court. I am waiting to hear what Joe Biden thinks about having a Catholic woman nominated to the Supreme Court.
 
Sotomayor is a Catholic woman already on the Court, nominated by Obama in 2009. I doubt that Biden, with his experience on the Judiciary Committee, objected.

For those who want Catholic on the Court, the Court is already mostly Catholic. In addition to Sotomayor, Roberts, Thomas, Kavanaugh and Alito are all Catholic.
Gorsuch was raised Catholic, but married a woman from the Church of England whom he met while studying at Oxford. He attends an Episcopal Church and has apparently said he is a Protestant, probably with some irony intended.

Breyer and Kagan are Jewish, as was Ginsburg.

 
Last edited:
EmilyAlexandra said:
I am aware of the frequency with which the death penalty is used in the US. The fact that it is not used in all states does not mean that it is not a problem. I assumed that Catholics in the US would be in favour of anything that could help to end the use of the death penalty.
Click to expand...
Well you are on CAF so it’s a little bit different around here. . .
 
gam197 said:
Again there are some good male judges on his list.
Click to expand...
What’s the deal with men vs. women as choices?

It sounds as if there is some inherent difference you are attributing to men vs. women and their attitudes regarding abortion.
 
If it’s going to be a woman, I like Bridget Bade and Martha Pacold best. Both are better picks than Barrett. But neither are Ivy League and that still seems to play a big part in the selection process. But I think Trump picks Lagoa (Columbia U) for the demographics. Going to make the Democrats look bad if they trash talk a Hispanic woman.
 
Feanor2 said:
40.png
gam197:
Again there are some good male judges on his list.
Click to expand...
What’s the deal with men vs. women as choices?

It sounds as if there is some inherent difference you are attributing to men vs. women and their attitudes regarding abortion.
Click to expand...
How did it revert back here? There have been a number of posts after that post. I commented that Elaine Kagan was not a judge and got on the Supreme Court. That could apply to both men and women.

It appears it will be a women so now the question is what woman?
 
Last edited:
Feanor2 said:
Well you are on CAF so it’s a little bit different around here. . .
Click to expand...
Yes, I still remain confused. As I understand it, the teaching of the Catholic Church about the death penalty is actually quite simple. However, on these forums, it seems to become a really complicated issue in which people argue that although the Church appears to say one thing, it actually says the opposite. @gam197 has still not explain to me why it is “a problem for many Catholics” if a judge is against the death penalty, i.e. agrees with the teaching of the Church.
 
EmilyAlexandra said:
40.png
Feanor2:
Well you are on CAF so it’s a little bit different around here. . .
Click to expand...
Yes, I still remain confused. As I understand it, the teaching of the Catholic Church about the death penalty is actually quite simple. However, on these forums, it seems to become a really complicated issue in which people argue that although the Church appears to say one thing, it actually says the opposite. @gam197 has still not explain to me why it is “a problem for many Catholics” if a judge is against the death penalty, i.e. agrees with the teaching of the Church.
Click to expand...
They think using the term “seamless garment” sounds lefty.

Rightist Catholics aren’t fond of the term and prefer to isolate the term Pro-Life to mean merely related to abortion. Bernadin isn’t popular around here either.
 
Going to add that I think Barrett’s name is out there as the attention getter while Trump picks someone else.

In the meantime, as we see the ado over the nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court justices in an election year, allow me to repost this excellent recap of our past history in this regard:


Critical quote from the article (emphasis mine):
Twenty-nine times in American history there has been an open Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year, or in a lame-duck session before the next presidential inauguration. (This counts vacancies created by new seats on the Court, but not vacancies for which there was a nomination already pending when the year began, such as happened in 1835–36 and 1987–88.) The president made a nomination in all twenty-nine cases. George Washington did it three times. John Adams did it. Thomas Jefferson did it. Abraham Lincoln did it. Ulysses S. Grant did it. Franklin D. Roosevelt did it. Dwight Eisenhower did it. Barack Obama, of course, did it. Twenty-two of the 44 men to hold the office faced this situation, and all twenty-two made the decision to send up a nomination, whether or not they had the votes in the Senate.
Click to expand...
The bottom line: If a president and the Senate agree on a Supreme Court nominee, timing has never stopped them. By tradition, only when the voters have elected a president and a Senate majority from different parties has the fact of a looming presidential election mattered. When there is no dispute between the branches, there is no need to ask the voters to resolve one.
Click to expand...
Another way of saying that last: the voters knew what they were getting when they elected a Republican majority Senate in 2014 and have kept that majority in place since. They knew what they were getting when they elected Trump. So why make them wait on the next election when there is no precedent for the President and the Senate majority of the same party to do so?
 
Feanor2 said:
Rightist Catholics aren’t fond of the term and prefer to isolate the term Pro-Life to mean merely related to abortion. Bernadin isn’t popular around here either.
Click to expand...
Even Bernadin recognized the primacy of the right to life. No other rights have meaning if there is no right to life.

I’d vote for a lefty that is rally pro-life over a wish-washy right winger any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
 
Feanor2 said:
Rightist Catholics aren’t fond of the term and prefer to isolate the term Pro-Life to mean merely related to abortion. Bernadin isn’t popular around here either.
Click to expand...
…by calling every issue a “pro-life” issue, we dilute and fracture the brand. We make other, less important issues as important as the abortion issue. We needlessly divide pro-lifers over prudential issues about which we should be able to respectfully disagree. (Eric Sammons)
Click to expand...
 
PaulinVA said:
The ultimate question is whether our Constitution views a pre-born baby as a person
Click to expand...
I’m not so sure about this, PaulinVA. The Constitutions talks about men, not persons. Personhood is the argument pro abortion people developed after they had to aknowledge that previous arguments that the baby being killed was not a person, were rather nonsensical-the science was proving that one to be wrong.
 
Justices have been chosen before without a history of previous decisions. Why would this suddenly be crucial?
 
PaulinVA said:
The ultimate question is whether our Constitution views a pre-born baby as a person.
Click to expand...
Justice Scalia answered this in the negative. He consistently said that the unborn have no constitutional rights. His problem with Roe v Wade was a states’ rights issue, not a personhood issue. This just highlights the issues on the legal side - many (probably most) of the jurists supposedly on the pro-life side of the issue are not actually in favor of outlawing abortion - they are simply arguing over the legal nuances of how legal abortion can or cannot be regulated.
 
jeannetherese said:
The Constitutions talks about men,
Click to expand...
I ponder the word in English.
Man
WoMan
Mankind

And this is quite the weirdest argument isn’t it? It talks about men, not persons. Or Talks about person, not fetuses. That is the equivalent of satan asking eve: Did he say ALL the trees?
jeannetherese said:
40.png
PaulinVA:
The ultimate question is whether our Constitution views a pre-born baby as a person
Click to expand...
I’m not so sure about this, PaulinVA. The Constitutions talks about men, not persons. Personhood is the argument pro abortion people developed after they had to aknowledge that previous arguments that the baby being killed was not a person, were rather nonsensical-the science was proving that one to be wrong.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top