V
Victoria33
Guest
Cruz, Amy Comedy, all mentioned on the new shortlist.
Good for Tom Cotton and God Bless Him, great Senator.
Cotton Says ‘Time for Roe v Wade to Go’ After Trump Names Him as Potential Supreme Court Justice
- Status
Good for Tom Cotton and God Bless Him, great Senator.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Totally against having activists on the Court.
K
KMC
Guest
Paul…sit down…make sure you not standing or holding hot coffee…but…I really agree with you on this.
My reasoning: this cuts both directions. Would I want to see Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, or Adam Schiff on the SCOTUS? Nope.
Let’s keep the selection to someone that has practiced law / has an understanding of law, and has a reputation of being impartial.
My reasoning: this cuts both directions. Would I want to see Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, or Adam Schiff on the SCOTUS? Nope.
Let’s keep the selection to someone that has practiced law / has an understanding of law, and has a reputation of being impartial.
A
Annie
Guest
@KMC
So you think the justices who overturned Plessy v Ferguson were activist judges?
Seems to me the activist judges were the ones who ruled in the majority in Roe v Wade.
Last edited:
B
Baho
Guest
Predictable.
K
KMC
Guest
My point was that I don’t want politicians on the SCOTUS. Tom Cotton or Ted Cruz might be nice in the short term, but at some point the other party gets in power.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Consistant.
I think the Court is dangerous if it is packed with too many people of one political/judicial viewpoint. Things are better when viewpoints are held in tension.
And, just for the record, I am anti-abortion. Unlike most people here, I have had to confront having a child with a severe birth defect that was “incompatible with life”. Found out during the sonogram from hell.
We gladly carried our son to term, and took care of him for three years in a persistent vegetative state. We respected him from conception to the natural end of his life.
I understand the sanctity of life. I’ve made those decisions. Is a feeding tube right? Should we be doing more? What does incompatible with life" mean? Is he dying? How do we respect his life and care for him in accordance with Church teaching?
A
Annie
Guest
I have said all along that if we have constructivist justices (ie, those who won’t be swayed by their personal points of view but who will stick to the law), we will still need the right case and the right arguments.
We can not simply rely on getting the “right” judges, we need to have a good case and a good argument.
We can not simply rely on getting the “right” judges, we need to have a good case and a good argument.
V
Victoria33
Guest
I think why Cruz and Cotton are being considered is because people like Roberts have been disappointing on different cases and we want someone with proven track records. Same for Amy Comey, reliable. Pick the best one available.
We saw what happened to Kavanaugh. This should never happen to anyone.
We saw what happened to Kavanaugh. This should never happen to anyone.
“Constructivist”, right, I thought that that means interpreting the Consitution per those who constructed it would view it. Something like that.
Last edited:
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Disappointing because they think the law led them to a different conclusion than the people of the President’s party who appointed him/her?
That’s not how it works. Presidents are supposed to nominate solid legal minds. Sure, they can look for a certain judicial outlook. BUT, reliable votes belong in the Legislative branch, not the Judicial.
N
Nepperhan
Guest
Nobody sought the office criticizing the Plessy case. SCOTUS only deals with cases before it – it is entirely responsive and does not choose issues.
Slamming Roe v. Wade actually makes Cotton an improper person to judge the case on its merits. From its start, the Trump administration has had trouble figuring out the parameters of conflict of interest.
We have not had many people recently go from the senate to SCOTUS and I don’t think Cotton or Cruz will be a new example.
Last edited:
N
Nepperhan
Guest
It sounds like you want someone who reflects your views. If Roberts has disappointed, the question is if he was wrong on the law in those cases.
A
Annie
Guest
Yes, that is what I meant.
A
Annie
Guest
Yes, I did not realize the Cotton in question was currently a senator
Considering a senator for USSCJ doesn’t strike me as a good idea, on a lot of levels.
B
Baho
Guest
Well, God bless you brother and I’m sorry that you, your wife and your son had to go through that. You’re a good man.
E
Ender
Guest
No justice should ever be nominated because of his political view; that is devastating to the integrity of the courts. As for balancing out competing judicial views, that doesn’t seem to make sense either. Why would any president nominate someone he believes has an incorrect perspective on the Constitution to cancel out those he thinks understand it correctly?
How much legitimacy does the court command with its succession of 5-4 decisions where the same justices line up consistently on opposite sides? This inevitably looks like voting based on what one wants the Constitution to say rather than on what it does say. This is not balance; it is an insult to the concept of a fair and impartial judiciary.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Absolutely! So, great legal minds instead of reliable votes.
C
CradleRC58
Guest
Case in point
The Roe versus Wade decision
how many babies have been slaughtered since ?
V
Victoria33
Guest
Well, well, well, doesn’t this sound pleasant, a bit of an insult per “reliable votes”, it’s not like that at all.
Now, was Justice Kavanaugh extremely qualified? Yet, despite that, we heard something that because it had no backup called a fabrication holding up his appointment to the Supreme Court, down to live TV hearings by an accusation by Christine Blaisey Ford, oh, who just so happened to have heavy Planned Parenthood connections.
And let’s not forget this:
www.washingtonexaminer.com
Oh, I guess that is different,
By the way, Ted Cruz served as the Longest time as Attorney Solicitor ever in Texas, worked in a law firm, I’m not sure of Cotton’s background but Cruz does have the experience.
Enough of the “don’t do as I do, do as I say”.
Let’s not forget, the Senate is steeped in politicization, they are not judging apparently from merits in many cases.
Now, was Justice Kavanaugh extremely qualified? Yet, despite that, we heard something that because it had no backup called a fabrication holding up his appointment to the Supreme Court, down to live TV hearings by an accusation by Christine Blaisey Ford, oh, who just so happened to have heavy Planned Parenthood connections.
And let’s not forget this:
Kamala Harris doesn’t hide her religious bigotry - Washington Examiner
Unlike some Democrats, Kamala Harris, Joe Biden’s choice for running mate, isn’t neutral about religious liberty or pro-life issues: Her record shows she has aggressively opposed them both out of principle and for political gain. Religious liberty is hardly a lone conservative concept or a topic...
www.washingtonexaminer.com
Oh, I guess that is different,
By the way, Ted Cruz served as the Longest time as Attorney Solicitor ever in Texas, worked in a law firm, I’m not sure of Cotton’s background but Cruz does have the experience.
Enough of the “don’t do as I do, do as I say”.
Let’s not forget, the Senate is steeped in politicization, they are not judging apparently from merits in many cases.
Last edited:
- Status