Amy Barrett for Supreme Court?

[Jim in CT]

if Trump is as shrewd as I think he is, she will be his choice.

A highly regarded federal judge, a constitutionalist, a female.

Best of all, she's a devout Catholic, which the anti-Catholic bigots Diane Feinstein and Al Franken tried to use to disqualify her at her confirmation hearings, saying "the dogma is loud within you". To these liberal bigots, it's OK if your conscience is informed by marxist Ivy League professors or by watching MSNBC, but it's not OK if your conscience is informed by Catholicism. Nominating her, would be a marvelous middle finger to these people.

Barrett is also the poster child for a judge who the left would fear would overturn Roe V Wade - a Catholic with seven kids. Whether or not she would actually vote that way is unknown (probably not), but she looks exactly like someone who would, and that will be enough to open the floodgates of liberal hysteria.

The left would go absolutely berserk at her nomination, the venom and hate with which they would attack her, would show exactly how bigoted, hateful, and anti-woman they really are, and would reap immense political capital for the GOP. It also would likely not prevent her from getting confirmed, she'd even be likely to get a few democratic votes from senators in purple states who are up for re-election, and who need to be seen as moderate (Munchin in WV, Heidi what's-her-name in ND, etc).

Politically speaking, it would be like winning powerball. And oh, the schadenfreude. We will see in a week or so. Hopefully she's up for the fight, because whoever it is, the confirmation will be as ugly as anything we have seen. The left have their tin foil hats on, and are foaming at the mouth.

[Nebe]

it would be nice if the pro lifers didn't stop caring about the life after it is born

[spence]

Hand check.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

It is hilarious watching Jim constantly talk about the left's hate when his posts are the angriest on this site by far.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

it would be nice if the pro lifers didn't stop caring about the life after it is born

You keep saying that. It’s a great bumper sticker. Zero truth to it, so you should be happy. Conservatives are generous and charitable, think of the role religion plays on each side, you’ll understand why.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

It is hilarious watching Jim constantly talk about the left's hate when his posts are the angriest on this site by far.

At the present time, I have so little to be angry about. You are confusing winning with anger.

Watch the confirmation hearings.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

At the present time, I have so little to be angry about. You are confusing winning with anger.

Watch the confirmation hearings.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't be smug. And fer crying out loud don't be Progressive Level Smug

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Nebe

it would be nice if the pro lifers didn't stop caring about the life after it is born

Exactly right. Look at the policies of this (and many) Repub. admin. They hurt the poor. Lower taxes, where the majority of the reduction goes to the rich and then cut the safety net. Again and again we see the same playbook.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Don't be smug. And fer crying out loud don't be Progressive Level Smug

Noted. And agreed.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Exactly right. Look at the policies of this (and many) Repub. admin. They hurt the poor. Lower taxes, where the majority of the reduction goes to the rich and then cut the safety net. Again and again we see the same playbook.

"Look at the policies of this (and many) Repub. admin. They hurt the poor"

Bill Clinton cut taxes and kicked millions of deadbeats off of welfare. He helped fuel the tech boom of the 1990s, which made God only knows how many people, very wealthy. How come he's a liberal hero? How come you'd never accuse him of hurting the poor?

Unemployment is way down, black unemployment has never been lower. Many more poor people now pay zero federal income tax (they doubled the standard deduction).

When the economy grows, that will always help the wealthy more than it helps the poor, because the wealthy have more disposable income to invest, which allows them to capitalize on the growth. That is not a Republican creation, it is elementary school arithmetic.

Now, we can debate whether or not the tax cuts should have done less for the wealthy, less for corporations, and more for the poor. We can debate that, and you would be able to make some very valid points that I might agree with. It didn't "hurt the" poor, maybe it didn't help them as much as it could have.

If liberalism is better for the poor, that would explain the liberal utopias of Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven, etc. These are cities that have been controlled by liberals for a generation, in a fabulously wealthy state controlled by liberals for a generation, and the people in those cities are far worse off than they were 30 years ago. Any of that not true?

Why do so many poor people risk their lives to come here, even when conservatives are running the show?

In any event, way off topic. Watch what happens during the confirmation hearings, of whomever Hitler picks to be the next justice. Especially if it's a woman. Yet supposedly it's my side that has declared 'war on women'.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Best of all, she's a devout Catholic, which the anti-Catholic bigots Diane Feinstein and Al Franken tried to use to disqualify her at her confirmation hearings, saying "the dogma is loud within you". To these liberal bigots, it's OK if your conscience is informed by marxist Ivy League professors or by watching MSNBC, but it's not OK if your conscience is informed by Catholicism.

Actually Barrett has frequently inserted her religion into her legal writings. Combine that with her loose opinion on precedence and her religion is absolutely fair game in a confirmation hearing.

Nominating her, would be a marvelous middle finger to these people.

Because that's what the Supreme Court is really about Jim?

Barrett is also the poster child for a judge who the left would fear would overturn Roe V Wade - a Catholic with seven kids. Whether or not she would actually vote that way is unknown (probably not), but she looks exactly like someone who would, and that will be enough to open the floodgates of liberal hysteria.

It's pretty amusing that the same people who clammor about liberals legislating from the bench are working tirelessly to socially engineer the SCOTUS for partisan reasons. No hypocrisy here...

I don't think you'd have Robert's vote either. Likely several conservative justices wouldn't go for it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

It is hilarious watching Jim constantly talk about the left's hate when his posts are the angriest on this site by far.

By at least an order of magnitude or more.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

In any event, way off topic. Watch what happens during the confirmation hearings, of whomever Hitler picks to be the next justice. Especially if it's a woman. Yet supposedly it's my side that has declared 'war on women'.

Is that a Freudian slip or calling a spade a spade?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Actually Barrett has frequently inserted her religion into her legal writings. Combine that with her loose opinion on precedence and her religion is absolutely fair game in a confirmation hearing.


Because that's what the Supreme Court is really about Jim?


It's pretty amusing that the same people who clammor about liberals legislating from the bench are working tirelessly to socially engineer the SCOTUS for partisan reasons. No hypocrisy here...

I don't think you'd have Robert's vote either. Likely several conservative justices wouldn't go for it.

"Actually Barrett has frequently inserted her religion into her legal writings"

Into her personal writings, or judicial opinions? Huge difference. Here is one thing she wrote...

"judges cannot—nor should they try to—align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge.” She wrote that as a law student, it's exactly correct. She is saying judges should rely on the law. The horror!!!

"Combine that with her loose opinion on precedence"

Oh. So if a conservative judge makes a mistake, you are in favor of living with that mistake forever. Because of precedence.

"working tirelessly to socially engineer the SCOTUS for partisan reasons. No hypocrisy here..."

We want judges who understand they can't ignore the constitution when they feel like it. We want judges who will adhere to the constitution even when they might personally hate the result. There is zero hypocrisy there.

[spence]

So you have issues with questioning like this?

"I've read some of what you've written on Catholic judges in capital cases and, in particular, as I understand it, you argued that Catholic judges are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty".

"A little bit narrower than that," Barrett said.

"I was going to ask you to just please explain your views on that, because that obviously is of relevance to the job for which you have been nominated,"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

So you have issues with questioning like this?

Why on Earth should a catholic judge be precluded from hearing a case on the death penalty. The whole point of judges, is that they are supposed to leave their personal opinions on the courthouse steps, and base decisions only on the constitution.

Being Catholic, doesn't mean you cannot objectively evaluate the constitutionality of a case.

Look at her quote I posted, she specifically said that judges cannot try to force the US Constitution to try and fit nicely into Catholicism.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Because that's what the Supreme Court is really about Jim?


t.

Not at all. But it would be a marvelous bonus.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Is that a Freudian slip or calling a spade a spade?

Neither. It was consciously making fun of the left.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Neither. It was consciously making fun of the left.

It was a devastating take down Jim. The liberal ecosystem has been rendered devoid of air, just dishonest lifeless zombies struggling for their last breath. It must have felt good to drink that much blood. Winning!

I honor your effort for the cause with a picture of Elizabeth Warren and her new puppy.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

It was a devastating take down Jim. The liberal ecosystem has been rendered devoid of air, just dishonest lifeless zombies struggling for their last breath. It must have felt good to drink that much blood. Winning!

I honor your effort for the cause with a picture of Elizabeth Warren and her new puppy.

Fortunately for me, I'm not concerned with the opinions of someone who implies that Trumps admittedly awful rhetoric, is responsible for the actions of a lunatic who made good on threats made many years ago. When I say something that indefensible, than you can lecture me on civics, but it will never, ever happen.

Very, very cute puppy. Is she claiming it's a native American pup for some kind of economic gain?

[Sea Dangles]

That pup pic actually humanizes that tampon.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Why on Earth should a catholic judge be precluded from hearing a case on the death penalty. The whole point of judges, is that they are supposed to leave their personal opinions on the courthouse steps, and base decisions only on the constitution.

Being Catholic, doesn't mean you cannot objectively evaluate the constitutionality of a case.

Look at her quote I posted, she specifically said that judges cannot try to force the US Constitution to try and fit nicely into Catholicism.

She wrote a paper about it, questions are fair game. Those questions were from Ted Cruze by the way. Doesn't seem like anyone cared if Republicans brought up her religion.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

We want judges who understand they can't ignore the constitution when they feel like it. We want judges who will adhere to the constitution even when they might personally hate the result. There is zero hypocrisy there.

So why then did Trump offer a list of candidates engineered by Conservatives to have the best change of voting to overturn Roe?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

So why then did Trump offer a list of candidates engineered by Conservatives to have the best change of voting to overturn Roe?

The list was judges who will adhere to the constitution. If that means overturning past mistakes, that’s good.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Spence what did she write that you have a problem with, and why?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The list was judges who will adhere to the constitution. If that means overturning past mistakes, that’s good.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought you said it was the job of all justices to adhere to the Constitution? Trump offered up his list during the campaign as evidence he would overturn Roe, he said it was inevitable. Even the SCOTUS Chief Justice has said it's settled law.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The list was judges who will adhere to the constitution. If that means overturning past mistakes, that’s good.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The American people, almost 7/10 don't want roe v Wade overturned. 40 years of precedent says it shouldn't be overturned. The only way it is overturned is if he puts an activist judge in, which the Republicans supposedly hate. I trust every woman on Earth far more to make that decision than I trust Jim and people like him who have a religious and moral objection to it. Jim could have more kids. He thinks he can't have more kids and life the lifestyle he wants. Lucky for him, no one, other than maybe his church, gets to tell him how many kids he has to have or what happens with his families gametes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"

If liberalism is better for the poor, that would explain the liberal utopias of Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven, etc. These are cities that have been controlled by liberals for a generation, in a fabulously wealthy state controlled by liberals for a generation, and the people in those cities are far worse off than they were 30 years ago. Any of that not true?

You are constantly making specious arguments. How does your brain deal with the fact that 14 out of the 15 states with the highest poverty rates are all strongly red; all take in way more in federal tax than they pay in (unlike the trend in blue states); have worse health care, education etc. Any specious explanations for that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The American people, almost 7/10 don't want roe v Wade overturned. 40 years of precedent says it shouldn't be overturned. The only way it is overturned is if he puts an activist judge in, which the Republicans supposedly hate. I trust every woman on Earth far more to make that decision than I trust Jim and people like him who have a religious and moral objection to it. Jim could have more kids. He thinks he can't have more kids and life the lifestyle he wants. Lucky for him, no one, other than maybe his church, gets to tell him how many kids he has to have or what happens with his families gametes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's why we have SCOTUS judges. They are not supposed to be swayed by what a majority of Americans want. They are supposed to "interpret" the Constitution, not public opinion. Roe v. Wade should be overturned, not because abortion is bad or good, but because the federal government has no actual constitutional power to forbid abortion nor to legalize it.

As far as stare decisis is concerned, that should not apply to precedents that are unconstitutional. It is precisely destructive of the Constitution to load it with unconstitutional precedent. And it is precisely for that reason that unconstitutional precedent should be struck down. If precedent creates permanent "settled law," then we would still have slavery. Amendments and Supreme Court cases overturned several supposedly "settled laws," and rightly so.

Overturning Roe v. Wade would not put an end to abortion. Constitutionally, the legality of abortion rests with the states. The women You trust on earth to make that decision would have the opportunity, state by state, to help decide it. It is very probable that a majority, maybe a large one, of States will legally allow abortion. For women in states where the people vote against legalization, there will be many choices of where to legally get an abortion.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You are constantly making specious arguments. How does your brain deal with the fact that 14 out of the 15 states with the highest poverty rates are all strongly red; all take in way more in federal tax than they pay in (unlike the trend in blue states); have worse health care, education etc. Any specious explanations for that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But, but, but the taxes are lower.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device