Posted on 09/20/2020 6:21:38 PM PDT by MagillaX
President Donald Trump is closely considering two conservative women to fill Ruth Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court.
According to people familiar with the process, one of those potential picks is Barbara Lagoa, a seasoned Florida judge with Cuban roots.
Here’s what you need to know about Lagoa: A trailblazer for women and Latinos
A Florida native, Lagoa was the first Hispanic woman to serve on the Florida Supreme Court. If nominated to the nation’s high court by Trump and confirmed by the Senate, she would be the second Latino justice to ever serve. Current Justice Sonia Sotomayor became the first when she was nominated by former President Barack Obama.
If nominated and confirmed, Lagoa would be the fifth woman to serve on the Supreme Court. She's been vetted
Trump nominated Lagoa to serve on 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2019. She was confirmed by the Senate in a bipartisan vote, which could help ease her path to the court if she’s selected by the president again. She could serve for a long while
At 52, Lagoa would be the youngest justice on the Supreme Court, just a few months behind one of Trump’s other nominees, Neil Gorsuch. A lifetime appointment to the court would allow her to serve for decades to come. A deep legal background
After graduating from Columbia Law School, Lagoa worked as a pro bono lawyer for Elian Gonzalez’s family and later as a federal prosecutor. Lagoa then spent more than a decade as a judge on a Florida appeals court before being picked by Gov. Ron DeSantis to serve on the state’s supreme court.
"She has been the essence of what a judge should be,” DeSantis said when he nominated her.
Lagoa is married to Paul C. Huck, an attorney. They have three daughters.
(Excerpt) Read more at politic.com ...
Gorsuch beats every one of the Democrat nominated justices by 1000 miles.
He did "fine"? So you think it was "fine" when Trump's so-called "originalist" judge declared half of Oklahoma belongs to Indians and that she-males are covered by the 1964 civil rights act?
I'd say he did as "fine" with appointing "originalists" as Obama did in "ending" the Patriot Act.
Again, you could make the same argument with Harriet Miers. She was certainly “1000x more conservative” than any Obama or Clinton appointed judge. I guess we should have just “trusted Bush” and rubber stamped her, instead of demanding better.
I don’t know.
I don’t get what’s wrong with having a fair representation of the general populace by percentage.
“”He did “fine”? So you think it was “fine” when Trump’s so-called “originalist” judge declared half of Oklahoma belongs to Indians and that she-males are covered by the 1964 civil rights act?””
I think Gorsuch was wrong on Title VII of the civil rights act, but the Oklahoma ruling was reasonable. Gorsuch’s decision said that Indian lands that were designated reservations by treaty, remain reservations unless/until congress says otherwise. All that that meant in this case was that Indians who commit crimes on Oklahoma reservation land aren’t subject to state criminal justice law. Federal criminal law applies in those areas instead. If congress wants the state to take over the police power in those cases, it simply has to pass legislation saying so. Gorsuch is a textualist, his decision on Oklahoma makes enough sense from that POV.
I’m not sure why you have so much angst towards Gorsuch. He’s far less worrisome to me than Kavanaugh, whose votes thus far have been in almost complete lockstep with the actual bad guy, John Roberts. If we use a simple metric of which justices are most likely to vote with Thomas, then thus far Gorsuch has been more reliably conservative than anyone other than Alito.
Regardless of any of that, what we need here is someone closer to Scalia/Thomas than any one of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh or Roberts. Promoting someone like Lagoa from Jeb’s Bush’s political orbit with a thin judicial and legal publication record seems like an absolutely terrible idea. I’m not as big of an ACB fan as many here, but she’d be a far better pick than Lagoa. Assuming this is a trial balloon from the Trump camp, it needs to be popped quickly.
Again for the last time, nominating your ideal candidate dies not mean they can get approved by senate. If she fails to get 50 votes in senate, she will never see inside of SCOTUS. So it is exercise in futility.
If you are placing globalist Bush in the same basket as MAGA Trump, you are not politically informed person.
I trust Trump 100% in his selection of nominee.
Will your ideal candidate get 50 votes in senate ? Show me some reputable links to sources.
Without 50 votes she could be purer than fresh white snow and it means zilch.
Actually it is far worse than that. Failing to get 50 votes means clock runs out on Jan 20th and if Biden wins then Kamala could be nominated.
Her father-in-law is a federal district court judge nominated by Clinton.
Here’s an interesting discussion with Robert Barnes about whom Trump should pick for SCOTUS. Barnes claims Amy Coney Barrett would be a disaster both as a nominee and Justice and gives many reasons why he thinks so.
https://youtu.be/kSKAf3d8_LY?t=2213
That really means little. Susan Rice’s son is very pro-Trump.
I hope she is prepared to endure the Kavanaugh-style smears that are surely coming.
“So if Marco Rubio is pushing hard for someone, you’ll say that should disqualify them? “
It’s a good rule of thumb, that should be considered as an axiom.
As far as I can tell she’s personally written about 3 joint decisions. And never published anything.
She’s 100% affirmative action and intellectual lightweight. And always has been.
She’s where she is because she’s Cuban. And for no other reason.
Are we gonna pretend Gorsuch leftist tendencies don’t exist?
Well if true she's a poor choice. I support a Hispanic for political reasons, but they must be reliably conservative and originalist to even be considered.
Or Roberts? Sheesh, can we finally get a reliable originalist conservative please?
Exactly. That’s his biggest flaw.
He trusts the wrong people.
For whom? Liberals?
Hahaha
You’re only kidding yourself.
Just ask Judge Thomas
Because color or sex shouldn’t trump their constitutional stance.
Pick the best candidate. Whether they be all Latina white black whatever. I just want the best with the firmest record.
Absolutely.
My thought was that the dems would have a harder time going after a POC than a white woman.
Working without a fee to save a child from the ravages of Communism is a principled and correct stand, meaning that she likely understands American principles and the dangers of the kind of authoritarian socialism the left would impose on us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.