Posted on 07/02/2018 9:21:06 PM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
Amy Barrett, the federal circuit court judge who many are speculating could be President Trump’s next Supreme Court nominee, didn’t sound like his biggest fan before the election in 2016.
During a November 3rd, 2016 speech at Jacksonville University, Barrett said “who knows” what a Trump court would look like, and even said that she was worried about either candidate choosing another justice.
“He’s obviously not bound to do so. I think it would be maybe more of a mixed bag. I think maybe Trump would appoint some that were more in the mold of Scalia, maybe some more in the mold of Kennedy — who knows? I think we may well end up with a moderate to more conservative court on judicial role. I think it is safe to say it probably wouldn’t be as hard to the left-leaning side on the approach to constitutional questions as, as Hillary would.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
scary, grow into a flamer lib..scary
Impressive
What is this “fallopian” stuff?
You make good points. I think most folks who are against another woman on the Supreme Court are thinking of female judges at state level as well as Republican women in the Senate and House. A lot of those have “evolved” over the years or are liberal Republicans which seems like an oxymoron to some of us. And some of us truly dislike the current female members of the court and worry about their negative influence on another woman judge. We could all be wrong.
But, as I said, you do make good points.
Too bad Janice Rogers Brown (age 69) isn’t 20 years younger...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Rogers_Brown
Here is what Barrett had to say about John Roberts on OCare
... pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute. He construed the penalty imposed on those without health insurance as a tax, which permitted him to sustain the statute as a valid exercise of the taxing power; had he treated the payment as the statute did – as a penalty – he would have had to invalidate the statute as lying beyond Congress’s commerce power … [A] judge who adopts an interpretation inconsistent with the text fails to enforce the statute that commanded majority support. If the majority did not enact a "tax," interpreting the statute to impose a tax lacks democratic legitimacy … it is illegitimate for the Court to distort either the Constitution or a statute to achieve what it deems a preferable result.
Chew on that all you women haters.
She is a prettier Susan O’Connor, I believe.
My female gut is saying...beware.
However her Church also teaches Open Borders for Mexicans and Muslims. This concerns me. I have no idea where she stands on protecting our borders.
You need to do a little research on Amy Barrett. Watch her confirmations hearings she is very impressive. And yes she is anothher Scalia. She clerked for him and holds him in very high regard. The left is going bat sh*t crazy over the thought of her being seated on the Supreme Court.
She is not a politician, she follows the law as all good judges do. It is NOT her job to implement policy, that is the job of Congress. Her job is to be faithful to the Constitution and the law.
There is no research because she has virtually no judicial experience. Everything about her screams SDO.
And Governor, where that is not as important as pro-life, it IS VERY IMPORTANT.
We must be sensible and pragmatic about this so important choice. Our country would suffer much from a wrong decision about immigration.
She said something........ that’s about all
I voted for Trump, but did have reservations. He was a DEMOCRAT for the longest time and I wasn’t sure if he was a plant that would govern like GWB (who I also voted for). But I did vote for Trump in Nov, 2016.
That’s pretty good. I like it.
Too bad she didn’t elaborate more and allude to judges taking a dive under the threat of blackmail by Obama.
The only thing I can find on her regarding 2A comes from this video, around the 43:30 mark. I’m not entirely sure I like what I’m hearing, either.
Gen Mattis put it best, albeit in a slightly NSFW manner, on this "battle of the sexes" nonsense: The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.
I'd rather have Ben Carson and Peter Thiel and Tammy Bruce at my 4th of July celebrations vs Jeb! and Dana Perino and Paul Ryan.
I could care less if the nominee is straight or not, white or black or plaid, or a Patriots fan. If the nominee has demonstrated consistent fidelity to the Constitution and original intent, that's what matters.
Exactly
Scalia met those requirements...as does Thomas.And at least four absolutely do *not*.
...but I draw the line at being a Springsteen fan..THAT is grounds for objecting to a nominee.
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.