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 ...
While I like much about Barrett, I do wonder seriously about her views on border security simply because she felt the need to adopt outside the country when there are countless American children needing a loving home. Seems that adopting from Haiti or Africa is in the elite Hollywood playbook of “ I am so great”.
Pro life is crucial but pro life should protect the lives of those at risk to be taken by illegal invaders. Would love some clarification on her views.
However, being a Springsteen fan... THAT is a deal killer for me. Even if they're a rabid pro-Originalist, being Springsteen Fan signals a strong possibility of backsliding...it's science.
In fact, I think the Trump Administration should absolutely look to see what's on any nominees's playlist. Springsteen, Bon Jovi, Ariana Grande, and RATM fans need not apply.
What a grisly list.
Didn’t the later often liberal Barry Goldwater press Reagan to appoint his fellow Arizonan, O’Connor?
Agreed on all points.
On the positive side is that, if I recall correctly, the woman is the mother of 7 kids, is reviled by leftist senators for her deep Catholic faith, and she has excelled at so many levels that one can’t be impressed by her intellect and work ethic.
My sense is that MEN are subject to made up charges of sexual impropriety in this age. It’s hard to imagine that she would have had time or inclination to be hitting on anyone. I think such an accusation against her would be laughed at.
Your source and reasoning for this assertion comes from ...?
Furthermore, if nominees don't have any tunes by The Who (yea, I know...but they absolutely helped NYC heal after 9/11 with their performance of Won't Get Fooled Again at the Concerts for New York and Daltrey was pro-Brexit), Ted Nugent, or Aerosmith on their playlist, they should be considered suspect.
MAJORITY OPINION: Chief Justice Warren E. Burger (Concurrence)
Associate Justices: Harry Blackmun (Wrote majority opinion) William O. Douglas (Concurrence) William J. Brennan Jr. Potter Stewart (Concurrence) Thurgood Marshall Lewis F. Powell Jr.
DISSENT: William Rehnquist (Dissent) Byron White Dissent, joined by Rehnquist)
Not one woman on that Court.
https://www.nextnominee.org/?lightbox=dataItem-jhnrhsqn1
Lists possible nominees (females).
I’d go Britt Grant from Georgia, she’s already ruled against PP, it’s probably in her blood, get someone from the Deep South in there.
Allison Eid and Joan Larsen also look good, just scanning the info....I don’t know much else except what is written at the website.
It’s not so much that Barret is Catholic, she also belongs to a Pentecostal Ecumenical group called “People of Praise”, one would have to look up some of their beliefs, wiki.
Good post.
Nobody should have a problem with a woman who is picked because she was the best candidate.
The problem is that the list is predominantly male, so, odds of the best candidate being a female are statistically low. Because of those odds, if he picks a woman, it may be legitimate to suspect she was picked partly because she was a woman.
If that happens and her being a woman was part of the appeal, - it’s not the end of the world. As a conservative male, there is part of me that wants to stick it to the Left by having it be conservative women who break the “glass ceiling”.
The fact that the first black on the Supreme Court was Clarence Thomas, a conservative, and not a Lefty, has been an endless source of shadenfreud.
I’m reading Clarence Thomas’s autobiography. He likes Marvin Gaye.
Very strange considering only men have evolved on the Supreme Court. Sandra did not evolve. She was always moderate. The guys evolved big time.
Considering only men have evolved your post is ridiculous.
Very solid analysis.
Before4 the election - having some doubts about the choice between Clinton and Trump.
Lots and LOTS of people were in that category. Between Labor Day and the election they had to choose, and most broke for Trump. I was in that category too, but always knew I would NEVER vote for Hillary. Once that decision was in, I simply listened to DJT, and decided that I could support him with some enthusiasm. Now my enthusiasm is mostly unending.
I am a woman and have to agree. No more women “evolving with compassion”.
I think Kennedy was a woman in drag, the way HE “(d)evolved”.
Her comment makes it seem as if she was genuinely concerned about the anti-Constitutional Court swing. So, I’d be happy with her.
And YES, I too was very concerned about Trump, based upon his past contributions to leftist fiends.
I just realized that I called Sandra O’Connor, Susan.
I hope I did not offend any Susans.
An allegory about freeper rejection of female 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.