Posted on 07/02/2018 9:21:06 PM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
Agree. The only thing I am worried about now is Syria. I don’t understand why we are there. Although the media praises Trump for missle strikes, to me it’s too much like Hillary policy.
Maybe a woman isn’t reliable but there would be no better way to stick it to the pro-choice side than having a conservative woman vote to reverse the travesty of Roe V. Wade.
Well, one must love Syrian refugees because most of them are running away from Assad.
You mean it ironically?
All true — including the Springsteen thing. ;)
She would also loosen the stranglehold of Ivy League educated justices.
I know this will sound sexist, but no women nominees please. They crumble during confirmation hearings or turn into mush once on the bench. She would be the only so-called conservative on the bench if confirmed, and my fear is she would eventually be “converted” by the lesbian and the Latina.
No thanks. Give me a staunch conservative (male) with a history of writing that underpin his thinking. No touchy-feely BS.
I’m sorry. I want to be able to support a female judge because she will have an easier time in confirmation. But the two cases you cite and not representative of anything impressive. Chicago had an extreme gun ban and she granted a preliminary injunction. The ban was ridiculous. The case was a lay down for the plaintiff. And, the other case was a university policy against a private club having a Christian adherence pledge. Again, any attorney who lost that one should have to go back to law school.
You seem to “know” so many things that are not true. I’ll teach you a couple of things if you are willing to keep an open mind.
A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy” and can only be granted in extreme cases.
The Courts must balance 4 factors:
1. The likelihood that the applicant will prevail on the merits at the final hearing;
2. The extent to which the plaintiffs are being irreparably harmed by the conduct complained of;
3. The extent to which the defendants will suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction is issued; and
4. The public interest.
Preliminary injunctions are not granted in most cases.
As for the second claim that you make, in CLS v Hastings, Judge Sykes got the law correct. She adhered to an original understanding of the Constitution.
That case got appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, and in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed her decision. So, what you seem to think was a slam dunk, was reversed and overturned because Kennedy sided with four liberals on the court.
The result would have been different with an originalist on the Court.
So it is actually pretty impressive that Judge Sykes adhered to an original understanding of the Constitution when the Supreme Court didn’t do so on appeal.
I was worried about him, but by the time my absentee ballot reached me, I was convinced that he wasn’t just the Obiwan, but also Han Solo and Chewbacca and he was already married to Princess Leiah. Barron’s Luke Skywalker, with no relation to Darth Vader. So he’s half the cast of Star Wars. How can he go wrong with SCOTUS picks. The Force is with him.
Yeah, exactly, many were worried given his previous political record. You can’t really hold a statement like that against her.
Quite a few posts express a concern that Barrett would turn into a leftist “because so many women do that.” For example, she falls in love with a marxist guy and he turns her. Possible, but aren’t men just as fallible? Also, I am not sure we have seen that happen to a woman justice. The 3 who are leftists have always been leftists.
You forgot O’Connor
Please. I have obtained dozens of temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions.
Think about what you wrote. The injunction is not granted unless the movant is likely to succeed at trial on the merits. Meaning that the “substantive” part of the case is not close. Its an easy call for the judge. Like I said.
As for the Christian Legal Society v. Walker case, I do not see the Supreme Court reversal your claim.
Citations to your “dozens” of injunctions?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
There was a Circuit Split between the 7th and 9th Circuit in the CLS cases the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote sided with the college against the CLS.
Sykes well reasoned opinion was abrogated.
This Barrett woman, in my view, is the judicial equivalent of a Congressional RINO, a stealthy Liberal masquerading as a Conservative. My reason for this conclusion is based on two red flags; (1) she’s said to be a devout Catholic, but the contemporary RCC is notoriously liberal; and (2) she has adopted two orphans from Haiti, a decision that is a quintessential example of “virtue signaling”. “Hey folks, look how progressively liberal I am. I adopted two little Haitian children.” Of course there are thousands of orphans right in in the USA, but . . . well you get the picture.
I think you are entirely wrong. The Supreme Court case you cite doen nothing to abrogate the 7th Cir. And it is not reversed as you said. CLS lost a case in the 9th but it wasn’t the o0ne Sykes wrote on.
If you want to PM me with your email address and a real name, I’ll give you my Ohio Bar Number and you can even read my one Ohio Supreme Court case which has been cited hundreds of times and my one 6th Circuit case which has not been much cited..
That’s the conclusion you came to after reading this? She sounded like a Freeper in this speech and clerked for Scalia, you sexist pig.
Agree.
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.